Annulment of maritime-terrestrial zone registration via lesividadAnulación de inscripción en zona marítimo terrestre por lesividad

**FILE NUMBER:** CED112110 **ORDINARY PROCEEDING** **BY:** THE STATE **AGAINST:** INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, LA PRIETA S.A., MOGADOR DE PESCA, S.A. AND PENCA POINT LTDA.

120-2013-VI **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. SIXTH SECTION.** Annex A, Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Goicoechea, at ten hours ten minutes on the thirtieth of September two thousand thirteen.

Ordinary proceeding of *lesividad* (action to annul State acts) filed by the State, represented by the Procurador, Mauricio Castro Lizano, identification card number CED31145, against the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, represented by its Executive President, Nombre33207 , identification card number CED19555. Acting as general judicial attorney-in-fact for the Institute is Licenciada Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, identification card number CED28225. The claim is also established against La Prieta S.A., legal entity identification number CED111843; Penca Point Limitada, legal entity identification number CED111844, represented by Nombre39801 , identification card number CED111678. Acting as special attorney-in-fact for the company is Elías Shadid Esquivel, identification card number CED111845, and Mogador de Pesca S.A., legal entity identification number CED111846, represented by Nombre142309 , identification card number CED10433. Acting as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the company is José Alberto Schroeder Leiva, identification card number CED88425.

**WHEREAS** **I.-** Based on the facts set forth and the legal citations adduced, the claims of the plaintiff, as set out in the complaint, are: "1) The property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27986 is null from its registration, therefore the National Registry must cancel volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 97, entry 9470, as it improperly encompasses lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), a public domain asset where the powers of administrative self-protection apply. 2) The cadastral map number G-955494-1991 is null, and consequently the National Registry must cancel it, because it includes lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). 3) Entry 2344 of volume 391 is null and the National Registry must cancel it, according to the document presented to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991 and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from the public deed of 18:00 hrs. on October 30, 1991, issued before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 4) Entry 10616 of volume 556 is null and must be cancelled, according to the document presented to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005 and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 18:00 hours on August 8, 2005, issued before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda, the property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849. 5) Both costs and their respective interests are to be borne by the defendants." **II.-** Having granted the legal hearing, the defendants, with the exception of La Prieta S.A., answered the claim negatively. The IDA did not raise preliminary defenses or substantive pleas. Penca Point Ltda. and Mogador de Pesca S.A. raised the pleas of lack of right and lack of active and passive standing. Nombre142709 also raised positive and negative prescription (adverse possession/extinctive prescription).

**III.-** By resolution No. 4720-2010, of eight hours on December twenty, two thousand ten, previously granted on a provisional basis by resolution of sixteen hours on September twenty-eight of the same year, the precautionary measure requested by the State was granted and the notation on the margin of the property Partido de Guanacaste registration number Placa27849 and on the cadastral map Placa27987 was maintained.

**IV.-** By resolution of fourteen hours five minutes on March nine, two thousand twelve, the corporation La Prieta S.A. is declared in default, the answers to the claims by the other co-defendants are deemed filed, and the pleas of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, as well as positive and negative prescription (adverse possession/extinctive prescription), are deemed raised. Likewise, the parties were summoned to a preliminary hearing.

**V.-** The preliminary hearing was held starting at thirteen hours thirty minutes on May twenty-five, two thousand twelve, with the presence of the Procurador Mauricio Castro Lizano, on behalf of the State, Licenciada Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, on behalf of the IDA, and Licenciados Elías Shadid Esquivel and José Schroeder Leiva, on behalf of Penca Point S.A. and Mogador de Pesca S.A., respectively. In said hearing, the Processing Judge reserved for judgment the consideration of the prescription (adverse possession/extinctive prescription) plea raised by the co-defendant companies. The parties issued their respective conclusions.

**VI.-** By resolution of eleven hours fifteen minutes on December thirteen, two thousand twelve, the Tribunal requested, as evidence for better resolution, that the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (hereinafter IGN) issue a formal certification regarding the location of the boundary markers in the disputed area.

**VII.-** By brief submitted on February fourth of this year, the IGN presented the requested information.

**VIII.-** By resolution of fifteen hours on February eighteenth of this year, the documentary evidence produced was made known to the parties.

**IX.** By briefs submitted on February twenty-seven, two thousand thirteen, the State and Penca Point Ltda., responded to the hearing granted.

**X.** The proceedings have followed the prescriptions of law, and the judgment is pronounced unanimously, after rigorous deliberation.- **CONSIDERING** **I.- PRELIMINARY:** In the Preliminary Hearing held for this purpose, no clarification was made regarding the claims of the proceeding, therefore those indicated in the complaint and transcribed in Whereas Clause I of this resolution will be taken.

