← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 01002-2011 Tribunal Agrario · Tribunal Agrario · 14/08/2011
OutcomeResultado
Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, dissenting, nullifies the lower court ruling because it lacked the technical reports from competent public entities certifying that the railway and public road rights-of-way were respected.La jueza Alpízar Rodríguez, en disidencia, anula la sentencia de primera instancia porque no se contaba con los informes técnicos de los entes públicos competentes que acreditaran el respeto de los derechos de vía ferroviario y de calle pública.
SummaryResumen
The Agrarian Tribunal, through the dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, nullifies the lower court ruling that had approved a possessory information proceeding in Pococí, Limón, ordering the registration of a property. The dissent holds that the lower court lacked the necessary technical reports from the competent public entities (MOPT Railway Directorate and Road Prevention Department) to verify that the survey plan and the physical reality of the land respected the railway and public road rights-of-way, both public domain assets. It finds that the procedure employed—measurements taken personally by the judge at a judicial inspection, measuring from the center of the railway line—was not technically correct, and that courts should not perform technical tasks that the law assigns to specialized agencies. The majority of the tribunal had confirmed the appealed ruling, deeming the lower judge's verification sufficient. This decision is relevant for the protection of public domain and the duty to request reports from competent entities in possessory information proceedings.El Tribunal Agrario, a través del voto salvado de la jueza Alpízar Rodríguez, anula la sentencia de primera instancia que había aprobado una información posesoria en Pococí, Limón, ordenando la inscripción de un inmueble. La disidencia sostiene que el juzgador de instancia no contaba con los informes técnicos necesarios de los entes públicos competentes (Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT y Departamento de Previsión Vial) para verificar que el plano y la materialidad del terreno respetaran los derechos de vía ferroviario y de calle pública, ambos bienes de dominio público. Considera que el procedimiento aplicado —mediciones realizadas por el juez durante un reconocimiento judicial, desde el centro de la vía férrea— no era técnicamente correcto, y que no corresponde a los tribunales asumir labores técnicas que la ley asigna a entes especializados. La mayoría del tribunal había confirmado la sentencia apelada, estimando suficientes las constataciones del juez de instancia. Este fallo es relevante para la tutela del dominio público y la carga de requerir informes a entes competentes en procesos de información posesoria.
Key excerptExtracto clave
It is not the role of judges to perform technical work such as that required to verify whether the public domain is affected by failure to respect public road and railway rights-of-way, both on the survey plans and in the material reality of the land. The public entities competent for that task are those to whom the law expressly grants the administration of the referred areas, since they assume the responsibility of confirming that such areas are not diminished, affected, or improperly used. Courts must request the respective technical reports and evidence, and request them from whomever is legally responsible for providing them, since their role is to verify the legality of both private acts and public reports. The lower court, according to the record, before issuing the challenged ruling, lacked the required information to deem it duly proven that the public road and railway rights-of-way were respected both on the cadastral survey and in the material reality, through the respective reports issued by the competent public entities.No corresponde a los jueces realizar una labor técnica como la requerida para verificar si se afecta el dominio público, por no respetarse los derechos de vía de caminos públicos y ferroviarios, tanto en los planos como en la materialidad de los terreno. Los entes públicos competentes para esa labor son aquellos a los que la ley les otorga expresamente la administración de las áreas referidas, pues ellos asumen la responsabilidad de corroborar que no se disminuya, afecten ni se utilicen indebidamente. Los tribunales deben requerir los informes y pruebas técnicas respectivas, y solicitarlos a quien legalmente corresponda brindarlos, pues su labor es controlar la legalidad, tanto de lo hecho por los particulares como de lo informado por los entes públicos. El a quo, de acuerdo con lo que consta en autos, antes de dictar el fallo cuestionado, no contaba con la información requerida para tener por debidamente acreditado que los derechos de vía de la calle pública y ferroviario, se respetaron catastral y materialmente, a través de los informes respectivos emitidos por los entes públicos competentes.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El área ocupada por las líneas férreas nacionales y los caminos públicos son bienes de dominio público, inalienables, imprescriptible, no susceptibles de adquirir por usucapión e inembargables."
"The area occupied by national railway lines and public roads are public domain assets, inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to acquisition by adverse possession, and unseizable."
Considerando III del voto salvado
"El área ocupada por las líneas férreas nacionales y los caminos públicos son bienes de dominio público, inalienables, imprescriptible, no susceptibles de adquirir por usucapión e inembargables."
Considerando III del voto salvado
"No corresponde a los jueces realizar una labor técnica como la requerida para verificar si se afecta el dominio público, por no respetarse los derechos de vía de caminos públicos y ferroviarios, tanto en los planos como en la materialidad de los terreno."
"It is not the role of judges to perform technical work such as that required to verify whether the public domain is affected by failure to respect public road and railway rights-of-way, both on the survey plans and in the material reality of the land."
Considerando V del voto salvado
"No corresponde a los jueces realizar una labor técnica como la requerida para verificar si se afecta el dominio público, por no respetarse los derechos de vía de caminos públicos y ferroviarios, tanto en los planos como en la materialidad de los terreno."
Considerando V del voto salvado
"Por el principio de paralelismo de las competencias, un bien afecto por ley al dominio público, solo puede ser desafectado por el legislador."
"By the principle of parallelism of powers, an asset affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator."
Considerando II del voto de mayoría, citado también en el salvado
"Por el principio de paralelismo de las competencias, un bien afecto por ley al dominio público, solo puede ser desafectado por el legislador."
Considerando II del voto de mayoría, citado también en el salvado
Full documentDocumento completo
VOTO Nº 1002 -F-1 1 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at fifteen hours thirty minutes on the fourteenth of September, two thousand eleven.- POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING, brought by [Name1], of legal age, single, merchant, resident of Paracito de Santo Domingo de Heredia, identity card number CED1 - - . Appearing in the proceedings, the PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, represented by Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, whose details are unknown in the case file, in her capacity as deputy procuradora; and the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, legal ID CED2 - - - , represented by Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Guachipelín, Escazú, identity card number CED3 - - , in her capacity as general judicial attorney-in-fact. Acting as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the applicant is Cristian Roy Cortes Vargas, identity card number CED4 - - . Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone.-
WHEREAS:
1.- The applicant files possessory information proceedings for the purpose of registering in his name in the Public Property Registry the property described as follows: "it is land with fruit trees and banana cultivation, located at [Address1] : , : Pococí, in the province of Limón, described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded: North: [Name2], [Name3] and Río Tortuguero in part, South: [Name4] and [Name5], East: Río Tortuguero, West: [Address2] and [Address3]", (folio 163) 2.- The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the proceedings in the terms recorded on folios 68 to 72; in turn, the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did so on folio 80.- 3.- Judge Sergio Ramos Álvarez, of the Agrarian Court of Guápiles, by judgment at thirteen hours five minutes on the thirtieth of June, two thousand eleven, resolved: "THEREFORE: Pursuant to the foregoing and the cited articles, the present POSSESSORY INFORMATION proceedings brought by [Name1] are APPROVED. By virtue of the foregoing, the National Registry, Real Property Registry Section, is ordered to register for the first time and without prejudice to any third party with a better right, in the name of [Name1], of legal age, single, merchant, identity card number CED5- - , resident of Paracito, Santo Domingo Heredia, the property described as follows_ Land with fruit trees and banana cultivation, with a dwelling house, located at [Address4] : , of the second [Address5] : Pococí, in the province of Limón, described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded: North: [Name2], [Name3] and Río Tortuguero in part, South: [Name4] and [Name5], East: Río Tortuguero, West: [Address2] and [Name6], an asset that was valued at the sum of eight million colones. Asset which is ordered to be registered with the limitations established for such purpose by the law of Public Roads, Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Waters, and Forest. Let the certified copy of this judgment serve for its registration. Once this judgment becomes final, issue the execution order", (the highlighting is from the original text at folio 165).- 4.- Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons why she refutes the thesis of the lower Court, (folios 168 to 173).- 5.- In the substantiation of the process, the legal requirements have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the decision capable of causing its nullity is not noted.
Drafted by Judge Picado Vargas, and;
WHEREAS
I.- The list of facts held as proven is adopted as it corresponds to the merits of the case file.- II.- In the challenged judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information was approved and the registration of the property described in plan L-1384216-2009 was ordered, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, the Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, the Ley de Aguas, and the Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (folios 168 to 173). It claims that the a quo judge did not weigh the objections it made when responding to the final hearing. It considers the judge is obliged to reason the admissibility of the objections made when responding to that hearing, as it is a validity requirement, not a mere formality. It adds in this regard that: a) In the case file, along with the brief of June 23, 2010, official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year, from the Railways Department of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), was made known, in which it was reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining landowners also did not match the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims that the process could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way that borders on the south side, as established in Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road bordering on the south side records a road width less than that established by affectation in Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It maintains that registering land with railway rights-of-way or roads narrower than legally established should not be permitted, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into it. By the principle of parallelism of competencies, it highlights, an asset affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator. Neither courts nor, much less, private individuals can do so through irregular acts. It cites votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Tribunal as support for its argument and as precedents. It requests that the judgment be annulled and that the readjustment of procedures be ordered.
III.- Regarding the grievance concerning that the a quo judge did not weigh or reason the objections it made at the final hearing, the appellant is not correct. The challenged decision, in its second whereas clause, analyzes the objections given by the state representative, meaning the judgment is duly grounded. The first procedural grievance is rejected.- IV.- Regarding its substantive grievances, the appellant is not correct. This Tribunal considers that the applicant demonstrated that the land to be titled respects the right-of-way of both the public road and the railway on its southern boundary and that the lower court judge was diligent, as he even went to verify "in situ" such situation. The surveyed plan L-1384216-2009 records an [Address6] as an [Address7] adjoining property with a width of fourteen meters and a distance to the railway line of 15.24 meters in length (folio 105), which is in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Likewise, in the report prepared by engineer Lina Córdoba Salazar of the Cadastral Division of the Real Property Registry of the National Registry at folio 106, it is evident that the land to be titled is even at a greater distance from the public road than the adjoining properties. Even to finish cross-checking the situation, the a quo judge conducted a second inspection or judicial site visit on the property and took measurements to verify that the rights-of-way were not being disrespected, verifying that the fence was moved inward and that the distance between it and the road is fourteen meters (folio 143). The public faith vested in the topographic engineer who prepared said plan and that enjoyed by the a quo judge upon conducting the site visit are sufficient to determine that both in the formality of the plan and in the material reality of the property, the indicated rights-of-way are respected, making it unnecessary to request more reports from state entities to verify what has been duly accredited in the case file. Consequently, the grievances are rejected, and the challenged decision is confirmed in the appealed aspects.
THEREFORE
The challenged decision is confirmed in the appealed aspects.- [Name7] [Name8] RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ Dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez:
The undersigned Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, member of the Agrarian Tribunal, signs but does not share the majority vote, insofar as it rejects the appeal with concomitant nullity, based on the following considerations:
I.- The proven facts are omitted as unnecessary, given the manner in which this matter is resolved.
II.- In the challenged judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information was approved and the registration of the property described in plan L-1384216-2009 was ordered, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, the Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, the Ley de Aguas, and the Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (folios 168 to 173). It claims that the a quo judge did not weigh the objections it made when responding to the final hearing. It considers the judge is obliged to reason the admissibility of the objections made when responding to that hearing, as it is a validity requirement, not a mere formality. It adds in this regard that: a) In the case file, along with the brief of June 23, 2010, official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year, from the Railways Department of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), was made known, in which it was reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining landowners also did not match the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims that the process could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way that borders on the south side, as established in Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road bordering on the south side records a road width less than that established by affectation in Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It maintains that registering land with railway rights-of-way or roads narrower than legally established should not be permitted, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into it. By the principle of parallelism of competencies, it highlights, an asset affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator. Neither courts nor, much less, private individuals can do so through irregular acts. It cites votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Tribunal as support for its argument and as precedents. It requests that the judgment be annulled and that the readjustment of procedures be ordered.
III.- The area occupied by national railway lines and public roads are public domain assets, inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to acquisition by usucapion (usucapión), and unseizable (Article 121 of the Constitución Política, 262 and 261 of the Código Civil, 4, 5, 6 of the Ley de Construcciones N°833; 36, 38 and 42 of Ley Nº 7001 of September 19, 1985, Ley Orgánica del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER) and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991 and 1245 of May 8, 1002, of the Sala Constitucional). The right-of-way of railway lines is contemplated in Article 42 of Ley Nº 7001 and the Reglamento que Dimensiona el Derecho de Vía de los Ferrocarriles Nacionales, Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT of September 1, 1993. For its part, the minimum width of public roads is regulated in Articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Therefore, based on the current regulations of public order that protect the public domain, and the principles governing registry publicity and plan preparation (Article 2 of the Ley del Catastro Nacional Nº 6545, Articles 1, 17, 34-f, 57 of the Reglamento del Catastro Nacional, Decreto Ejecutivo 34331 of November 29, 2007), plans must respect the minimum legal width of railway lines and public roads (municipal and national), so that the right-of-way is not included in the area of each property to be registered (see on this subject votes 916-05, 544-04 of July 29, 2004, 602 of November 15, 2000 and 799 of December 23, 1999, all of the Agrarian Tribunal). Furthermore, Article 2 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that plans must represent exact data and measurements, and imposes responsibility on the professional in charge of the survey (levantamiento) for compliance with the statute (Ley 3454 of November 14, 1964 and the Ley para el Ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura N° 4294 of December 16, 1968) (vote 77-09 of February 12, 2009). "With respect to this aspect of respecting the minimum legal width of public roads, this Tribunal considers it is a public order aspect that must be respected, but without infringing on the rights of private individuals... The width is normally not uniform, especially when it involves roads not of neighborhood importance (for connecting towns, for example), or those of low traffic or difficult passage (because they are gravel or dirt). Furthermore, there may be a scenario where the lands bordering the road are registered on one side, and not on the other. Or even that the properties bordering both banks are not registered. In those cases, it is important to elucidate the point from which the width of the road must begin to be measured: from its edges or from the road centerline. The legal, technical, and equitable solution, so as not to infringe on the rights of private individuals or unduly make their situation more burdensome, is to determine with technical criteria the midpoint of the road width, and from there take the corresponding half measurement towards both sides. In this way, if the owner of unregistered land does not respect the proportion corresponding to them in the road width, they must proceed, not only materially but also documentarily (in the plan), to make the variations to the boundary facing the road and the total measurement of the land" (vote 558-03 of August 28, 2003 of the Agrarian Tribunal. In the same sense votes 545 of August 20, 2002 and 414 of June 26, 2002).