**II. PROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following facts are deemed as proven: 1) That map Placa27988, registered on September twenty-seven, nineteen seventy-one in the National Cadastre of the National Registry, describes a property to be titled, with an area of one hectare one hundred fifteen meters eighty-nine square decimeters, located in Dirección11190 , of Canton 10 La Cruz of the Province of Guanacaste, with the following description: pasture land. Boundaries: North: Inalienable strip (faja inalienable) and Nombre142710 . South: road. East: Inalienable strip (faja inalienable). West: road. Property of Nombre142711 (see folio twenty-two of the judicial file). 2) That in entry one, registered on folios four hundred three and four hundred four of volume two thousand one hundred twenty, property twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven of the Partido de Guanacaste was registered, with the following description: Pasture land, located in Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, Dirección17284 , . Boundaries: North: public road, with a frontage on that road of one hundred seventy-four meters. South: inalienable zone (zona inalienable) fifty meters wide, property of the State. East: Nombre142712 . West: inalienable zone (zona inalienable) fifty meters wide, property of the State. The indicated measurement was six hectares, seven thousand four hundred sixty-seven meters, forty-three square decimeters, according to cadastral map G-nine thousand seven hundred forty-nine-seventy-one. According to the content of the registration entry text, the company La Prieta S.A., through its representative Nombre142713 , to register the property, promoted possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) before the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (hereinafter ITCO) in which it indicated that it acquired it by purchase from Nombre142712 on January ten, nineteen seventy and since then possessed it in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner. The entry continues to indicate that the ITCO, in a judgment at nine hours ten minutes on October thirteen, nineteen seventy-two, ordered the registration of the property, with the reservations, restrictions, and encumbrances contained in the mentioned entry. Likewise, it is recorded that the registration is made based on what is stated in the deed issued in San José, at eight hours on August first, nineteen seventy-three, before Notary Oscar Saborío Castro, according to the testimony presented before the Public Registry, at twelve hours twenty minutes on the seventh of the same month and year, in volume four hundred ninety-seven, entry nine thousand four hundred sixty of the Public Registry Daily. Said property was transferred under registration number Placa27989, on October seven, nineteen eighty-two (see folios 26 to 28 of the judicial file). 3) That map G-955494-91, registered in the National Cadastre of the National Registry, on March eleven, nineteen ninety-one, describes the following property: To rectify area. Scrubland (charral) land, located in Potrero, District 4, Tempate, Canton 5 Santa Cruz of Province 5, Guanacaste. Area: two hectares four thousand five hundred seventy-five meters, ninety-nine square decimeters. Nature: scrubland (charral). Boundaries: Inalienable zone (zona inalienable) of the State and public street. South: inalienable zone (zona inalienable) of the State. East: Inalienable zone (zona inalienable) of the State and West: Dirección336 and Dirección17285 . It corresponds to Folio Real Placa27990 (see folio 23 of the judicial file). 4) That by deed number fifty-nine, issued at eighteen hours on October thirty, nineteen ninety-one, before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón and presented to the Public Registry Daily, volume three hundred twenty-one, entry two thousand three hundred forty-four, La Prieta S.A., as the owner of the property of Partido de Guanacaste twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, with the description given in fact two of this relation, rectifies the measurement of the same, so that instead of sixty-seven thousand four hundred sixty-seven meters forty-three square decimeters and based on cadastral map Placa27850, the actual area of the same is registered, which is twenty-four thousand five hundred seventy-five meters ninety-nine square decimeters. In the same act, it sells the indicated property, for the sum of five million colones, to the company Mogador de Pesca S.A. Said rectification and sale were registered on September eleven, nineteen ninety-two (see folios 17 to 20 of the registry reports file). 5) That by deed number fifty-five, issued at eighteen hours on August eight, two thousand five, before Public Notary Mauricio González Crespo, presented to the Public Registry Daily, in volume five hundred fifty-six, entry ten thousand six hundred sixteen, the company Mogador de Pesca S.A. transfers in fiduciary ownership the property Dirección17286 , to the company Penca Point S.A. Said transfer was registered on August twenty-two, two thousand five (see folios 24 and 25 of the registry reports file). 6) That by resolution of seven hours fifty-three minutes on June ten, two thousand eight, of the Public Registry of Immovable Property, within the administrative proceedings filed by Nombre29452 to investigate the possible displacement and overlap affecting the property of Partido de Guanacaste 26327, it was resolved: "I. REJECT AD PORTAS, the present administrative proceedings filed by Nombre29452 , for lacking standing to act in this venue. II.- ORDER the lifting of the administrative warning recorded on the property of Partido de GUANACASTE registration number Placa27983 (Placa27991). III.- ORDER the opening of official file No. 08-390-BI to conduct the corresponding investigation. IV- Attach a copy of this resolution to file 08-390-BI." (see folios 1 and 2 of the administrative file). 7) By resolution of thirteen hours fifty-five minutes on June nineteen, two thousand eight, of the Public Registry of Immovable Property, an administrative warning was recorded on the property of Partido de Guanacaste registration number Placa27983 , while the investigations warranted by the case are carried out, and it was simultaneously resolved to send an official letter to the Dirección del Catastro Nacional requesting the respective study to verify the situation under investigation. 