IV.- The following relevant information is recorded in the case file to resolve what was claimed by the PGR: 1) The land to be titled borders to the southwest with [Address8] road (with a frontage onto it of 41.02 linear meters). Immediately after the road lies the [Address9] railway line. 2) The original base surveyed plan presented by the title applicant was L-658563-2000 (folio 1), with an area of 18478.61 square meters. The public road width indicated on that plan was 15.79 meters and the railway width was 8.10 meters. Said plan was cancelled after the title applicant was required to provide a new one respecting the right-of-way of public roads (folio 29). 3) A second plan was therefore presented, Nº 1358866-09 (folio 38), with an area of 17855 square meters. It records a railway right-of-way width of 15.24 meters and a road right-of-way width of 8.16 meters. The plan has an approval stamp from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles, stating that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected. The Court requires a new plan to be provided, given that the right-of-way of public roads was not respected (folio 41). 4) A third plan is thus presented, Nº L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), with an area of 17615 square meters. It records a road width of 14 meters and a railway width of 15.24 meters. This plan also has an approval stamp from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles issued on October 26, 2009, stating that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected, in accordance with Article 12 of Decreto Ejecutivo Nº22483, which establishes "Rights-of-way in the Banana Branches. In all Banana Branches the right-of-way shall be 7.62 meters (seven meters sixty-two centimeters) on each side from the [Address10] ...". 5) In the title applicant's brief, filed on February 16, 2010, he specifies the address to locate the property subject to the process (folio 61). 6) On March 2, 2010, the PGR appears (folio 68), and indicates it has sent reports to the MOPT and the Catastro Nacional, to determine if the property to be titled affects state interests. 7) In the cited official letter DF-267-2010, visible at folio 114, the Director of the Transport Division of the Dirección de Ferrocarriles informed the PGR that the land subject to this process could not be located, and therefore requested a precise address or, if applicable, to coordinate a visit with the interested party. The PGR, in addition to making this situation known to the Court, in a brief received on June 25, 2010 (folio 113), requested that the pertinent procedures be carried out so that the aforementioned Dirección could inspect the land, in order to provide the required report. The Court, in a decision of August 5, 2010 (folio 120), did not grant what was requested by the PGR, but reserved its petition until the judicial site visit (reconocimiento judicial) was conducted, in which the judge would verify the measurement from the center of the railway line to the boundary facing [Address8] road (sic), and check if the right-of-way was thus respected. 8) During the judicial site visit conducted on September 22, 2010 (folio 127), the following was indicated on the subject: "…at the front it has an [Address11] and an [Address12], measuring from the center of the railway line to where the lot is fenced, the measurement is not met, so the title applicant is required to move his fence until the road has fourteen meters". 9) On the following November 17, after the title applicant reported that he had moved his southwest boundary, the Court conducted a second site visit, indicating with regard to the relevant part: "Today the fence has been moved inward. The relevant distance and the road is fourteen meters" (folio 143). 10) The PGR, when responding to the final hearing on December 13, 2010 (folio 149), requested that said act be annulled prematurely, given that: a) it had not received a response from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) regarding whether the land to be titled lies within the State's patrimony, constituted by the inalienable area adjacent to the navigable sector of the Río Tortuguero; b) It again requested that the report from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles be solicited, providing it with the information required in official letter DF-267-2010, to verify if the property respects the railway right-of-way. It emphasized that by Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT, the dimension of the national railway right-of-way was regulated, and therefore it is solely the responsibility of that Department to verify whether or not the right-of-way is respected. 11) In a decision of December 16, 2010 (folio 153), the previously mentioned final hearing was annulled, and two months were granted for the PGR to provide the cited documentary evidence from the IGN and the MOPT Department, with the warning that the normal procedure of this process would continue if they were not presented. It was further indicated that the judge already considered the right-of-way matter fulfilled, because he had visited the place and taken the measurement, indicating that the applicant was ordered to move the fence the fourteen meters of the road plus the meters of the railway right-of-way (the amount of which is not specified by the a quo judge). 12) In a decision of March 14, 2011 (folio 156), it was ordered to continue the procedures, as the deadline for the PGR to present the referenced reports had expired without it doing so. The final hearing was also granted. The PGR responded in a brief filed on March 28, 2011 (folio 159), with content identical to that of December 15, 2010. 13) On the other hand, although what was alleged regarding the road width recorded on plan L-1384216-2009 (folio 43) was not claimed before judgment was issued, given that the road runs parallel to the railway line, it must be corroborated with the respective suitable evidence (report from the competent public entity) that its width meets the legally required standard. Moreover, the fact that this claim was not raised previously does not prevent it from being raised when challenging the judgment (see in this sense vote 653 of July 8, 2010 of the Agrarian Tribunal).
V.- Before explaining why the PGR is correct regarding the requested annulment, it is important to highlight the following: a) The procedure applied by the Court for verifying the respect of the railway and public road rights-of-way is not technically correct. Aside from the fact that the form and instruments used by the a quo judge to take the referenced measurements are not specified, neither is it indicated in any of the minutes what the measurement he considers the railway right-of-way should have. In the decision where he states he considers it respected, visible at folio 153, he also does not state this data. In the only decision where reference is made to the applicable width according to the lower court judge (folio 29), Article 11 of Decreto 22483-MOPT is cited. But that provision is not the one used by the Dirección de Ferrocarriles when issuing the approval stamp on the last plan presented. It must be noted in this regard that the railway right-of-way width changes depending on the sector, so the judge should not use or refer to a width that does not legally correspond. b) From the judicial site visit minutes, it is clear that the judge took the measurements of the public road right-of-way width by measuring from the "center of the railway line to where the lot is fenced". This is questionable if it is considered that the railway line and the public road run parallel, therefore each must have the corresponding minimum legal width. The public road width must be measured from where the railway right-of-way ends, and not from "its center". c) It is not the role of judges to perform a technical task like the one required to verify if the public domain is affected by failing to respect the rights-of-way of public roads and railways, both in the plans and in the material reality of the land. The public entities competent for that task are those to which the law expressly grants the administration of the referenced areas, as they assume the responsibility of corroborating that they are not diminished, affected, or improperly used. The courts must request the respective reports and technical evidence, and request them from whomever is legally responsible for providing them, as their role is to control legality, both of what is done by private individuals and of what is reported by public entities. Therefore, it is incorrect for a judge to assume a role that does not correspond to them and thereby omit requesting the respective technical reports. Furthermore, when public domain assets are involved, the verification that they are not improperly affected in any way cannot be omitted. The burden of proof corresponds to the title applicant party, not the Procuraduría. But given the nature of what must sometimes be verified, generally, courts may and must, on their own motion, directly request the respective reports from public entities. In other words, when public domain assets are at stake, courts must guarantee and be certain that they are not affected. The Procuraduría is also a controller of legality, and thereby assists the jurisdictional function. But the fact that said entity does not allege an illegality or does not provide a report that allows certainty about the non-affectation of public domain assets, does not exempt the courts from their duties in this regard. Therefore, the lower Court must directly request the respective reports from the competent entities, which would allow it to have suitable and effective evidence to support its decision on whether or not areas of the public domain are affected. Such entities include the Municipalities (when it concerns the cantonal road network), the Road Prevision Department of the MOPT (when it concerns the national road network or neighborhood roads), the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT (when national railway lines exist), the MINAET (when it concerns protection areas and protected wildlife areas), the IGN (for the maritime terrestrial zone), etc. Furthermore, regarding what is relevant for this case, it must be highlighted that Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos provides: “The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, and it may not be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter” (underlining not in the original). Therefore, only the competent public entity can attest to the effective width of a road in a specific sector. d) Likewise, despite the PGR's request to address the Dirección de Ferrocarriles' petition to be provided with information on how to locate the property to be titled, said requirement was not duly addressed, as it should have been, especially since the address was in the case file, as the title applicant had provided it when previously required by the Court (folio 61). Nor was it highlighted by the judge that, at least cadastrally, the railway right-of-way was respected (according to the plan's approval stamp), meaning the report requested from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles had to verify if it was also respected in material reality, given that the title applicant had proceeded to move the southwest boundary of his property by order of the Court.
VI.- The PGR is correct in arguing that the judgment must be annulled. In accordance with the foregoing, it was issued prematurely, as the courts must have certainty not only that the referenced right-of-way widths are respected in the material reality of the lands; the base plan of the process must also respect them. The a quo judge, according to what is recorded in the case file, before issuing the questioned decision, did not have the information required to deem it duly proven that the rights-of-way of the public road and railway were respected cadastrally and materially, through the respective reports issued by the competent public entities. This was not only necessary, based on what was indicated in the preceding whereas clause, in that the Dirección de Ferrocarriles required information on the location of the property to be able to provide its report, but also there is no evidence that plan L-1384216-2009 effectively respects the right-of-way of the bordering public road, neither in material reality, nor cadastrally, since although it records that the road has a width of fourteen meters, not even the respective report attesting to whether that was indeed the effective width of the public road in front of the land to be titled has been issued. Especially in this case, where two public domain areas with different purposes exist contiguously, making it necessary for the competent public entities to verify and report in the process, what the width of these areas is in the zone where they border the land subject to the process, and that this was respected cadastrally and materially. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations referred to in the first whereas clause regarding the protection of public domain assets, Article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias (which requires courts to prevent the titling of assets belonging to the State), and what is regulated regarding procedural nullities (Articles 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 194, 197, 198 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily), the judgment must be annulled, so that the lower court corrects procedures and has the necessary information previously indicated, timely requested by the PGR, before determining, in a judgment, the admissibility of the titling requested by the applicant (see vote 494 of May 26, 2010 of the Agrarian Tribunal).
VII.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to annul the questioned judgment as premature. The lower court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it can be verified whether the base plan of the process affects or not the right-of-way of the public road, and whether in the material reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public road and that of the railway line, given that they are contiguous. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT with the information it requires so it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, it can conduct a site visit. The undersigned annuls judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011, issued by the lower Court.
The court of first instance must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it is verified whether the base plan of the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way (derecho de vía) of the public road and whether in the materiality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way (derechos de vía) are respected, that of the public road as well as that of the railway line. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, the site visit can be carried out.
[Nombre9] INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVENTE: [Nombre1] [Nombre10] Constancia de notificación Parte u otros Resultado Fecha Servidor (a) EDGAR ALBERTO ESQUIVEL ZAMORA [Telf1] PGR ESTRADOS IDA [Telf2] **VOTO Nº 1002-F-11** **TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.** Goicoechea, at fifteen hours thirty minutes on the fourteenth of September two thousand eleven .- **DILIGENCIA DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA**, promoted by **[Nombre1]** , of legal age, single, merchant, resident of Paracito de Santo Domingo de Heredia, identity card number CED1 -- . Participating in the proceeding are the **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by **Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua**, whose qualifications are unknown in the case file, in her capacity as assistant procurator; and the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO**, legal identification number CED2 - - , represented by **Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo**, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Guachipelín, Escazú, identity card CED3 - - , in her capacity as general judicial proxy. **Cristian Roy Cortes Vargas**, identity card CED4 - - , acts as special judicial proxy of the promoter. Processed before the Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur.- **RESULTANDO:** **1.-** The promoter files a possessory information proceeding (diligencia de información posesoria) for the purpose of having the following property registered in his name in the Public Registry of Property, described by him as follows: "it is land for fruit trees and banana cultivation, located in [Dirección1] : , : Pococí, of the province of Limón, described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded: **North:** [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] and Río Tortuguero in part, **South:** [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] , **East:** Río Tortuguero, **West:** [Dirección2] and [Dirección3] ", (folio 163) **2.-** The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the proceeding under the terms on folios 68 to 72; in turn, the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did so on folio 80 .- **3.-** Judge Sergio Ramos Álvarez, of the Juzgado Agrario de Guápiles, by judgment at thirteen hours five minutes on the thirtieth of June two thousand eleven, resolved: " **POR TANTO** **:** In accordance with the foregoing and cited articles, these proceedings of **INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA** promoted by **[Nombre1]** are **APPROVED** . Virtue of the foregoing, the **Registro Nacional**, **Sección Registro Inmobiliario**, is ordered to register for the first time and without prejudice to third parties with better right, in the name of **[Nombre1]** , of legal age, single, merchant, identity card number CED5- - , resident of Paracito, Santo Domingo Heredia, the property described as follows_ Land for fruit trees and banana cultivation, with a dwelling house, located in [Dirección4] : , of [Dirección5] second: Pococí, of the province of Limón, described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded: **North:** [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] and Río Tortuguero in part, **South:** [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] , **East:** Río Tortuguero, **West:** [Dirección2] and [Nombre6] , property that was valued at the sum of eight million colones. Property which is ordered to be registered with the limitations established for this purpose by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Instituto Costarricenses de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas and Ley Forestal. A certified copy of this judgment shall serve for its registration. Once this judgment becomes firm, let the final certified copy be issued", (the highlighted portion is from the original text on folio 165).- **4.-** Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons why she refutes the thesis of the Court of First Instance, (folio 168 to 173) .- **5.** In the substantiation of the proceeding, the legal requirements have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the ruling capable of producing its nullity is not noted.