8) That by official letter No. DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Nombre12413 , Head of the Interinstitutional Support Unit of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, with the approval of Nombre22360 , Head of the cited Department of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, addressed to Licenciado Mauricio Castro Lizano, Procurador, it was stated: "The property described in cadastral map No. Placa27988, located in Dirección17287 , : 10º La Cruz, Province, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and correlating it with the information available to the office, the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Furthermore, the property described in cadastral map G-955494-91, located in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and correlating it with the information available in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the Restricted Zone (Zona Restringida), and additionally, between vertices 8 to 10 it encompasses an area of the public zone (zona pública). Regarding indicating the approximate distance between both lands at their closest points, the same is approximately 64,220 m." (see folio 10 of the administrative file). 9) By resolution of eight hours eleven minutes on April twenty-eight, two thousand nine, of the Public Registry of Immovable Property, the overlap with the concession rights described in maps G-128268-1993 and G-132740-1993 was ruled out, therefore it was decided to continue with the study corresponding to the information provided on the overlap of property 26327 in relation to map G-934467-2004, which describes a concession that has not generated a title. In the same resolution, the precautionary measure noted on the indicated property is maintained, and a hearing is granted for a period of fifteen business days to the company Penca Point Limitada, legal identification CED111844 in its capacity as fiduciary of the property of Partido de GUANACASTE registration number Placa27991, to the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, and to the Procuraduría General de la República. (see folio 70 of the administrative file). 10) That by brief received at the Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble on May twenty-one, two thousand nine, the Municipality responded to the hearing granted and explained the overlap situation between map G-934467-2004, through which a land was requested in concession by the company Paseo Mar y Cielo S.A., and which overlaps with the property in question. (see folios 80 to 83 of the file). 11) That by brief submitted on May twenty-nine, two thousand nine, before the Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble, the company Penca Point Limitada, responded to the hearing granted. (see folios 88 to 96 of the administrative file). 12) That by resolution of fourteen hours twenty-four minutes on June ten, two thousand nine, of the Real Estate Registry, it was resolved, in what is relevant, to immobilize the property of Partido de Guanacaste registration number Placa27983 in accordance with Article 88 of the Reglamento del Registro Público, which will be maintained until a competent judicial authority has heard the correction of the registry inaccuracy that gave rise to the proceedings and orders the lifting of the referred immobilization, or until the owners and interested parties of said property appear to execute a public deed through which the situation affecting the property is corrected. (see folios 106 to 116 of the administrative file). 13) That by Resolution No. 545 of thirteen hours on October twenty-two, two thousand nine, the Minister of Justice resolved: "Declare as harmful to the interests of the State (lesivos) the document registered on September 9, 1973 in volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, relating to the property registration of Partido de Guanacaste registration of Folio Real number Placa27984 () - - (26327-000), according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 297, entry 9470. The cadastre of map number G-95594-91. The document presented on November 22, 1991 to the Public Registry Daily in volume 391, entry 2344, and registered on September 14, 1992, by which La Prieta S.A. sold to Nombre142709 the property of the partido de Guanacaste registered under folio real number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000). The document presented on August 10, 2005 to the Public Registry Daily under volume 556, entry 10616, and registered on August 22, 2005, by which Mogador de Pesca S.A., transferred the property of the partido de Guanacaste of folio real number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000), in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point S.A. Notify the Procuraduría General de la República so that it files the respective action before the Contencioso-Administrativo Jurisdiction." (see folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file). 14) That the *lesividad* proceeding was filed on September twenty-seven, two thousand ten (see folio 2 of the judicial file). 15) That Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, became effective on April twenty-two, nineteen seventy. In its Transitory III, it was established: "Those persons who prove to have possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), for more than thirty years, may request title of ownership over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such properties during part of that time as tenants, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that set by the current Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). In this case, there shall be no limitation regarding the extent of the lot or property to be registered in the name of the interested party." (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System). 16) That through Law 4847 of October four, nineteen seventy-one, Transitory III of Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, was repealed (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System). 17) That through Law 5602 of November four, nineteen seventy-four, the effectiveness of Law 4558 was suspended. (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System). 18) That through Law 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre of March two, nineteen seventy-seven, Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, was repealed in its entirety (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System). 19) That by official letter No. DGT-020-13, from the Department of Geodesy and Topography of the National Registry, the location of the boundary markers of the property in question was sent to this Office (see folios 200 to 204 of the judicial file).

**III.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** 1.-) That La Prieta Sociedad Anónima proved possession for more than thirty years required by Transitory III of Law 4558.

**IV. PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING:** According to the declaration of *lesividad* made by the Minister of Justice, the purpose of this proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the property of Partido de Guanacaste, registration of Folio Real Placa27985 , titled in favor of the company La Prieta S.A., and the transfers subsequently made, and map number G-95594-91, because the property is within the Zona Marítimo Terrestre.

**V. ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF:** In summary, the State's representative provides an account of the registry and cadastral acts that served as the basis for the registration of the property of Partido de Guanacaste twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, originally in favor of La Prieta S.A., then to Mogador de Pesca S.A., and finally in the name of Penca Point Limitada. Likewise, it points out the investigations carried out by the Public Registry to determine that the maps that served as the basis for registering the properties located them within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and even within the public zone (zona pública), which is why the immobilization of the property was ordered. It concludes that both property 5-26327-000 and map G-955494-1991 improperly include public domain assets that belong to the State located in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and that this led to the declaration of *lesividad* that is the object of this proceeding. As the legal basis for its claim, it affirms that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) belongs to the State and, as a demanial asset, is inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, and cannot be claimed by adverse possession (indenunciable). It maintains that, in the case of natural public domain assets, as occurs with the coastal zone, the principle of inmatriculation (inmatriculación) applies, and to consolidate its regime, its declaration and affectation for use by law is sufficient, and it can only be declassified (desafectar) from the public domain in the same manner. For this reason, it considers that the removal of a demanial asset from its public purpose by administrative act is illegal. It adds that registration does not validate the nullity of a title and that the registration does not cure the defects that the registered document or the act contained therein has, and they subsist independently of it. It states that before an illegitimate registration, the private individual acquires no right over the asset and that the same occurs with the cadastre of surveying maps, as they also do not confer ownership or possession rights, just as there is no useful or valid exercise of possession because it is a public domain asset. It concludes that since the registration of property Placa27986 improperly encompasses lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), its nullity defects are absolute and imprescriptible, both due to the nature of the asset and the absence of valid ownership and for contravening prohibitive laws. In the conclusions delivered at the Preliminary Hearing held for this purpose, regarding the pleas raised by the co-defendant parties, it indicates that the nullity is being requested of registry and cadastral entries for a land that is within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), and that the State is its owner and representation thereof corresponds to the Procuraduría General de la República, therefore it has active standing. Regarding prescription, it maintains that public domain assets are not affected by prescription or expiration, by virtue of Article 7 of the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Likewise, it affirms that in application of Article 34.2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (hereinafter CPCA), *lesividad* regarding public domain assets is not subject to time limits. As for the plea of lack of passive standing with respect to the IDA, it must be assessed that the origin of the registration was processed in an ITCO file and, for that reason, it appears as a party in the proceeding. Regarding the application of Transitory III of Law 4558, according to its text, the possessory information (información posesoria) should have been processed before the corresponding Court, so since that procedure was not carried out, the registration is null. Finally, it points out that all the facts in the claim are accredited.

**VI. ARGUMENTS OF THE INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO:** The IDA completely denies having processed and approved possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) in October 1971 in the name of the company Nombre142714 , by resolution at nine hours ten minutes on October thirteen, nineteen seventy-two, based on Article 24 of Law 4545 of March 20, 1970. Under that legal body, the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (hereinafter ITCO) was competent to process possessory informations (informaciones posesorias), and Law 2825, in its Article 30 subsection 23, established that it was the Board of Directors that was competent to exercise the other functions and attributions corresponding to it in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers that it was the Board of Directors that corresponded to approve or disapprove the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) provided for in Law 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information (información posesoria) in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of cases admitted, kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of Nombre142714 , nor a resolution issued in the name of the company, just as in the Notarial Archive, protocolization of the administrative resolution of the ITCO, by which administrative possessory information (información posesoria) is approved in the name of La Prieta S.A., is not reported in the indices of Public Notary Oscar Saborío Castro for the first half of August. On the other hand, it mentions that in Article 11 of Law 4545, the requests for possessory information (información posesoria) were made known to the Procurador Agrario, so if the ITCO had handled the mentioned proceedings, the Procuraduría General de la República should have a file of the case resulting from the transfer made for its knowledge. It requests that the judgment declare that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors, on October 13, 1972, possessory information (información posesoria) in the name of La Prieta S.A., over land located in Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, district four, canton three of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral map number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the proceeding as a defendant, and be exempted from liability, including the costs of the proceeding.

**VII. POSITION OF MOGADOR DE PESCA S.A.:** The company argues that the State declines to mention that the property was registered under Transitory 3 of Law 4545, since the legislator authorized and legalized the registration of properties that qualified under the requirements established therein, and that the property that was once in its ownership met those requirements, therefore it is not public domain. It also considers that the State claims the nullity of the title based on mistaken facts, since the property was not created in 1991 but was registered in 1973 in accordance with the legislation in force at that time, and the fact that there is a material error in the map does not result in the nullity of the property and its registration. Based on the foregoing, i.e., that the registration of the property is valid, it concludes that the inclusion of cadastral map G-955494-91 to describe the property and to decrease its area is also valid. It also considers that if there were any defect in the registration of the map or its use for the indicated purpose, any action to challenge and annul the map or its use has already prescribed, as more than ten years have elapsed, and that Article 456 of the Civil Code protects the acquirer who relies on what the Registry states. It indicates that the State does not prove that the property is incorrectly registered. In the conclusions given at the Preliminary Hearing, it also stated that the transfer was made in good faith, and that the registration was made based on Transitory III of Law 4558, so the property left the State's domain, and for that reason, the institute of prescription is applicable. Furthermore, it maintains that the acquisition was made under the protection of Article 456 of the Civil Code, based on registry publicity. Finally, it requests that if the claim is granted, they be exempted from paying costs, due to evident good faith.

**VIII. POSITION OF PENCA POINT LIMITADA:** The co-defendant bases its opposition, firstly, on Article 6 of Law 6043, which indicates that the provisions of the law do not apply to properties registered subject to law, so it should not apply to the property in question, as the same was registered at the time under the protection of Law 4558, following the possessory information procedure (procedimiento de informaciones posesorias) described in Law 4545, as is evident from its registration entry. It argues that with this latter law, the ITCO was empowered to process possessory informations (informaciones posesorias) and grant administrative property titles.