Drafted by Judge **Picado Vargas**, and; **CONSIDERANDO** **I.-** The list of facts deemed proven is endorsed as it corresponds to the merit of the case file.- **II.-** In the challenged judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information (información posesoria) was approved and the registration of the property described in plan L-1384216-2009 was ordered, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas and Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (*folios 168 to 173*). It claims that the lower court did not weigh the objections it made when responding to the final hearing. It considers the judge is obliged to reason the appropriateness of the objections made when responding to that hearing, as it is a validity requirement, not a simple formality. It adds in this regard that: a) In the case file, along with the memorial of June 23, 2010, official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year was made known, from the Departamento de Ferrocarriles del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), in which it was reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining landowners also did not match the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims the proceeding could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way (derecho de vía ferroviaria) that adjoins on the south side, as established in Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road adjoining on the south side records a right-of-way width less than that expressed by affectation in Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It maintains that registering land with railway or road rights-of-way (derechos de vía) smaller than those legally established should not be allowed, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into the same. By the principle of parallelism of competencies, it highlights, a property affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator. Neither the courts nor, much less, private individuals can do so through irregular acts. It cites as support for its argument and as precedents votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Tribunal. It requests that the judgment be annulled and that the procedures be readjusted.
**III.-** Regarding the grievance concerning the lower court not having weighed nor reasoned the objections it made in the final hearing, the appellant is not correct. The challenged resolution, in its second considerando, analyzes the objections given by the state representative, so the judgment is substantiated. The first grievance on procedural matters is rejected.- **IV.-** Regarding its substantive grievances, the appellant is not correct. This Tribunal considers that the promoter demonstrated that the land to be titled respects the right-of-way (derecho de vía) of both the public road and the railway on its south boundary, and that the judge of the court of first instance was diligent because he even went to verify the situation "in situ". The cadastral plan L-1384216-2009 records a [Dirección6] as an adjoining [Dirección7] with a width of fourteen meters and a distance to the railway line of 15.24 meters in length (folio 105), which is in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Likewise, in the report prepared by engineer Lina Córdoba Salazar of the División Catastral del Registro inmobiliario del Registro Nacional on folio 106, it is evident that the land to be titled is even at a greater distance from the public road than the adjoining properties. Moreover, to finish comparing the situation, the lower court conducted a re-inspection or judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) of the property, and took measurements to verify that the rights-of-way (derechos de vía) were not being disrespected, verifying that the fence was moved inward and that the distance between it and the road is fourteen meters (folio 143). The public faith vested in the survey engineer who drew up said plan and that enjoyed by the lower court upon having carried out the inspection (reconocimiento) are sufficient to determine that both in the formality of the plan and in the materiality of the property, the indicated rights-of-way (derechos de vía) are respected, so it is unnecessary to request more reports from state entities to verify what has been duly accredited in the case file. Consequently, the grievances are rejected and the challenged resolution is confirmed in the appealed part.
POR TANTO
In the appealed matter, the challenged ruling is confirmed.- [Nombre7] [Nombre8] RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ Dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez:
The undersigned judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, member of the Agrarian Tribunal, subscribes but does not share the vote of the majority, insofar as it rejects the appeal with concomitant nullity, based on the following considerations:
**I.-** A ruling on the proven facts is omitted as unnecessary, given the manner in which this matter is resolved.
**II.-** In the challenged judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information was approved and the registration of the property described in plan L-1384216-2009 was ordered, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas, and Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (folios 168 to 173). It claims that the objections it made when responding to the final hearing were not weighed by the a quo. It considers the judge is obligated to reason the appropriateness of the objections made when responding to that hearing, as it is a validity requirement, not a simple formality. It adds in this regard that: a) The record was made aware, along with the brief of June 23, 2010, of official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year, from the Department of Railways of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), which reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining properties also did not coincide with the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims the process could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way that borders along the south line, according to the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road bordering along the south line indicates a roadway width less than that which is expressly affected by Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It maintains that the registration of a land with railway or road rights-of-way less than those legally established should not be permitted, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into it. By the principle of parallelism of competences, it highlights, an asset affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator. Neither the courts nor much less private individuals can do so through irregular acts. It cites as support for its argument and as precedents votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Tribunal. It requests that the judgment be annulled and the readjustment of the procedures be ordered.
**III.-** The area occupied by national railway lines and public roads are public domain assets, inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to acquisition by usucapion, and unattachable (Article 121 of the Constitución Política, 262 and 261 of the Código Civil, 4, 5, 6 of Ley de Construcciones N°833; 36, 38 and 42 of Ley Nº 7001 of September 19, 1985, Ley Orgánica del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER) and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991 and 1245 of May 8, 1002, of the Sala Constitucional). The right-of-way of the railway lines is contemplated in Article 42 of Ley Nº 7001 and the Reglamento que Dimensiona el Derecho de Vía de los Ferrocarriles Nacionales, Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT of September 1, 1993. For its part, the minimum width of public roads is regulated in Articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Therefore, based on the current public order regulations that protect the public domain, and the principles governing registry publicity and the preparation of plans (Articles 2 of Ley del Catastro Nacional Nº 6545, Articles 1, 17, 34-f, 57 of the Reglamento del Catastro Nacional, Decreto Ejecutivo 34331 of November 29, 2007), the plans must respect the minimum legal width of railway lines and that of public roads (municipal and national), so that the right-of-way is not included in the area of each property to be registered (see on the subject votes 916-05, 544-04 of July 29, 2004, 602 of November 15, 2000 and 799 of December 23, 1999, all of the Agrarian Tribunal). Furthermore, ordinal 2 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that the plans must represent exact data and measurements, and imposes on the professional in charge of the survey the responsibility for compliance with what is established (Ley 3454 of November 14, 1964 and the Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura N° 4294 of December 16, 1968) (vote 77-09 of February 12, 2009). "With respect to this aspect of respecting the minimum legal width of public roads, this Tribunal considers it is a matter of public order that must be respected, but without infringing the rights of private individuals... . The width is normally not uniform, especially when it does not involve roads of neighborhood importance (to connect towns for example), or they are low-traffic or difficult to pass (being gravel or dirt). Furthermore, it may be the case that the lands bordering the road are registered on one side, and unregistered on the other. Or even that the properties bordering both sides are not registered. In those cases, it is important to clarify the point from which the measurement of the road width should begin: from its edges or from the center of the road. The legal, technical, and equitable solution, so as not to infringe the rights of private individuals nor to make their situation unduly more burdensome, is to determine with a technical criterion the midpoint of the road width, and from there take the corresponding half measurement towards both sides. In this way, if the owner of an unregistered land does not respect the corresponding proportion for the road width, they must, not only materially but also documentarily (on the plan), proceed to make the variations of the boundary facing the road and the total measurement of the land" (vote 558-03 of August 28, 2003 of the Agrarian Tribunal. In the same sense votes 545 of August 20, 2002 and 414 of June 26, 2002).
**IV.-** The following relevant information for resolving what is claimed by the PGR is recorded in the case file: **1)** The land to be titled borders on the southwest with [Dirección8] Road (with a frontage to it of 41.02 linear meters). Immediately after the road is the [Dirección9] railway line. **2)** The original base cadastral plan presented by the title applicant was L-658563-2000 (folio 1), with an area measurement of 18,478.61 square meters. The width of the public road indicated on that plan was 15.79 meters and of the railway was 8.10 meters. Said plan was cancelled after the title applicant was warned to provide a new one that respected the right-of-way of public roads (folio 29). **3)** A second plan was therefore presented, Nº 1358866-09 (folio 38), with an area measurement of 17,855 square meters. On it, a railway right-of-way width of 15.24 meters and a road right-of-way width of 8.16 meters were indicated. The plan has a visé from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles, certifying that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected. The Court warned that a new plan be provided, given that the right-of-way of public roads was not respected (folio 41). **4)** A third plan was thus presented, Nº L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), with an area measurement of 17,615 meters. A road width of 14 meters and a railway width of 15.24 meters are indicated. This plan also has a visé from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles issued on October 26, 2009, certifying that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of Decreto Ejecutivo Nª22483, which establishes "Rights of way in the Banana Branches. In all the Banana Branches, the right-of-way shall be 7.62 meters (seven point six two meters) on each side from the [Dirección10] ...". **5)** In the title applicant's brief, filed on February 16, 2010, they specify the address to locate the property subject to the process (folio 61). **6)** On March 2, 2010, the PGR appears (folio 68), and indicates that it has sent reports to the MOPT and the Catastro Nacional, to determine if the property to be titled affects State interests. **7)** In the cited official letter DF-267-2010, visible on folio 114, the Director of the Transport Division of the Dirección de Ferrocarriles informed the PGR that the land subject to this process could not be located, therefore requesting that a precise address be indicated or, if applicable, a visit be coordinated with the interested party. The PGR, in addition to bringing said situation to the attention of the Court, in a brief received on June 25, 2010 (folio 113), requested that the pertinent procedures be carried out so that the referred Directorate could inspect the land, in order to provide the required report. The Court, in a resolution of August 5, 2010 (folio 120), did not grant what was requested by the PGR, but rather reserved its request until the judicial inspection was carried out, in which the measurement from the center of the railway line to the boundary facing [Dirección8] Road (sic) would be verified by the judge, and to check if the right-of-way was thus respected. **8)** In the judicial inspection carried out on September 22, 2010 (folio 127), the following was indicated on the subject: "…at the front it has a [Dirección11] and a [Dirección12], measuring from the center of the railway line to where the lot's fence is located, and the measurement does not match, so the title applicant is warned that they must move their fence back until the road is fourteen meters". **9)** On the following November 17th, after the title applicant reported having moved their southwest boundary, the Court carries out a second inspection, indicating in what is relevant: "Today the fence was moved inward. The pertinent distance and the road is fourteen meters" (folio 143). **10)** The PGR, when responding to the final hearing on December 13, 2010 (folio 149), requested that said act be annulled in advance, given that: a) it had not received a response from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) regarding whether the land to be titled is within the State's patrimony, constituted by the inalienable area adjacent to the navigable sector of the Río Tortuguero; b) It again requested that the report from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles be requested, providing it with the information required by them in official letter DF-267-2010, to verify if the property respects the railway right-of-way. It highlighted that through Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT, the dimension of the right-of-way of national railways was regulated, so it is solely that Department's responsibility to verify whether or not the right-of-way is respected. **11)** In a resolution of December 16, 2010 (folio 153), the aforementioned final hearing was annulled and two months were granted for the PGR to provide the cited documentation from the IGN and the Department of the MOPT, with the warning of continuing with the normal processing of this process if they were not presented. It was further indicated that the judge already considered the right-of-way matter satisfied, because they had visited the place and taken the measurement, indicating that the promoter was ordered to move the fence the fourteen meters of road plus the meters of the railway line (which are not specified how many by the a quo). **12)** In a resolution of March 14, 2011 (folio 156), it was ordered to continue the procedures, because the deadline for the PGR to present the referred reports had expired without it doing so. The final hearing was also granted. The PGR responds in a brief filed on March 28, 2011 (folio 159), with content identical to that of December 15, 2010. **13)** On the other hand, although what was claimed regarding the width of the road indicated on plan L-1384216-2009 (folio 43) was not claimed before judgment was handed down, given that the road runs parallel to the railway line, it must be corroborated with the respective appropriate evidence (report from the competent public entity) that its width is the legally required one. Furthermore, the fact that it did not make that claim previously does not prevent it from doing so when challenging the judgment (see in that sense vote 653 of July 8, 2010 of the Agrarian Tribunal).
**V.-** Prior to explaining why the PGR is correct regarding the requested nullity, it is important to highlight the following: **a)** The procedure applied by the Court for verifying respect for the railway and public road rights-of-way is not technically correct. Apart from the fact that the manner and instruments used by the a quo to carry out the referred measurements are not specified, nor is it indicated in any of the records what is the measurement considered for the railway right-of-way. In the resolution in which it states it considers it respected, visible on folio 153, it also does not express that data. In the only resolution in which reference is made to the applicable width according to the court of first instance (folio 29), Article 11 of Decreto 22483-MOPT is cited. But said rule is not the one used by the Dirección de Ferrocarriles when issuing the visé that the last plan presented has. In this regard, it must be highlighted that the railway right-of-way width changes according to the sector, so the judge must not use or refer to a width that does not legally correspond. **b)** From the judicial inspection records, it is inferred that the measurements of the width of the public road right-of-way were made by the judge measuring from the "center of the railway line to where the lot is fenced". This is questionable if one considers that the railway line and the public road run parallel, therefore each must have the corresponding minimum legal width. The width of the public road must be measured from where the railway right-of-way ends, and not from "its center". **c)** It does not correspond to judges to carry out technical work such as that required to verify if the public domain is affected, by not respecting the rights-of-way of public roads and railways, both in the plans and in the material reality of the land. The competent public entities for that task are those to whom the law expressly grants the administration of the referred areas, because they assume the responsibility of corroborating that they are not diminished, affected, or improperly used. The courts must request the respective reports and technical evidence, and request them from whomever legally corresponds to provide them, because their task is to control legality, both of what is done by private individuals and of what is reported by public entities. Therefore, it is incorrect for a judge to assume a role that does not correspond to them and thereby omit to request the respective technical reports. Furthermore, when it comes to public domain assets, the verification that they are not improperly affected in any way cannot be omitted. The burden of proof corresponds to the title applicant party, not to the Procuraduría. But given the nature of what must sometimes be verified, generally, the courts may and must request the respective reports directly from the public entities, on their own motion.
In other words, when public domain assets are at stake, the courts must guarantee and be certain that they are not affected. The Procuraduría is also a comptroller of legality, and thereby assists the jurisdictional function. But the fact that said entity does not allege an illegality or does not provide a report that allows certainty regarding the non-affectation of public domain assets does not exempt the courts from their duties in this regard. Therefore, the trial court must directly request the respective reports from the competent entities, which would allow it to have suitable and effective evidence to support its decision on whether or not public domain areas are affected. These turn out to be the Municipalities (when it involves the cantonal road network), the <span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Departamento de Previsión Vial of the MOPT (when it involves the national road network or local roads), the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT (when national railway lines exist), the MINAET (when it involves protection areas and protected wild areas), the IGN (for the maritime terrestrial zone), etc. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">Furthermore, as relevant to this case, it must be highlighted that Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos provides: “</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">The width of highways and local roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">without it being able to be less</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter”</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> (the underlining is not from the original). Therefore, only the competent public entity can attest to the effective width of a street in a specific sector. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">d) </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">Likewise, despite the PGR requesting that the petition from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles to be provided with information on how to locate the property to be titled be addressed, said requirement was not duly attended to, as was proper, especially since the address was recorded in the case file, given that the title applicant had supplied it when previously required by the Court (</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">folio 61</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">). Nor was it highlighted by the Judge that, at least cadastrally, the railway right-of-way was respected (according to the approval of the map), so the report requested from the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> Dirección de Ferrocarriles had to verify if it was also respected in material reality, given that the title applicant party proceeded to move the southwest boundary of their property by order of the Court. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">VI</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">The PGR is correct in alleging that the judgment must be annulled.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">In accordance with what has been explained, it was issued prematurely, since the courts must have certainty not only that the referred-to road widths are respected in the material reality of the lands; the base map of the proceeding must also respect them. The trial court, according to what is recorded in the case file, before issuing the questioned ruling, did not have the information required to consider it duly proven that the right-of-way of the public street and the railway were respected cadastrally and materially, through the respective reports issued by the competent public entities. This was not only necessary because of what was indicated in the preceding recital regarding the Dirección de Ferrocarriles requiring information on the location of the property to be able to provide its report, but also because there is no evidence that map L-1384216-2009 effectively respects the right-of-way of the adjacent public street, neither in material reality, nor cadastrally, since although it</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> states on it that the street has a width of fourteen meters, the respective report attesting to whether that was the effective width of the public street in front of the land to be titled has not even been issued. This is especially so in this case, where there exist, contiguously, two public domain areas with different purposes, making it necessary for the competent public entities to verify and report in the proceeding what their width is in the zone where they border the land that is the object of the proceeding, as well as that such was respected cadastrally and materially. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations referred to in the first recital regarding the protection of public domain assets, Article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias (which requires the courts to prevent the titling of assets belonging to the State), and what is regulated regarding procedural nullities (Articles 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 194, 197, 198 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily), the judgment must be annulled, so that the trial court corrects procedures, and has the previously indicated necessary information, timely requested by the PGR, before determining, in a judgment, the appropriateness of the titling requested by the applicant (see vote 494 of May 26, 2010, of the Tribunal Agrario).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">VII.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to annul the questioned judgment for being premature. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it is verified whether the base map of the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public street and whether, in the material reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public street as well as that of the railway line, given that they are contiguous to each other. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, a site visit can be carried out. The undersigned</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> annuls judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011, issued by the trial court. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it is verified whether the base map of the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public street and whether, in the material reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public street as well as that of the railway line. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, a site visit can be carried out.</span> [Nombre9] INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVENTE: [Nombre1] [Nombre10]
| Constancia de notificación | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parte u otros | Resultado | Fecha | Servidor (a) |
| EDGAR ALBERTO ESQUIVEL ZAMORA [Telf1] | |||
| PGR ESTRADOS | |||
| IDA [Telf2] |
<p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Dissenting Vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez:</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">“</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">I</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">II</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The area occupied by the national railway lines and public roads are public domain property (bienes de dominio público), inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to acquisition by adverse possession (usucapión) and unseizable (article 121 of the Constitución Política, 262 and 261 of the Código Civil, 4, 5, 6 of the Ley de Construcciones N°833; 36, 38 and 42 of Ley Nº 7001 of September 19, 1985, Ley Orgánica del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER) and decisions (votos) 2306-91 of November 6, 1991 and 1245 of May 8, 1002, of the Sala Constitucional). The right-of-way (derecho de vía) of the railway lines is contemplated in article 42 of Ley Nº 7001 and the Regulation that Dimensions the Right-of-Way of the National Railways, Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT of September 1, 1993. For its part, the minimum width of public roads is regulated in articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos.</span></p></div></body></html> Therefore, based on the current public-order regulations that protect the public domain, and the principles governing registry publicity and the preparation of plans (articles 2 of the Ley del Catastro Nacional Nº 6545, articles 1, 17, 34-f, 57 of the Reglamento del Catastro Nacional, Decreto Ejecutivo 34331 of November 29, 2007), plans must respect the minimum legal width of railway lines and public roads (municipal and national), so that the right-of-way is not included in the area of each property to be registered (on this subject, see votes 916-05, 544-04 of July 29, 2004, 602 of November 15, 2000, and 799 of December 23, 1999, all of the Tribunal Agrario). Furthermore, ordinal 2 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that plans must represent exact data and measurements, and imposes responsibility on the professional in charge of the survey for compliance with what is stipulated (Ley 3454 of November 14, 1964 and Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura N° 4294 of December 16, 1968) (vote 77-09 of February 12, 2009). "With respect to this aspect of respecting the minimum legal width of public roads, this Court considers it is a matter of public order that must be respected, but without infringing upon the rights of individuals... The width is normally not uniform, especially when it does not involve roads of neighborhood importance (to connect towns, for example), or they have little traffic or are difficult to pass (being gravel or dirt). Furthermore, the assumption may arise that the lands bordering the road are registered on one side and not on the other. Or even that the properties bordering both sides are not registered. In those cases, it is important to elucidate the point from which the measurement of the road width should begin: from its edges or from the center of the street. The legal, technical, and equitable solution, so as not to infringe upon the rights of individuals or unduly worsen their situation, is to determine with technical criteria the midpoint of the road's width, and from there, take the corresponding half measurement to both sides. In this way, if the owner of an unregistered land does not respect the proportion corresponding to them in the road width, they must proceed, not only materially but also documentarily (on the plan), to make the changes to the boundary facing the street and the total measurement of the land" (vote 558-03 of August 28, 2003 of the Tribunal Agrario. In the same sense, votes 545 of August 20, 2002 and 414 of June 26, 2002).
IV. - The following relevant information for resolving the claim by the PGR is in the case file: 1) The land to be titled borders a public road to the southwest (with a frontage of 41.02 linear meters). Immediately after the road is the national Atlantic railway line. 2) The original base cadastral plan filed by the applicant was L-658563-2000 (folio 1), with an area measuring 18,478.61 square meters. The width of the public road indicated on that plan was 15.79 meters and the railway, 8.10 meters. Said plan was canceled after the applicant was warned to provide a new one that respected the right-of-way of public roads (folio 29). 3) A second plan, Nº 1358866-09, was therefore submitted (folio 38), with an area measuring 17,855 square meters. A railway line width of 15.24 meters and a road width of 8.16 meters are recorded on it. The plan has a visé from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles, stating that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected. The Court warns that a new plan be provided, given that the right-of-way of public roads was not respected (folio 41). 4) A third plan is thus submitted, Nº L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), with an area measuring 17,615 square meters. A road width of 14 meters and a railway width of 15.24 meters are recorded. This plan also has a visé from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles, issued on October 26, 2009, stating that the railway right-of-way is cadastrally respected, in accordance with the provisions of article 12 of Decreto Ejecutivo Nª22483, which establishes "Rights-of-way on the Banana Branches. On all Banana Branches, the right-of-way shall be 7.62 meters (seven meters and sixty-two centimeters) on each side from the center line of the track...". 5) In the applicant's brief, filed on February 16, 2010, they specify the address to locate the property subject to the proceeding (folio 61). 6) On March 2, 2010, the PGR appears before the court (folio 68), and indicates that it has sent reports to the MOPT and the Catastro Nacional, to determine if the property to be titled affects state interests. 7) In official letter DF-267-2010 cited, visible at folio 114, the Director of the Transport Division of the Dirección de Ferrocarriles informed the PGR that the land subject to this proceeding could not be located, and therefore requested a precise address be provided or, if applicable, a visit be coordinated with the interested party. The PGR, besides bringing this situation to the attention of the Court, in a brief received on June 25, 2010 (folio 113), requested that the pertinent procedures be carried out so that the aforementioned Directorate could inspect the land, in order to provide the required report. The Court, in a resolution of August 5, 2010 (folio 120), did not grant the PGR's request, but rather held its petition in abeyance until the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was conducted, in which the judge would verify the measurement from the center of the railway line to the boundary facing the public road (sic), and check whether the right-of-way was thus respected. 8) In the judicial inspection conducted on September 22, 2010 (folio 127), the following was indicated on the matter: "…in front it has a gravel road and a railway line, measuring from the center of the railway line to where the lot's fence is located, the measurement does not check out, so the applicant is warned that they must move their fence until the road is fourteen meters wide". 9) On the following November 17th, after the applicant reported that they had moved their southwestern boundary, the Court conducts a second inspection, indicating as relevant: "Today the fence was moved inward. The pertinent distance and the road is fourteen meters" (folio 143). 10) The PGR, upon responding to the final hearing on December 13, 2010 (folio 149), requested the annulment of said act preemptively, given that: a) it had not received a response from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) on whether the land to be titled is within the State's heritage, constituted by the inalienable area adjacent to the navigable sector of the Tortuguero River; b) It again requested that the report from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles be ordered, providing it with the information required by that office in official letter DF-267-2010, to verify if the property respects the railway right-of-way. It highlighted that Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT regulated the dimension of the right-of-way of national railways, therefore it is that Department only which corresponds to verifying whether or not the right-of-way is respected. 11) In a resolution of December 16, 2010 (folio 153), the previously mentioned final hearing was annulled and two months were granted for the PGR to provide the cited documentary evidence from the IGN and the Department of the MOPT, with the warning that the normal processing of this proceeding would continue if it were not presented. It was also indicated that the judge already considered the right-of-way matter fulfilled, having visited the site and taken the measurement, indicating that the applicant was ordered to move the fence the fourteen meters of the road plus the meters of the railway line (which the lower court does not specify how many these are). 12) In a resolution of March 14, 2011 (folio 156), the proceedings were ordered to continue, as the deadline for the PGR to present the cited reports had expired without it having done so. The final hearing was also granted. The PGR responds in a brief filed on March 28, 2011 (folio 159), with identical content to that of December 15, 2010. 13) On the other hand, although the allegation regarding the width of the road recorded on plan L-1384216-2009 (folio 43) was not claimed before the judgment was issued, given that the road runs parallel to the railway line, it must be corroborated with the respective suitable evidence (report from the competent public entity) that its width is that legally required. Furthermore, the fact that this claim was not made previously does not prevent it from being made when appealing the judgment (see in this regard vote 653 of July 8, 2010 of the Tribunal Agrario).