It adds that while Law 4545 was in force, Law 4558 was approved, which in its Transitory III empowered all persons who had possessed lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) to request title of ownership over the real estate, provided the conditions indicated in the legal text were met, using for such purposes the procedure set forth in the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which empowered La Prieta S.A. to obtain title to land within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). It considers that the State has not offered any evidence aimed at verifying that the possessory information (información posesoria) proceeding was not carried out in compliance with the laws applicable at the time of its processing, probably because the file for the possessory information (información posesoria) was lost by the IDA, and therefore, since there is no certainty regarding the legal basis upon which the possessory information (información posesoria) was approved, the application of the principle in dubio pro administrado is mandatory in its favor, and it must be taken as a fact that property Dirección17288 was registered under the protection of the law, which would lead to the conclusion that its creation does not violate the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). In the conclusions set forth at the Preliminary Hearing, the corporation indicated that there is a lack of active standing because the real estate is not within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and that, for this same circumstance, it cannot be sued either.

XI. ON THE EFFECTS OF DEFAULT (REBELDÍA)

Duty of the Court to analyze the plaintiff's right and claim despite the declaration of default (rebeldía). Article 65 of the CPCA states that if the defendant does not answer the complaint within the established period, it shall be declared in default (rebelde) ex officio and the complaint shall be deemed affirmatively answered regarding the facts, without prejudice to the defendant's ability to appear at any time, taking the proceeding in the state in which it finds itself. Regarding the effects of the declaration of default (rebeldía), the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated that "...Certainly, the failure to answer the complaint leads to default (rebeldía) and to having the facts deemed affirmatively answered, but it does not negate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual framework. But furthermore, the defaulting party (rebelde) may appear at any time in the proceeding and offer new evidence (arts. Placa21479 .), which, if relevant for the clarification of the facts, the judge may admit to better resolve. Consequently, default (rebeldía) alone is not sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only reaches this value if other evidence of equal standing does not contradict the ficta answer. Therefore, default (rebeldía) must be assessed with the rest of the evidentiary elements existing in the proceeding.” (Voto 801-F-02 of 11 hours 10 minutes of October 18, 2002). Thus, it would not be enough with the answer in default (rebeldía) to grant the requests of the counterclaim, if other elements of judgment lead, under the application of the rules of sound criticism, to the verification that the necessary legal preconditions to grant the requested claims do not exist..." (See resolution No. 991-F-2004, of 15 hours 20 minutes of November 17, 2004). Under this context, it can be deduced that the declaration of default (rebeldía) does not negate the jurisdictional body's power to gather evidence, verify the factual framework as well as the plaintiff's claims, and resolve the substantive defenses. Although the procedural effect of default (rebeldía) implies the affirmative answer to the facts invoked in the complaint, the truth of the matter is that this effect does not relieve the judge of his duty to examine the evidence and analyze the merits of the case. Despite the scope of default (rebeldía), the duty to prove the constitutive facts of the right claimed in court remains, as derived from numeral 82 of the CPCA, in relation to precept 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applicable supplementarily in this matter as permitted by article 220 of the CPCA. This burden of proof, as a prerequisite for the success of the claims, subsists regardless of whether the opposing party answered the complaint or not; ergo, the mere declaration of default (rebeldía) does not negate the plaintiff's obligation to prove its right. In this sense, default (rebeldía), even with its procedural effects, is a different institution from acquiescence (allanamiento); therefore, its occurrence does not automatically entail the granting of what was requested without a review on the merits. Consequently, under these circumstances, the judge must not assume the nonexistence of controversy and dispense with the evidence, but must seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of article 82 of the same Procedural Code and by the legality control that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (article 49 of the Political Constitution and article 1 of the Procedural Code in question). Consistent with what has been explained, it is the criterion of this Court that in this case, despite the declaration of default (rebeldía) of the corporation La Prieta S.A., the body of evidence brought to the record must be analyzed in order to verify the factual framework and define whether or not the plaintiff's claims have legal basis.