V.- Prior to explaining why the PGR is correct regarding the requested annulment, it is important to highlight the following: a) The procedure applied by the Court for verifying respect for the railway and public road rights-of-way is not technically correct. Apart from the fact that the method and instruments used by the lower court to make the referred measurements are not specified, neither is it indicated in any of the minutes what measurement is considered that the railway right-of-way must have. In the resolution where it states it considers it respected, visible at folio 153, it also does not express this datum. In the only resolution where reference is made to the applicable width according to the trial judge (folio 29), article 11 of Decree 22483-MOPT is cited. But this rule is not the one used by the Dirección de Ferrocarriles when issuing the visé on the last plan presented. It must be highlighted in this respect that the railway line width changes according to the sector, so the Judge should not use or refer to a width that does not legally correspond. b) It is apparent from the judicial inspection minutes that the judge took the measurements of the public road right-of-way width by measuring from the "center of the railway line to where the lot is fenced". This is questionable considering that the railway line and the public road run parallel to each other, therefore each must have the corresponding minimum legal width. The width of the public road must be measured starting from where the railway line right-of-way ends, and not from "its center". c) It does not correspond to judges to perform a technical task such as that required to verify if the public domain is affected by non-respect of public road and railway rights-of-way, both in the plans and in the physical reality of the land. The competent public entities for this task are those to which the law expressly grants administration of the referred areas, as they assume the responsibility of corroborating that they are not reduced, affected, or used improperly. Courts must request the respective reports and technical evidence, and request them from whomever is legally required to provide them, as their task is to control legality, both of what is done by individuals and what is reported by public entities. Therefore, it is incorrect for a judge to assume a role that does not correspond to them and thereby omit requesting the respective technical reports. Furthermore, when it involves public domain property, the verification that they are not improperly affected in any way cannot be omitted. The burden of proof corresponds to the applicant party, not the Procuraduría. But given the nature of what must sometimes be verified, usually, courts can and must directly request the respective reports from public entities on their own motion. In other words, when public domain property is at stake, the courts must guarantee and be certain that they are not affected. The Procuraduría is also a controller of legality and thereby contributes to the judicial function. But the fact that said entity does not allege an illegality or provide a report that allows certainty about the non-affectation of public domain property does not exempt the courts from their duties in this regard. Therefore, the trial Court must directly request the respective reports from the competent entities, which would allow it to have suitable and effective evidence to support its decision on whether or not public domain areas are affected. Such entities prove to be the Municipalities (when it involves the cantonal road network), the Departamento de Previsión Vial of the MOPT (when it involves the national road network or neighborhood roads), the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT (when national railway lines exist), the MINAET (when it involves protection areas and protected wildlife areas), the IGN (for the maritime-terrestrial zone), etc. Furthermore, as relevant for this case, it must be highlighted that article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos provides: "The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, without it being possible to be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter" (the underlining is not from the original). Therefore, only the competent public entity can certify the effective width of a road in a specific sector. d) Likewise, despite the PGR having requested that the petition of the Dirección de Ferrocarriles be addressed regarding providing it with information on how to locate the property to be titled, said requirement was not duly addressed, as was proper, especially since the address was in the case file, because the applicant had provided it when previously required to do so by the Court (folio 61). Nor was it highlighted by the Judge that, at least cadastrally, the railway right-of-way was respected (according to the plan's visé), so the report requested from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles should verify whether it was also respected physically, given that the applicant party proceeded to move the southwestern boundary of their property by order of the Court.
VI. - The PGR is correct in alleging that the judgment must be annulled. In accordance with what has been explained, it was issued prematurely, as courts must have certainty not only that the referred rights-of-way widths are respected in the physical reality of the lands; the base plan of the proceeding must also respect them. The lower court, according to what is in the case file, before issuing the questioned ruling, did not have the required information to consider it duly accredited that the rights-of-way of the public road and railway were respected cadastrally and materially, through the respective reports issued by the competent public entities. This was not only necessary, due to what was indicated in the previous considering clause regarding the fact that the Dirección de Ferrocarriles required information on the location of the property to be able to provide its report, but also because there is no evidence that plan L-1384216-2009 effectively respects the right-of-way of the adjacent public road, neither materially, nor cadastrally, for although it records that the road has a width of fourteen meters, the respective report certifying whether that was the effective width of the public road in front of the land to be titled has not even been issued. This is especially so in this case, where two public domain areas with different purposes exist contiguously, making it necessary for the competent public entities to verify and report in the proceeding what their width is in the area where they border the land subject to the proceeding, as well as that this was respected cadastrally and materially. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations referred to in the first considering clause regarding the protection of public domain property, article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias (which requires that courts prevent the titling of property belonging to the State), and what is regulated regarding procedural nullities (articles 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 194, 197, 198 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily), the judgment must be annulled, so that the trial court corrects procedures and has the necessary information indicated above, timely requested by the PGR, before determining, in judgment, the appropriateness of the titling required by the applicant (see vote 494 of May 26, 2010 of the Tribunal Agrario).
VII.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to annul the questioned judgment as premature. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it can be verified whether the base plan of the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public road, and whether in the physical reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public road as well as that of the railway line, given that they are contiguous to each other. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Dirección de Ferrocarriles of the MOPT with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the applicant, it can conduct the site visit. The undersigned annuls judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 issued by the trial Court. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it can be verified whether the base plan of the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public road, and whether in the physical reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public road as well as that of the railway line. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections.
It must also provide the MOPT Railway Directorate with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, an on-site inspection can be conducted.
VOTO Nº 1002 -F-1 1 **TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.** Goicoechea, at fifteen hours thirty minutes on the fourteenth of September of two thousand eleven.- **POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING**, promoted by **[Nombre1]** , of legal age, single, merchant, resident of Paracito de Santo Domingo de Heredia, identity card number CED1 -- . Appearing in the process are the **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by **Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua**, whose qualities are unknown in the record, in her capacity as deputy procurator; and the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO**, legal identification number CED2 -- , represented by **Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo**, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Guachipelín, Escazú, identity card CED3 -- , in her capacity as general judicial representative. Acting as special judicial representative of the promoter is **Cristian Roy Cortes Vargas**, identity card CED4 -- . Processed before the Juzgado Agrario of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone.- **WHEREAS:** **1.-** The promoter files possessory information proceedings for the purpose of registering in his name with the Public Property Registry the farm described as follows: "it is land of fruit trees and banana cultivation, located in [Dirección1] : , : Pococí, of the province of Limón, which is described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded as follows: **North:** [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] and Río Tortuguero in part, **South:** [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] , **East:** Río Tortuguero, **West:** [Dirección2] and [Dirección3] ", (folio 163) **2.-** The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the process in the terms set forth in folios 68 to 72; in turn, the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did so in folio 80 .- **3.-** Judge Sergio Ramos Álvarez, of the Juzgado Agrario of Guápiles, by judgment at thirteen hours five minutes on June thirtieth, two thousand eleven, resolved: " **POR TANTO** **:** In accordance with the foregoing and cited articles, the present **POSSESSORY INFORMATION** proceedings promoted by **[Nombre1]** are **APPROVED** . By virtue of the foregoing, the **Registro Nacional**, **Sección Registro Inmobiliario**, is ordered to register for the first time and without prejudice to a third party with a better right, in the name of **[Nombre1]** , of legal age, single, merchant, identity card number CED5- - , resident of Paracito, Santo Domingo Heredia, the property described as follows_ Land of fruit trees and banana cultivation, with a dwelling house, located in [Dirección4] : , of the [Dirección5] second: Pococí, of the province of Limón, which is described in plan number L-1384216-2009, with an area of seventeen thousand six hundred fifteen square meters, bounded as follows: **North:** [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] and Río Tortuguero in part, **South:** [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] , **East:** Río Tortuguero, **West:** [Dirección2] and [Nombre6] , property that was valued at the sum of eight million colones. Property that is ordered to be registered with the limitations established for that purpose by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas, and Ley Forestal. Let the certified copy of this judgment serve for its registration. Once this judgment is final, issue the executorial decree", (the highlighting is from the original text on folio 165).- **4.-** Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons why she refutes the thesis of the trial court, (folios 168 to 173) .- **5.** In the processing of the process, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the ruling capable of producing its nullity is not noted.
Drafted by Judge **Picado Vargas**, and; **CONSIDERING** **I.-** The list of facts deemed proven is adopted as it corresponds to the merits of the record.- **II.-** In the appealed judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information was approved and it was ordered to register the property described in plan L-1384216-2009, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas, and Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (*folios 168 to 173*). It claims that the a quo did not weigh the objections it made when answering the final hearing. It considers that the judge is obliged to reason the appropriateness of the objections made when answering that hearing, as it is a requirement for validity, not a simple formality. It adds in this regard that: a) The record was made aware, together with the brief of June 23, 2010, of official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year, from the MOPT Railway Department (Departamento de Ferrocarriles del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes), in which it was reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining owners also did not match the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims that the process could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way (derecho de vía ferroviaria) that adjoins to the south, as established in Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road adjoining to the south records a right-of-way width less than that expressed by legal encumbrance in Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It maintains that registering a property with railway or road rights-of-way less than those legally established should not be permitted, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into it. By the principle of parallelism of competencies, it emphasizes, a property legally encumbered for the public domain can only be disencumbered by the legislator. Neither the courts, much less private individuals through irregular acts, can do so. It cites as support for its argument and as precedents, votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Court. It requests that the judgment be annulled and the readjustment of the procedures be ordered.
**III.-** Regarding the grievance concerning the fact that the a quo did not weigh or reason the objections made at the final hearing, the appellant is not correct. The challenged resolution, in its second considering clause, analyzes the objections given by the state representative, so the judgment is substantiated. The first procedural grievance is rejected.- **IV.-** Regarding its substantive grievances, the appellant is not correct. This Court considers that the promoter demonstrated that the land to be titled respects the right-of-way for both the public road and the railway on its southern boundary, and that the trial judge was diligent as he even went to verify "in situ" such situation. The cadastral plan L-1384216-2009 records a [Dirección6] as an adjoining property to the [Dirección7] with a width of fourteen meters and a distance to the railway line of 15.24 meters in length (folio 105), which is in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Likewise, in the report prepared by engineer Lina Córdoba Salazar of the Catastral Division of the Real Estate Registry of the Registro Nacional on folio 106, it is evident that the land to be titled is located at an even greater distance from the public road than the adjoining farms. To even fully compare the situation, the a quo conducted a re-inspection or judicial inspection on the property, and took measurements to verify that the rights-of-way were not being violated, verifying that the fence was moved inward and that the distance between it and the road is fourteen meters (folio 143). The public faith vested in the surveyor engineer who drew up said plan and that enjoyed by the a quo upon having conducted the inspection are sufficient to determine that both in the formality of the plan and in the material reality of the farm, the indicated rights-of-way are respected, making it unnecessary to request further reports from state entities to verify what has been duly accredited in the record. Consequently, the grievances are rejected, and the appealed ruling is confirmed in its appealed aspects.
POR TANTO
In the appealed matter, the challenged resolution is affirmed.- [Nombre7] [Nombre8] RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ Dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez:
The undersigned Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, member of the Agrarian Tribunal, subscribes but does not share the majority vote, insofar as it rejects the appeal with concomitant nullity, based on the following considerations:
I.- Ruling on the proven facts is omitted as unnecessary, given the manner in which this matter is resolved.
II.- In the challenged judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011 (folio 163), the possessory information was approved and it was ordered to register the property described in plan L-1384216-2009, with the limitations established by the Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas, and Ley Forestal. The Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) appeals with concomitant nullity (folios 168 to 173). It claims that the a quo did not weigh the objections it made when responding to the final hearing. It considers the judge is obligated to reason the appropriateness of the objections made when responding to that hearing, as it is a validity requirement, not a mere formality. It adds in this regard that: a) In the case file, it was made known, along with the brief of June 23, 2010, official letter DF-267-2010 of June 15 of that year, from the Department of Railways of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), in which it was reported that despite efforts to locate the land, it was not possible, even though neighbors were asked, and that the adjoining owners also did not match the names appearing on the plan. The PGR claims the process could not be approved without having certainty that the property respects the railway right-of-way (derecho de vía ferroviaria) that borders on the south course, as established in Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) The public road bordering on the south course records a road width less than that expressly affected by Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. It argues that registering land with railway or road rights-of-way less than those legally established should not be permitted, as this is equivalent to incorporating the missing strips into it. By the principle of parallelism of competencies, it highlights, a property affected by law to the public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator. Neither the courts nor, much less, private individuals can do so through irregular acts. It cites as support for its argument and as precedents votes 14-03 and 545 (sic) of this Tribunal. It requests the judgment be annulled and the readjustment of the procedures be ordered.
III.- The area occupied by the national railway lines and public roads are public domain assets, inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to acquisition by usucapion (usucapión) and unseizable (Article 121 of the Constitución Política, 262 and 261 of the Código Civil, 4, 5, 6 of the Ley de Construcciones N°833; 36, 38 and 42 of Law Nº 7001 of September 19, 1985, Ley Orgánica del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER) and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991 and 1245 of May 8, 1002, of the Sala Constitucional). The right-of-way of the railway lines is contemplated in Article 42 of Law Nº 7001 and the Reglamento que Dimensiona el Derecho de Vía de los Ferrocarriles Nacionales, Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT of September 1, 1993. For its part, the minimum width of public roads is regulated in Articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Therefore, based on the current public order regulations that protect the public domain (demanio público), and the principles governing registry publicity and the preparation of plans (Article 2 of the Ley del Catastro Nacional Nº 6545, Articles 1, 17, 34-f, 57 of the Reglamento del Catastro Nacional, Decreto Ejecutivo 34331 of November 29, 2007), plans must respect the minimum legal width of the railway lines and that of public roads (municipal and national), so that the right-of-way is not included in the area (cabida) of each property to be registered (see on the subject votes 916-05, 544-04 of July 29, 2004, 602 of November 15, 2000 and 799 of December 23, 1999, all of the Agrarian Tribunal). Furthermore, ordinal 2 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that plans must represent exact data and measurements, and imposes on the professional in charge of the survey the responsibility for compliance with what is stipulated (Ley 3454 of November 14, 1964 and the Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura N° 4294 of December 16, 1968) (vote 77-09 of February 12, 2009). "Regarding this aspect of respecting the minimum legal width of public roads, this Tribunal considers it is an aspect of public order that must be respected, but without infringing the rights of individuals... . The width is normally not uniform, especially when it does not involve roads of neighborhood importance (for linking towns, for example), or are lightly traveled or difficult to pass (being gravel or dirt). Furthermore, there may be the assumption that the lands bordering the road are registered on one side and not on the other. Or even that the properties bordering both banks are not registered. In those cases, it is important to elucidate which is the point from which the width of the road should begin to be measured: from its edges or from the center of the road. The legal, technical, and equitable solution, in order not to infringe the rights of individuals nor unduly make their situation more burdensome, is to determine with a technical criterion the midpoint of the road width, and from there take towards both sides the measurement of the corresponding half. In this way, if the owner of unregistered land does not respect the proportion corresponding to him in the width of the road, he must not only materially but also documentarily (in the plan), proceed to make the variations of the boundary facing the road and the total measurement of the land" (vote 558-03 of August 28, 2003 of the Agrarian Tribunal. In the same sense, votes 545 of August 20, 2002 and 414 of June 26, 2002).
IV.- The following relevant information for resolving what is claimed by the PGR is recorded in the case file: 1) The land to be titled borders on the southwest with [Dirección8] road (with a frontage to it of 41.02 linear meters). Immediately after the road is the [Dirección9] railway line. 2) The original base cadastral plan presented by the title applicant was L-658563-2000 (folio 1), with an area of 18,478.61 square meters. The width of the public road stated in that plan was 15.79 meters and that of the railway was 8.10 meters. Said plan was canceled after the title applicant was warned to provide a new one that respected the right-of-way of public roads (folio 29). 3) A second plan was therefore presented, Nº 1358866-09 (folio 38), with an area of 17,855 square meters. It records a railway line width of 15.24 meters and a road width of 8.16 meters. The plan has an approval (visado) from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles, where it is stated that the railway right-of-way is respected cadastrally. The Court warns that a new plan be provided, given that the right-of-way of public roads was not respected (folio 41). 4) A third plan is thus presented, Nº L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), with an area of 17,615 square meters. It records a road width of 14 meters and a railway width of 15.24 meters. This plan also has an approval from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles issued on October 26, 2009, where it is stated that the railway right-of-way is respected cadastrally, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of Decreto Ejecutivo Nª22483, which establishes "Rights of way in the Banana Branches. In all the Banana Branches the right-of-way shall be 7.62 meters (seven meters and sixty-two centimeters) on each side starting from the [Dirección10] ...". 5) In the title applicant's brief, filed on February 16, 2010, he specifies the address to locate the property subject to the process (folio 61). 6) On March 2, 2010, the PGR appears (folio 68), and indicates it has sent reports to the MOPT and the Catastro Nacional, to determine if the property to be titled affects state interests. 7) In the cited official letter DF-267-2010, visible at folio 114, the Director of the Transport Division of the Dirección de Ferrocarriles informed the PGR that the land subject to this process could not be located, and therefore asked to be provided with a precise address or, if applicable, to coordinate a visit with the interested party. The PGR, in addition to making said situation known to the Court, in a brief received on June 25, 2010 (folio 113), requested that the pertinent procedures be carried out so that the referenced Directorate could inspect the land, in order to provide the required report. The Court, in a resolution of August 5, 2010 (folio 120), did not attend to what was requested by the PGR, but reserved its petition until the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was carried out, in which the judge would verify the measurement from the center of the railway line to the boundary facing [Dirección8] road (sic), and check if the right-of-way is thus respected. 8) In the judicial inspection carried out on September 22, 2010 (folio 127), the following was indicated on the subject: "…in front it has a [Dirección11] and a [Dirección12], measuring from the center of the railway line to where the lot's fence is and it does not give the measurement, so the title applicant is warned that he must move his fence until the road is fourteen meters wide". 9) On the following November 17, after the title applicant reported he had moved his southwest boundary, the Court carries out a second inspection, stating as relevant: "Today the fence was moved inward. The pertinent distance and the road is fourteen meters wide" (folio 143). 10) The PGR, when responding to the final hearing on December 13, 2010 (folio 149), requested said act be annulled in advance, given that: a) it had not received a response from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) on whether the land to be titled is within the State's patrimony, constituted by the inalienable area adjacent to the navigable sector of the Tortuguero River; b) It again requested that the report from the Dirección de Ferrocarriles be requested, providing the information required by it in official letter DF-267-2010, to verify if the property respects the railway right-of-way. It highlighted that the dimension of the right-of-way of the national railways was regulated through Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT, so it is solely up to that Department to verify whether or not the right-of-way is respected. 11) In a resolution of December 16, 2010 (folio 153), the previously referenced final hearing was annulled and two months were granted for the PGR to provide the cited documentation from the IGN and the Department of the MOPT, with the warning of continuing with the normal processing of this process if they were not presented. It was also indicated that the judge already considered the right-of-way matter fulfilled, because he had visited the place and taken the measurement, indicating that the promoter was ordered to move the fence the fourteen meters of the road plus the meters of the railway line (which are not specified how many they are by the a quo). 12) In a resolution of March 14, 2011 (folio 156), it was ordered to continue the procedures, as the deadline for the PGR to present the referenced reports had expired without it doing so. The final hearing was also granted. The PGR responds in a brief filed on March 28, 2011 (folio 159), with identical content to that of December 15, 2010. 13) On the other hand, although what was alleged regarding the width of the road recorded in plan L-1384216-2009 (folio 43) was not claimed before judgment was issued, given that the road runs parallel to the railway line, it must be corroborated with the respective suitable evidence (report from the competent public entity) that its width is that legally required. Furthermore, the fact that he did not make that claim previously does not prevent him from doing so when challenging the judgment (see in that sense vote 653 of July 8, 2010 of the Agrarian Tribunal).
V.- Before explaining why the PGR is correct regarding the requested nullity, it is important to highlight the following: a) The procedure applied by the Court for verifying respect for the railway and public road rights-of-way is not technically correct. Besides the fact that the form and instruments the a quo used to take the referenced measurements are not specified, neither is it indicated in any of the minutes what measurement he considers the railway right-of-way should have. In the resolution in which he expresses he considers it respected, visible at folio 153, he also does not express said data. In the only resolution in which reference is made to the applicable width according to the instance judge (folio 29), Article 11 of Decreto 22483-MOPT is cited. But said rule is not the one used by the Dirección de Ferrocarriles when issuing the approval on the last plan presented. It must be highlighted in this regard that the railway line width changes according to the sector, so the Judge should not use or refer to a width that does not legally correspond. b) From the judicial inspection minutes, it is inferred that the measurements of the width of the public road were taken by the judge measuring from the "center of the railway line to where the lot is fenced". This is questionable if one takes into account that the railway line and the public road run parallel, therefore each must have the corresponding minimum legal width. That of the public road must be measured starting from where that of the railway line ends, and not from "its center". c) It does not correspond to judges to carry out technical work like that required to verify if the public domain is affected, by not respecting the rights-of-way of public and railway roads, both in the plans and in the materiality of the land. The public entities competent for that work are those to which the law expressly grants the administration of the referenced areas, as they assume the responsibility of corroborating that they are not diminished, affected, or unduly used. The courts must request the respective technical reports and evidence, and request them from whomever legally corresponds to provide them, as their job is to control the legality, both of what is done by private individuals and what is reported by public entities. Therefore, it is incorrect for a judge to assume a role that does not correspond to him and thereby omit requesting the respective technical reports. Furthermore, when it concerns public domain assets, verification that they are not unduly affected in some way cannot be omitted. The burden of proof corresponds to the title applicant party, not to the Procuraduría. But given the nature of what must sometimes be verified, generally, the courts may and must, on their own motion (de oficio), directly request the respective reports from the public entities.
In other words, when public domain assets are involved, the courts must guarantee and have certainty that they are not affected. The Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría) is also a controller of legality, and thereby assists the jurisdictional function. But the fact that said entity does not allege an illegality or does not provide a report that allows certainty regarding the non-affectation of public domain assets does not exempt the courts from their duties in this regard. Therefore, the trial court must directly request the respective reports from the competent entities, which would allow it to have suitable and effective evidence to support its decision on whether or not public domain areas are affected. Such entities are the Municipalities (when it concerns the cantonal road network), the Road Forecasting Department (Departamento de Previsión Vial) of the MOPT (when it concerns the national road network or neighborhood roads), the Railways Directorate (Dirección de Ferrocarriles) of the MOPT (when national railway lines exist), MINAET (when it concerns protection areas and protected wild areas), the IGN (for the maritime-terrestrial zone), etc. Furthermore, regarding what is relevant for this case, it must be emphasized that Article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) provides: "The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, without it being able to be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter" (the underlining is not from the original). Therefore, only the competent public entity can attest to the effective width of a street in a specific sector. d) Likewise, despite the fact that the PGR requested that the petition from the Railways Directorate (Dirección de Ferrocarriles) regarding providing it with information on how to locate the property to be titled be addressed, said requirement was not duly addressed, as was proper, especially since the address was recorded in the case file, as the title applicant had provided it because the Court had previously required it (folio 61). Nor was it highlighted by the Judge that, at least cadastrally, the railway right-of-way was respected (according to the survey plan approval), so the report that was requested from the Railways Directorate (Dirección de Ferrocarriles) had to verify whether it was also respected materially, given that the title applicant proceeded to move the southwest boundary of their property by order of the Court.
VI.- The PGR is correct in arguing that the judgment must be annulled. In accordance with what has been explained, it was issued prematurely, as the courts must have certainty not only that the referred-to road widths are respected in the material reality of the land; the base survey plan for the proceeding must also respect them. The lower court (a quo), according to what is recorded in the case file, before issuing the questioned ruling, did not have the information required to consider it duly proven that the public street and railway rights-of-way were respected cadastrally and materially, through the respective reports issued by the competent public entities. This was not only necessary, as indicated in the preceding whereas clause (considerando) in that the Railways Directorate (Dirección de Ferrocarriles) required information on the location of the property in order to provide its report, but also it is not recorded that survey plan L-1384216-2009 effectively respects the right-of-way of the adjacent public street, neither materially nor cadastrally, since although it states that the street has a width of fourteen meters, not even the respective report attesting to whether that was the effective width of the public street in front of the land to be titled has been issued. Especially in this case, where two public domain areas with different purposes exist contiguously, making it necessary for the competent public entities to verify and report in the proceeding what their width is in the zone where they border the land subject to the proceeding, as well as that this was respected cadastrally and materially. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations referred to in the first whereas clause (considerando) regarding the protection of public domain assets (bienes demaniales), Article 11 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (which requires courts to prevent the titling of assets belonging to the State), and what is regulated regarding procedural nullities (Articles 26 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, and 194, 197, 198 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied supplementarily), the judgment must be annulled, so that the trial court corrects procedures and has the necessary information indicated above, timely requested by the PGR, prior to determining, in a judgment, the appropriateness of the titling requested by the applicant (see vote 494 of May 26, 2010, of the Agrarian Tribunal).
VII.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to annul the questioned judgment as premature. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it is verified whether the base survey plan for the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public street and whether, in the material reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public street and that of the railway line, given that they are contiguous to each other. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Railways Directorate of the MOPT (Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT) with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, it can conduct a site visit. The undersigned annuls judgment 83-2011 of June 30, 2011, issued by the trial court. The trial court must readjust the procedures, requesting reports from the competent public entities, through which it is verified whether the base survey plan for the proceeding affects or not the right-of-way of the public street and whether, in the material reality of the land to be titled, both rights-of-way are respected, that of the public street and that of the railway line. If this is not the case, it must order the corresponding corrections. It must also provide the Railways Directorate of the MOPT (Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT) with the information required by it so that it can render the pending report, or coordinate whatever is necessary so that, together with the title applicant, a site visit can be conducted.
[Name9] INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVENTE: [Nombre1] [Name10]
| Constancia de notificación | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parte u otros | Resultado | Fecha | Servidor (a) |
| EDGAR ALBERTO ESQUIVEL ZAMORA [Telf1] | |||
| PGR ESTRADOS | |||
| IDA [Telf2] |
```
VOTO Nº 1002 -F-1 1 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las quince horas treinta minuto s del catorce de setiembre de dos mil once .- DILIGENCIA DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA, promovida por [Nombre1] , mayor, soltero, comerciante, vecino de Paracito de Santo Domingo de Heredia cédula de identidad número CED1 - - . Intervienen en el proceso, la PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, de calidades desconocidas en autos, en su condición de procuradora adjunta ; y e l INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED2 - - - , representado por Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, mayor, divorciada, abogada, vecina de Guachipelín, Escazú, cédula de identidad CED3 - - , en su condición de apoderada general judicial. Actúa como apoderado especial judicial del promovente Cristian Roy Cortes Vargas, cédula de identidad CED4 - - . Tramitada ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur.-
RESULTANDO:
1.- El promovente interpone diligencias de información posesoria con el fin que se inscriba a su nombre en el Registro Público de la Propiedad la finca que describe así: "es terreno de frutales y cultivo de plátanos, sito en [Dirección1] : , : Pococí, de la provincia de Limón, que se describe en el plano número L-1384216-2009, con una extensión de diecisiete mi seiscientos quince metros cuadrados, linda: Norte: [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] y Río Tortuguero en parte, Sur: [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] , Este: Río Tortuguero, Oeste:[Dirección2] y [Dirección3] ", (folio 163) 2.- La Procuraduría General de la República se apersonó al proceso en los términos que corren de folio 68 a 72; a su vez e l Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario lo hizo en el folio 80 .- 3.- El juez Sergio Ramos Álvarez, del Juzgado Agrario de Guápiles , mediante sentencia de las trece horas cinco minutos del treinta de junio de dos mil once , resolvió: “ POR TANTO: Conforme a lo expuesto y artículos citados, se APRUEBAN las presentes diligencias de INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA que promueve [Nombre1] . Virtud de lo expuesto se ordena al Registro Nacional, Sección Registro Inmobiliario, para que por primera vez y sin perjuicio de tercero de mejor derecho, inscriba a nombre de [Nombre1] , mayor, soltero, comerciante, cédula de identidad número CED5- - , vecino de Paracito, Santo Domingo Heredia, el inmueble que se describe así_ Terreno de frutales y cultivo de plátanos, con una casa de habitación, sito en [Dirección4] : , del [Dirección5] segundo: Pococí, de la provincia de Limón, que se describe en el plano número L-1384216-2009, con una extensión de diecisiete mil seiscientos quince metros cuadrados, linda: Norte: [Nombre2] , [Nombre3] y Río Tortuguero en parte, Sur: [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] , Este: Río Tortuguero, Oeste:[Dirección2] y [Nombre6] , bien que fue estimado en la suma de ocho millones de colones. Bien que se ordena inscribir con las limitaciones que al efecto establece la ley de Caminos Públicos, Instituto Costarricenses de Ferrocarriles, de Aguas y Forestal. Sirva la copia certificada de ésta sentencia para su inscripción. Firme esta sentencia expídase la ejecutoria", (lo destacado es del texto original a folio 165).- 4.- La licenciada Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua formuló recurso de apelación con indicación expresa de las razones por las cuales refuta la tesis del Juzgado de instancia, (folio 168 a 173) .- 5. En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, y no se notan la existencia de errores u omisiones en el fallo capaces de producir su nulidad.
Redacta el juez Picado Vargas, y;
CONSIDERANDO
I.- Se prohíja el elenco de hechos tenidos por demostrados por corresponder al mérito de los autos.- II.- En la sentencia impugnada 83-2011 del 30 de junio del 2011 (folio 163), se aprobó la información posesoria y se ordenó inscribir el inmueble descrito en plano L-1384216-2009, con las limitaciones que establece la Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas y Ley Forestal. La Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) apela con nulidad concomitante (folios 168 a 173). Reclama no se ponderó por el a quo las objeciones que hizo al contestar la audiencia final. Considera el juzgador está obligado a razonar la procedencia de los reparos que se hagan al contestar esa audiencia, pues es un requisito de validez, no una simple formalidad. Agrega al respecto que: a) En autos se puso en conocimiento, junto con el memorial del 23 de junio del 2010, el oficio DF-267-2010 de 15 de junio de ese año, d el Departamento de Ferrocarriles del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) , en el cual se informó que a pesar de los esfuerzos por localizar el terreno, no fue posible, pese a que se preguntó a los vecinos, y que los colindantes tampoco coincidían con los nombres que aparecen en el plano. Reclama la PGR, el proceso no se podía aprobar sin tenerse la certeza de que el inmueble respeta el derecho de vía ferroviaria que colinda por el rumbo sur, según lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) La calle pública colindante por el rumbo sur consigna un ancho de vía menor al que por afectación expresa el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Sostiene no debe permitirse inscribir un terreno con derechos de vía ferroviarios o de calles menores a los legalmente establecidos, por cuanto ello equivale a incorporar al mismo franjas faltantes. Por el principio de paralelismo de las competencias, resalta, un bien afecto por ley al dominio público, solo puede ser desafectado por el legislador. No pueden hacerlo ni los tribunales ni mucho menos los particulares mediante actos irregulares. Cita como apoyo de su alegato y precedentes los votos 14-03 y 545 (sic) de este Tribunal. Pide se anule la sentencia y se ordene la readecuación de los procedimientos.
III.- En cuanto al agravio concerniente a que el a quo no ponderó ni razonó las objeciones que hizo en la audiencia final no lleva razón la recurrente. La resolución impugnada, en su considerando segundo, analiza las objeciones dadas por la representante estatal, por lo que la sentencia se encuentra fundamentada. Se rechaza el primer agravio de forma.- IV.- En cuanto a sus agravios de fondo, no lleva razón la recurrente. Considera este Tribunal que el promovente demostró que el terreno a titular respeta el derecho de vía tanto de calle pública como ferroviario en su lindero sur y que el juzgador de instancia fue diligente pues incluso fue a constatar "in situ" tal situación. El plano catastrado L-1384216-2009 consigna una [Dirección6] como colindante [Dirección7] con un ancho de catorce metros y una distancia a la línea férrea de 15, 24 metros de longitud (folio 105), lo cual se encuentra acorde a lo estipulado en el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Asimismo, en el informe elaborado por la ingeniera Lina Córdoba Salazar de la División Catastral del Registro inmobiliario del Registro Nacional a folio 106 resulta evidente que el terreno a titular se encuentra incluso a mayor distancia de la vía pública que las fincas colindantes. Incluso, para terminar de cotejar la situación, el a quo realizó una reinspección o reconocimiento judicial en el inmueble, y tomó las medidas para constatar que no se estuviera irrespetando los derechos de vía, verificándose que la cerca fue corrida hacia adentro y que la distancia entre ésta y la calle es de catorce metros (folio 143). La fe pública de la cual está investido el ingeniero topógrafo que levantó dicho plano y la que goza el a quo al haber realizado el reconocimiento resultan suficientes para determinar que tanto en la formalidad del plano, como en la materialidad de la finca, se respetan los derechos de vía señalados, por lo que es innecesario pedir más informes a entes estatales para verificar lo que en autos ha quedado debidamente acreditado. En consecuencia, se rechazan los agravios y en lo apelado se confirma la resolución impugnada.
POR TANTO
En lo apelado, se confirma la resolución impugnada.- [Nombre7] [Nombre8] RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ Voto salvado de la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez:
La suscrita jueza Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, integrante del Tribunal Agrario, suscribe pero no comparte el voto de la mayoría, en cuanto rechaza el recurso de apelación con nulidad concomitante, con base en las siguientes consideraciones:
I.- Se omite pronunciamiento por innecesario sobre los hechos probados, dado la forma como se resuelve este asunto.
II.- En la sentencia impugnada 83-2011 del 30 de junio del 2011 (folio 163), se aprobó la información posesoria y se ordenó inscribir el inmueble descrito en plano L-1384216-2009, con las limitaciones que establece la Ley de Caminos Públicos, Ley del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles, Ley de Aguas y Ley Forestal. La Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) apela con nulidad concomitante (folios 168 a 173). Reclama no se ponderó por el a quo las objeciones que hizo al contestar la audiencia final. Considera el juzgador está obligado a razonar la procedencia de los reparos que se hagan al contestar esa audiencia, pues es un requisito de validez, no una simple formalidad. Agrega al respecto que: a) En autos se puso en conocimiento, junto con el memorial del 23 de junio del 2010, el oficio DF-267-2010 de 15 de junio de ese año, d el Departamento de Ferrocarriles del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) , en el cual se informó que a pesar de los esfuerzos por localizar el terreno, no fue posible, pese a que se preguntó a los vecinos, y que los colindantes tampoco coincidían con los nombres que aparecen en el plano. Reclama la PGR, el proceso no se podía aprobar sin tenerse la certeza de que el inmueble respeta el derecho de vía ferroviaria que colinda por el rumbo sur, según lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N°22483-MOPT; b) La calle pública colindante por el rumbo sur consigna un ancho de vía menor al que por afectación expresa el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Sostiene no debe permitirse inscribir un terreno con derechos de vía ferroviarios o de calles menores a los legalmente establecidos, por cuanto ello equivale a incorporar al mismo franjas faltantes. Por el principio de paralelismo de las competencias, resalta, un bien afecto por ley al dominio público, solo puede ser desafectado por el legislador. No pueden hacerlo ni los tribunales ni mucho menos los particulares mediante actos irregulares. Cita como apoyo de su alegato y precedentes los votos 14-03 y 545 (sic) de este Tribunal. Pide se anule la sentencia y se ordene la readecuación de los procedimientos.
I II .- El área ocupada por las líneas férreas nacionales y los caminos públic o s son bienes de dominio público, inalienables, imprescriptible, no susceptible s de adquirir por usucapión e inembargable s (artículo 121 de la Constitución Política, 262 y 261 del Código Civil, 4, 5, 6 de la Ley de Construcciones N°833 ; 36, 38 y 42 de la Ley Nº 7001 de 19 de setiembre de 1985, Ley Orgánica del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER) y v otos 2306-91 del 6 de noviembre del 1991 y 1245 del 8 de mayo de 1002, de la Sala Constitucional) . El derecho de vía de las líneas férreas está contemplado en el artículo 42 de la Ley Nº 7001 y el Reglamento que Dimensiona el Derecho de Vía de los Ferrocarriles Nacionales, Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT del 1º de setiembre de 1993. Por su parte, el ancho mínimo de los caminos públicos está regulado en los artículos 2 y 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Por ello, con base en la normativa vigente de orden público que tutela del demanio público, y los principios que rigen la publicidad registral y la confección de planos (artículos 2 de la Ley del Catastro Nacional Nº 6545, artículos 1, 17, 34-f, 57 del Reglamento del Catastro Nacional, Decreto Ejecutivo 34331 del 29 de noviembre del 2007) los planos deben respetar el ancho mínimo legal de las vías férreas y el de las calles públicas (municipales y nacionales), para que el derecho de vía no se incluya en la cabida de cada inmueble a inscribirse (ver sobre el tema los votos 916-05, 544-04 de 29 de julio del 2004, 602 de 15 de noviembre del 2000 y 799 del 23 de diciembre de 1999, todos del Tribunal Agrario). Además, el ordinal 2 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establece que los planos deberán representar datos y medidas exactas, e impone al profesional encargado del levantamiento la responsabilidad por el cumplimiento de lo estatuido (Ley 3454 del 14 de noviembre de 1964 y la Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura N° 4294 del 16 de diciembre de 1968) (voto 77-09 del 12 de febrero del 2009). "Con respecto a este aspecto del respeto del ancho mínimo legal de las vías públicas, este Tribunal considera es un aspecto de orden público que debe ser respetado, pero sin infringir los derechos de los particulares... . El ancho normalmente no es uniforme, máxime cuando no se trata de caminos de importancia vecinal (para unir poblados por ejemplo), o bien son de poco tránsito o de difícil paso (por ser de lastre o tierra). Además, puede darse el supuesto de estar los terrenos colindantes con el camino, de un lado inscritos, y del otro lado no. O incluso que las fincas colindantes con ambas orillas no estén inscritas. En esos casos, es importante dilucidar cuál es el punto donde debe iniciarse a medir el ancho del camino: desde sus bordes o desde el centro de calle. La solución legal, técnica y equitativa, para no infringir los derechos de los particulares ni hacer en forma indebida más gravosa su situación, es determinar con un criterio técnico el punto medio del ancho del camino, y a partir de ahí tomar hacia ambos lados la medida de la mitad correspondiente. De esta forma, si el dueño de un terreno no inscrito no respeta la proporción que le corresponde en el ancho del camino, debe no solo materialmente sino también documentalmente (en el plano), proceder a realizar las variaciones de colindancia frente a calle y medida total del terreno" (voto 558-03 del 28 de agosto del 2003 del Tribunal Agrario. En igual sentido voto s 545 del 20 de agosto del 2002 y 414 de 26 de junio del 2002).
IV. - Consta en autos la siguiente información relevante para resolver lo reclamado por la PGR: 1) El terreno a titular colinda por el suroeste con calle [Dirección8] (con un frente a ella de 41,02 metros lineales). Luego de la calle, en forma inmediata, está la vía férrea [Dirección9] . 2) El plano catastrado base original presentado por el titulante fue el L-658563-2000 (folio 1), con una medida de 18478,61 metros cuadrados. El ancho de la calle pública señalado en ese plano era de 15, 79 metros y del ferrocarril de 8,10 metros . Dicho plano fue cancelado luego de que se previno al titulante aportar uno nuevo que respetara el derecho de vía de los caminos públicos (folio 29). 3) Se presentó por ello un segundo plano, Nº 1358866-09 (folio 38), con una medida de 17855 metros cuadrados. En el se consigna un ancho de vía de ferrocarril de 15,24 metros y un ancho de vía de calle de 8,16 metros. El plano tiene un visado de la Dirección de Ferrocarriles, donde se hace constar que catastralmente se respeta el derecho de vía ferroviario. El Juzgado previene se aporte un nuevo plano, dado que no se respetaba el derecho de vía de las calles públicas (folio 41). 4) Se presenta así un tercer plano, Nº L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), con una medida de 17615 metros . S e consigna un ancho de calle de 14 metros y un ancho del ferrocarril de 15,24 metros. Este plano cuenta también con un visado de la Dirección de Ferrocarriles emitido el 26 de octubre del 2009, donde se hace constar que catastralmente se respeta el derecho de vía ferroviario, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 12 del Decreto Ejecutivo Nª22483, que establece "Derechos de vía en los Ramales Bananeros. En todos los Ramales Bananeros el derecho de vía será de 7,62 metros (siete metros con sesenta y dos centímetros) a cada lado a partir de la [Dirección10] ...". 5) En memorial del titulante, presentado el 16 de febrero del 2010, este especifica la dirección para localizar la finca objeto del proceso (folio 61). 6) El 2 de marzo del 2010, la PGR se apersona (folio 68), e indica que ha enviado informes al MOPT y al Catastro Nacional, para que determine si el inmueble a titular afecta intereses estatales. 7) E n el oficio DF-267-2010 citado, visible a folio 114, el Director de la División de Transportes de la Dirección de Ferrocarriles, informó a la PGR que no se pudo localizar el terreno objeto de este proceso, por lo que pidió se le indicara una dirección precisa o si fuera del caso, se coordinara una visita con el interesado. La PGR, además de poner en conocimiento dicha situación al Juzgado, en memorial recibido el 25 de junio del 2010 (folio 113), solicitó se realizaran los procedimientos pertinentes para que la Dirección referida pudiera inspeccionar el terreno , a fin de brindar el informe requerido. El Juzgado , en resolución de 5 de agosto de 2010 (folio 120), no atendió lo solicitado por la PGR, sino que reservó su petición hasta tanto se practicase el reconocimiento judicial, en el cual se verificaría por el juzgador, la medida desde el centro de la vía férrea hasta el lindero frente a calle [Dirección8] (sic), y comprobar si así se respeta el derecho de vía. 8) En el reconocimiento judicial realizado el 22 de setiembre del 2010 (folio 127), sobre el tema se indicó lo siguiente: “…al frente tiene una [Dirección11] y una [Dirección12] , midiéndose desde el centro de la línea férrea hasta donde está el cercado del lote y no da la medida por lo que se le previene al titulante que deberá correr su cerca hasta que el camino tenga catorce metros”. 9) El 17 de noviembre siguiente , luego de que el titulante informara que había corrido su lindero suroeste, el Juzgado realiza un segundo reconocimiento, indicándose en lo que interesa: “Hoy día la cerca fue corrida hacia adentro. La distancia pertinente y la calle está de catorce metros” (folio 143). 10) La PGR, al contestar la audiencia final el 13 de diciembre del 2010 (folio 149), solicitó se anulase dicho acto por anticipado, dado que: a) no había recibido respuesta del Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) sobre si el terreno a titular se encuentra dentro del patrimonio del Estado, constituido por el área inalienable contiguo al sector navegable del Río Tortuguero; b) Pidió nuevamente se solicitase el informe de la Dirección de Ferrocarriles, aportándosele la información requerida por tal en el oficio DF-267-2010, para verificar si el inmueble respeta el derecho de vía ferroviario. Resaltó que mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 22483-MOPT, se reglamentó la dimensión del derecho de vía de los ferrocarriles nacionales, por lo que es a tal Departamento a quien únicamente le corresponde verificar si se respeta o no el derecho de vía. 11) En resolución del 16 de diciembre del 2010 (folio 153) se anuló la audiencia final anteriormente referida y se otorgaron dos meses para que la PGR aportase la documental citada del IGN y del Departamento del MOPT, con el apercibimiento de continuar con el trámite normal de este proceso si no se presentaban. Se indicó además que el juzgador ya consideraba cumplido lo del derecho de vía, porque había visitado el lugar y hecho la medida, indicándose que se ordenó al promovente correr la cerca los catorce metros de calle más los metros de la vía del ferrocarril (que no se especifican cuantos son por el a quo). 12) En resolución del 14 de marzo del 2011 (folio 156), se ordenó continuar los procedimientos, por haber vencido el plazo para que la PGR presentase los informes referidos, sin que lo hiciera. Se confirió además la audiencia final. La PGR contesta en memorial presentado el 28 de marzo del 2011 (folio 159), con un contenido idéntico al del 15 de diciembre del 2010. 13) Por otro lado, aunque lo alegado respecto del ancho del camino consignado en el plano L-1384216-2009 (folio 43), no fue reclamado antes de dictarse sentencia , dado que la calle va paralela a la línea del ferrocarril, debe corroborarse con la prueba idónea respectiva (informe del ente público competente), que su ancho es el legalmente requerido. Además, el que no haya hecho ese reclamo con anterioridad, no obsta para que lo pueda realizar al impugnar la sentencia (ver en ese sentido voto 653 de 8 de julio del 2010 del Tribunal Agrario).
V .- Previo a explicar el por qué lleva razón la PGR en cuanto a la nulidad solicitada, es importante destacar lo siguiente: a) E l procedimiento aplicado por el Juzgado para la verificación del respeto de los derechos de vía ferroviaria y de caminos públicos no es técnicamente correcto. Aparte de que no se especifica la forma e instrumentos que utilizó el a quo para realizar las medidas referidas, tampoco se indica en ninguna de las actas cuál es la medida que considera debe tener el derecho ferroviario. En la resolución en la que expresa tiene por respetado tal, visible a folio 153, tampoco expresa dicho dato. En la única resolución en la que se hace referencia al ancho aplicable según el juzgador de instancia (folio 29), se cita el artículo 11 del Decreto 22483-MOPT . Pero dicha norma no es la utilizada por la Dirección de Ferrocarriles al emitir el visado que tiene el último plano presentado. Debe al respecto resaltarse que el ancho de vía ferroviario cambia según el sector, por lo que no debe el Juzgador utilizar o hacer referencia a un ancho que no corresponda legalmente. b) De las actas de reconocimiento judicial se desprende las mediciones del ancho de vía de la calle pública las realizó el juez midiendo desde el "centro de la vía férrea hasta donde está cercado el lote". Ello es cuestionable si se toma en cuenta que la vía férrea y la calle pública transcurren paralelamente, por ende cada una debe tener el ancho mínimo legal que corresponda. El de la calle pública debe medirse a partir de donde finalizase el de la vía férrea, y no desde "su centro". c) N o corresponde a los jueces realizar una labor técnica como la requerida para verificar si se afecta el dominio público, por no respetarse los derechos de vía de caminos públicos y ferroviarios , tanto en los planos como en la materialidad de los terreno . Los entes públicos competentes para esa labor son aquellos a los que la ley les otorga expresamente la administración de l as áreas referidas, pues ellos asumen la responsabilidad de corroborar que no se disminuya, afecten ni se utilicen indebidamente. Los tribunales deben requerir los informes y pruebas técnicas respectivas, y solicitarlos a quien legalmente corresponda brindarlos, pues su labor es controlar la legalidad, tanto de lo hecho por los particulares como de lo informado por los entes públicos. Por ende , resulta incorrecto que un juzgador asuma un rol que no le corresponde y omita con ello requerir los informes técnicos respectivos. Además, cuando se trata de bienes de dominio público, no puede omitir se la verificación de que no se afecten indebidamente de alguna forma. La carga de la prueba le corresponde a la parte titulante, no a la Procuraduría. Pero dada la naturaleza de lo que en ocasiones debe verificarse, por lo general, los tribunales de oficio pueden y deben requerir directamente los informes respectivos a los entes públicos. En otras palabras, cuando estén de por medio bienes de dominio público, los tribunal es debe n garantizar y tener certeza que no se vean afectados. La Procuraduría es también contralora de legalidad, y coadyuva con ello a la función jurisdiccional. Pero el que dicho ente no alegue una ilegalidad o no aporte un informe que permita tener certeza sobre la no afectación de bienes de dominio público, no exime a los tribunales de sus deberes al respecto. Por ende, debe el Juzgado de instancia requerir directamente los informes respectivos a los entes competentes, que le permitieran contar con una prueba idónea y eficaz que apoy e su decisión sobre si se afectan o no áreas de dominio público. Tales resultan ser las Municipalidades (cuando se trata de la red vial cantonal), el Departamento de Previsión Vial del MOPT (cuando se trate de la red vial nacional o caminos vecinales), la Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT (cuando existen líneas ferroviarias nacionales), el MINAET (cuando se trata de áreas de protección y de áreas silvestres protegidas), el IGN (para la zona marítima terrestre), etc. Además, e n lo que interesa para este caso, debe resaltar que el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos dispone: “El ancho de las carreteras y de los caminos vecinales será el que indique los Departamentos Técnicos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, sin que pueda ser menor de veinte metro para las primeras y de catorce metros para los segundos” (lo subrayado no es del original). Por ende, solo el ente público competente puede dar fe sobre cuál es el ancho efectivo de una calle en determinado sector. d) Asimismo, pese a que la PGR solicitó se atendiese la petición de la Dirección de Ferrocarriles sobre suministrarle información sobre como ubicar el inmueble a titular, dicho requerimiento n o fue debidamente atendido , como era lo debido, máxime si en autos constaba la dirección, pues el titulante la había suministrado por requerírsela el Juzgado con anterioridad (folio 61). Tampoco se resaltó por parte del Juzgador, que al menos catastralmente si se respetaba el derecho de vía del ferrocarril (de acuerdo con el visado del plano), por lo que el informe que se solicitaba a la Dirección de Ferrocarriles debía verificar si en la materialidad también se respetaba, dado que la parte titulante procedió a correr el lindero suroeste de su finca por orden del Juzgado.
VI .- Lleva razón la PGR al alegar la sentencia debe ser anulada. De conformidad con lo explicado, fue emitida en forma anticipada, pues los tribunales deben tener certeza no solo de que en la materialidad de los terrenos se respeta n los anchos de vía referidos ; también e l plano base del proceso debe respetarlo s . El a quo, de acuerdo con lo que consta en autos, antes de dictar el fallo cuestionado , no contaba con la información requerida para tener por debidamente acreditado que los derechos de vía de la calle pública y ferroviario , se respetaron catastral y materialmente, a través de los informes respectivos emitidos por los entes públicos competentes. Esto no solo era necesario , por lo indicado en el considerando anterior en cuanto a que la Dirección de Ferrocarriles requería de información sobre la ubicación de la finca para poder brindar su informe , sino que tampoco consta que el plano L-1384216-2009 respeta efectivamente el derecho de vía de la calle pública colindante, ni en la materialidad, ni tampoco catastralmente, pues aunque en él se consigna que la calle tiene un ancho de catorce metros, no se ha emitido siquiera el informe respectivo que de fe sobre si ese era el ancho efectivo de la calle pública frente al terreno a titular . Máxime en este caso, donde existen en forma contigua, dos áreas de domin i o público con fines diferentes, por lo que resulta necesario que los entes públicos competentes verifiquen e inform en en el proceso , cuál es el ancho de ellas en la zona donde colindan con el terreno objeto del proceso , así como que tal se respetó catastral y materialmente . Por consiguiente, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la normativa referida en el primer considerando respecto de la tutela de bienes demaniales, el artículo 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias (que exige los tribunales impidan la titulación de bienes pertenecientes al Estado) y lo regulado en materia de nulidades procesales (artículos 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria y 194, 197, 198 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicados supletoriamente), debe anularse la sentencia, para que el tribunal de instancia corrija procedimientos, y cuente con la información necesaria antes indicada, solicitada oportunamente por la PGR, previo a determinar, en sentencia, la procedencia de la titulación requerida por el promovente (ver voto 494 del 26 de mayo del 2010 del Tribunal Agrario).
VII.- De conformidad con lo expuesto, procede anular la sentencia cuestionada por anticipada. Deberá el juzgado de instancia readecuar los procedimientos, solicitando los informes a los entes públicos competentes, a través de los cuáles se verifique si el plano base del proceso afecta o no el derecho de vía de la calle pública y si en la materialidad del terreno a titular, se respetan ambos derechos de vía, tanto el de la calle pública, como el de la vía ferroviaria , dado que son contiguas entre sí. Si no si es así, debe ordenar las correcciones correspondientes. Deberá además brindar a la Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT , la información requerida por éste para que pueda rendir el informe pendiente, o bien coordinar lo que sea necesario para que, junto con el titulante, pueda realizar la visita al lugar. La suscrita anula la sentencia 83-2011 del 30 de junio del 2011 emitida por el Juzgado de instancia. Debe el juzgado de instancia readecuar los procedimientos, solicitando los informes a los entes públicos competentes, a través de los cuáles se verifique si el plano base del proceso afecta o no el derecho de vía de la calle pública y si en la materialidad del terreno a titular, se respetan ambos derechos de vía, tanto el de la calle pública, como el de la vía ferroviaria . Si no si es así, debe ordenar las correcciones correspondientes. Deberá además brindar a la Dirección de Ferrocarriles del MOPT , la información requerida por éste para que pueda rendir el informe pendiente, o bien coordinar lo que sea necesario para que, junto con el titulante, se pueda realizar la visita al lugar.
[Nombre9] INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVENTE: [Nombre1] [Nombre10] Constancia de notificación Parte u otros Resultado Fecha Servidor (a) EDGAR ALBERTO ESQUIVEL ZAMORA [Telf1] PGR ESTRADOS IDA [Telf2]
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.