X.PRECONDITIONS FOR THE LESIVITY PROCEEDING. In the present case, the State seeks a declaration of nullity of the following registry inscriptions: "1) The ownership of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27986 is null from its inscription, therefore the National Registry must cancel volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 97, entry 9470, as it improperly covers lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), a public domain asset where the powers of administrative self-protection rule. 2) The cadastral map number Placa27987 is null, and consequently the National Registry must cancel it, because it comprises lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). 3) Entry 2344 of volume 391 is null and the National Registry must cancel it, according to the document presented to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991 and registered on September 14, 1992, originated by public deed of 18:00 hrs. of October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 4) Entry 10616 of volume 556 is null and must be canceled, according to the document presented to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005 and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 18:00 hours of August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda, the real estate inscribed in the Partido de Guancaste, registration number Placa27849." as it considers them detrimental to public interests. From this standpoint, it is necessary to briefly establish compliance with the various preconditions imposed by the legal system for the filing of a lesivity proceeding, since the absence of one of these elements would prevent and make unnecessary the review on the merits. In general, lesivity constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by virtue of which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From this standpoint, in this type of disputes, lesivity is of a subjective nature, insofar as it seeks the annulment of a conduct that grants a right or, in general, a situation of benefit to a person. This figure is positivized in article 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), a norm that sets the prior elements and procedural regulations of this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). From the perspective of procedural preconditions, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active standing is granted to the Administration that issued the questioned act, while the passive legitimate party is the recipient of the effects of the conduct, that is, the one who obtains its benefits. Regarding the objective aspect, lesivity constitutes a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-compliant with the legal system, that is, acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (articles 128, 158, 165 and concordant articles of the cited General Law No. 6227). Along these lines, the Administration must declare that conduct detrimental to public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal actions of the administration that are imperative to formulate the action. In effect, in the procedural order, it is required that the supreme highest authority of the respective Public Administration declare the lesivity of the act, whether due to harm to economic, fiscal, or other interests deriving from the public interest, for which purpose, it must have a technical-legal opinion base supporting that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conducts, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only internal actions within the Administration, since it will be within the judicial proceeding that the third party may raise its defense arguments. However, when the act emanates from the State (see article 1 of the cited General Law), that is, from the Central Administration, the lawsuit may only be filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) (canon 16 of Law No. Placa494), upon prior request of the supreme highest authority and prior internal declaration of lesivity, detailing the reasons for that criterion. Regarding the temporal dimension, the new procedural regulation establishes a one-year period counted from the issuance of the act (not from its notification) to declare the act detrimental to public interests, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a one-year period is granted to file the contentious-administrative action as a fatal statute of limitations, except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case, the declaration of lesivity may be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of said effects. In that hypothesis, the eventual favorable judgment will decree nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the regime of retroactivity of absolute nullities established by ordinal 171 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). The exception to that one-year temporal aspect is configured in protection of public domain, in which case the lesivity action is not subject to any period due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of assets as derived from article 261 of the Civil Code. However, in tax matters, the lesivity action, in addition to the referenced norms, is regulated in article 165 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). In this fiscal matter, according to article 41 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, the maximum period to file the proceeding shall be the same one imposed by the legal system as the statute of limitations for the respective substantive right. Coupled with this, in this fiscal dynamic, since the natural superior's power of review over the conducts of lower Tax Administrations is prohibited (numeral 102 subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by imperative of law to the Tax Administrative Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), as derived from ordinal 156 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, constituting in that appeal phase an improper single-phase hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the period to declare lesivity that runs against the Minister of the Treasury (competence based on the fact that he holds the condition of supreme highest authority of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), is computed from the moment that said improper single-phase controller brings to the attention of the lower Administration (Administración A quo) what was ordered by virtue of its appellate competence. Before that instant, the natural superior is materially and legally unable to take cognizance of an act that may be potentially detrimental to the fiscal, economic, or public interests that it must protect, and therefore, incapacitated from exercising its powers to declare that action lesiva. Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, since the aforementioned case of improper single-phase hierarchy does not exist, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the period is computed from the adoption of the act. In the present case, from the analysis of the record, it is concluded that the internal declaration of lesivity complies with the indicated preconditions. As the lesivity of the registry acts is based on the improper inscription of part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), according to the State's theory of the case, which is part of the public domain (demanio público), the analysis of the period for filing the lesivity suit will be performed in accordance with article 34.2, without prejudice to what is analyzed later. Said article, as indicated, does not subject the declaration of lesivity over public domain assets to a period. However, once it has been declared, it is understood that it would be subject to the one-year statute of limitations indicated in article 39.1.e) of the CPCA for the filing of the lesivity suit. Having made the preceding clarification, according to what appears in folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file, the Minister of Justice, as Superior of the Public Registry, declared the lesivity of the acts whose nullity is requested in judgment, by resolution of thirteen hours of October twenty-two, two thousand nine. The lesivity suit was filed, as stated in folio two of the judicial file, on September two, two thousand ten, that is, before the one-year period previously indicated. The lawsuit is filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the corporations that have benefited from the questioned acts, so that in terms of the legitimizing scope, both active and passive, the referenced requirements are met. Thus, we proceed to examine the present action.

XI. OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE (ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE)

As recognized by national legislation and jurisprudence, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a public domain asset (bien demanial), which shares the characteristics of this type of asset, which are imprescriptibility, unattachability, and inalienability. Its recognition as such is based on article 261 of the Civil Code, which makes the distinction between assets of public domain (bienes de dominio) and assets of fiscal domain of the administration:

"Public things are those which, by law, are permanently destined to any service of general utility, and those from which everyone can benefit by being given over to public use.

All other things are private and the object of particular property, even if they belong to the State or to the Municipalities, who for this purpose, as civil persons, are not differentiated from any other person." Likewise, this recognition has been made since the last century, as has been repeatedly established by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, among others, in judgment 2241-09, of twelve hours eleven minutes of February thirteenth, two thousand nine, in which it indicates:

"In previous judgments, this Court has repeatedly recognized (among others, see judgments number 2360-93, 5399-93, 5977-93, 5976-93, and 0502-I-95), that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a public domain asset (bien demanial); thus, by judgment number 0447-91, of 15:30 hours of February 21, 1991, it clearly considered that it is indeed an asset of public domain, in the terms of article 261 of the Civil Code:

"The public domain nature (carácter demanial) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (or marine shore as it was formerly called) has been recognized since time immemorial, and Roman Law itself records that status, as 'res comunes' and 'extra comercium'. In our environment, the public nature of that marine strip adjacent to the national territory, over which it exercises its sovereignty, has been recognized with all clarity since the last century... it is not possible to consider article 45 of the Constitution violated, since limitations on private property are not imposed, but rather, by regulating the public domain, the law establishes conditions through which the use and enjoyment of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by private individuals is possible. Thus, whoever intends, through unauthorized means, to exercise exclusive use of that zone shall be barred from consummating it, since it is also acceptable, since time immemorial, that these are assets imprescriptible in favor of private individuals and that are outside commerce." The legal nature of public domain property (propiedad demanial) is virtually different, as this Chamber already indicated in resolution number 2306-91 of 14:45 hours of November 6, in which it stated:

"The public domain is made up of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets (bienes dominicales), public domain assets (bienes demaniales), public goods or things, which do not belong individually to private parties and are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged or be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action replaces interdicts to recover the domain. As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a right to ownership. The use permit is a unilateral legal act dictated by the Administration, in the exercise of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the private individual is the useful domain of the asset, with the State always reserving the direct domain over the thing. The precariousness of any right or use permit is inherent to the figure and alludes to the possibility that the administration, at any moment, revokes it, whether due to the State's need to fully occupy the asset, the construction of a public work, as well as for reasons of safety, hygiene, aesthetics, all to the extent that if a conflict of interests arises between the purpose of the asset and the granted permit, the natural use of the public thing must prevail. Consequently, the national regime for public domain assets places them outside the commerce of men and therefore the permits granted will always be precarious and revocable by the Administration, unilaterally, when reasons of necessity or general interest so dictate." Likewise, in resolution N°1996-05756 of fourteen hours forty-two minutes of October thirtieth, nineteen ninety-six, the Chamber indicated:

“Within that property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public and the restricted zone. The public zone is, by definition, excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of private individuals, and cannot be the object of occupation in any case, as it is destined for 'public use,' as clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that are inaccessible due to their topography. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works in said zone is permitted, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the respective municipality, always observing the public use to which they must be destined. The regime of this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing can be built by private individuals, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and with the understanding that they will be destined for public use. It should be noted that the regime of this zone is so strict that if, due to natural causes, the topography changes and modifies the demarcation of the zones, and constructions end up within the public zone, rights over what exists shall be conserved, but modifications or remodeling may not be made, seeking their relocation to the restricted zone or, as a last resort, their expropriation. Thus establishes Article 24 of the Law, which states:

“Article 24: If due to natural causes the topography of the land varies with the consequent change in distances and for that reason a construction or installation ends up located within the public zone, the owner shall conserve their rights but may not carry out repairs or remodeling. Its relocation to the restricted zone or its alignment to it shall be sought, with authorized assistance from the respective municipality or the Costa Rican Tourism Institute if dealing with a person of scarce economic resources. If the above is not possible, its expropriation shall proceed.” Even for properties inscribed before the enactment of the law, with lands that comprise the public zone, the particular use of the same is absolutely restricted and shall only proceed with express agreements of the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) (Article 25), as well as the exceptions established in Article 18 for certain specific projects, such as port structures, industrial plants, etc., which by their own nature need to be built near the sea, in which case the express authorization of the mentioned institutions is also necessary.” Similarly, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has referred in detail to the historical evolution of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) in judgment 007-93, of fifteen hours five minutes of January twentieth, nineteen ninety-three:

Although the current legal regime of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) is basically established by Law Nº 6043 of March 2, 1977, and its amendments and additions, for a correct understanding of the legal implications of this matter, it is convenient to analyze the legislative evolution on the subject, emphasizing the aspects referring both to the determination of its legal nature, as a public domain asset (bien de dominio público), and to its surface extension. In this regard, many have been the normative provisions that in one way or another have established regulations on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), previously better known as milla marítima. Some of them - the most important - are the following: Law Nº 162 of June 8, 1828, Decree Nº 12 of December 10, 1839, Law Nº 14 of February 26, 1840, Law Nº 128 of August 19, 1853, Decree Nº 4 of July 30, 1858, Law Nº 7 of August 31, 1868, Law Nº 42 of August 13, 1875, Law Nº 22 of February 7, 1881, Water Law Nº 8 of May 26, 1884 and its amendments, Fiscal Code of 1885 (Law Nº 8 of October 31, 1885), Law Nº 58 of July 29, 1892, Law Nº 7 of November 4, 1892, Law Nº 15 of March 27, 1896, Law Nº 60 of August 13, 1914, Law Nº 82 of April 5, 1923, Law Nº 75 of August 30, 1924, Law Nº 11 of October 22, 1926, by which the Fiscal Code of 1885 was amended, Law Nº 29 of December 3, 1934, General Law of Vacant Lands (Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos) Nº 13 of January 10, 1939, Decree Nº 6 of April 2, 1940 (Regulation to the General Law of Vacant Lands), Law Nº 19 of November 12, 1942, Law No. 201 of August 26, 1943, Decree Law Nº 500 of April 19, 1949, Law of Lands and Colonization (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) Nº 2825 of October 14, 1961, Law Nº 2906 of November 24, 1961, Law Nº 4071 of January 22, 1968, Forest Law (Ley Forestal) Nº 4465 of November 25, 1969, Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) Nº 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law Nº 4928 of December 17, 1971 that amended the former, and Law Nº 5602 of November 4, 1974, which suspended it. It is not necessary to conduct an exhaustive analysis of the various normative provisions on the matter; however, it is necessary to point out that from the first legal provision issued in the republican era - Law Nº 162 of June 28, 1828 - the reservation of one maritime mile on the coasts of both seas was established, which, according to what was recorded in Law Nº 128 of August 19, 1953, had been so since the colonial era by provision of the Royal Decree (Real Cédula) of October 15, 1754. Throughout the 19th century, the various laws issued reaffirm this concept, providing for the reservation of one maritime mile along both coastlines. The General Regulations of the Public Treasury of 1839, 1858, and 1868 maintained the reservation created in 1828; but, for these purposes, what is important to take into account is the clear determination, in the legislation enacted in the last century, of the so-called maritime mile (milla marítima) as a public domain asset (bien de dominio público), with its consequent character of inalienability and undenounceability. Thus, for example, the General Code of 1841 considered the ebb and flow of the sea and its shores as public domain; the aforementioned Law Nº 7 of August 31, 1868, reaffirmed the undenounceable character of the lands of the maritime mile (milla marítima); in the Water Law Nº 8 of May 26, 1884 - the only disposition of the 19th century in which the term Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) was used - said zone was qualified as public domain; and the Fiscal Code of 1885 established that lands comprised within a zone of one mile in latitude along the coasts of both seas could not be alienated. It is clear then, without detriment to the indicated colonial era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reservation of land along both coastlines has not been part of the vacant lands (baldíos) - the crown lands (tierras realengas) of the Colony - but has always been subject to a different legal regime, that proper to public domain assets and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century - culminating with the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) Nº 6043 of March 2, 1977 - the qualification as public domain assets of the lands comprised in said zone was, obviously, maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the ebb and flow, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century gradually specified the extension of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but at no time denied its character as a public domain asset (bien demanial) and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; thus, the first law enacted in the present century in which reference was made to the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) - Nº 75 of August 30, 1924 - reaffirmed in its article 6 the public domain nature (carácter demanial) of those lands and the impossibility of exploiting and usufructing them. Always reaffirming its inalienable character, it was in Law Nº 11 of October 22, 1922 - which amended the Fiscal Code of 1855 - where for the first time the extension was specified as 1,672 meters from the ordinary high tide line along the coasts of both seas and 500 meters along both banks of the rivers. This measurement was maintained until the year 1942, and was reaffirmed in the Law on Vacant Lands (Ley sobre Terrenos Baldíos) Nº 13 of January 10, 1939 and in the Water Law Nº 276 of August 27, 1942. Law Nº 19 of November 12, 1942 reduced the extension of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line for the Atlantic coast, and Law Nº 201 of January 26, 1943 did the same for the Pacific coast. These two laws constituted, without a doubt, the most important deaffectations (desafectaciones) operated in the zone, as they allowed the private acquisition of its lands, excepting 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line. Starting from these two provisions, and except for the 200 meters counted from the ordinary high tide line, the rest of the 1,672 meters ceased to be public domain from the moment they could be reduced to private domain. However, the lands contained within the 200 meters excepted by the two aforementioned laws continued to be public domain assets, not reducible to private domain because they are inalienable and imprescriptible. Therefore, it is correct to maintain that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) had, as of the mentioned laws, an extension of 200 meters counted from the high tide line, which is what it currently has, maintaining its character as a public domain asset (bien demanial).

This 200-meter measurement, together with the public domain character of the lands comprised therein, was reaffirmed in the then-current Article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and was repeated in the Forestry Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, and in the Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970. However, in this last law, due to the legislator's intention to transfer to the Municipality important areas located within the inalienable 200 meters, with the idea of developing tourist zones, only 50 meters came to be defined as absolutely inalienable, with the remaining 150 passing under the administration of said municipalities when so defined by the Tourism Institute, but those areas of agricultural and non-tourist suitability would continue under the administration of the then Land and Colonization Institute. The indicated 200 meters is the measurement established by Article 9 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, currently in force. From this brief study of the legislation regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to conclude that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high tide line along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone has been of public domain—and the lands comprised therein, public domain assets—since at least 1828. The variations that the legislation of the last and present centuries have introduced on the matter have never generally declassified these 200 meters, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 having rather established a strip greater in extent—the so-called maritime mile—but never smaller. In the same terms as what occurred with Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, regarding the Atlantic Ocean, and Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, regarding the Pacific Ocean, which declassified a significant area going from 1,672 meters to 200 meters, also with Law No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, specifically through its Transitory Provision III, 150 meters of the 200 were declassified, insofar as private individuals who had possessed lots or properties within the 200 meters were authorized to register them through the procedure of Possessory Information Proceedings (Informaciones Posesorias). In this regard, possession of more than 30 years, fulfilled in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, was required. But this provision had a short life, as it was repealed by virtue of Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974. For this reason, there are registry inscriptions in the country within the 150 of the 200 meters—in a relatively recent period—but expressly authorized by law, and only for those titleholders benefited by Transitory Provision III, which was in effect between April 22, 1970, and November 4, 1974. The maritime-terrestrial zone is and always has been, it is repeated, of public domain. Its current legal regime is that established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, its amendments, and its regulation (Decree No. 7841-P of December 16, 1977), this Law being the first specific one on the matter. The characteristics of inalienability (inalienabilidad) and imprescriptibility (imprescriptibilidad) are inherent to it. This is clear from the stipulations of its first article, which to that effect provides: "Article 1. The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this law." Being public domain assets, they belong to the State, are subject to a special legal regime, and their purpose—destination—is common use and exploitation. The inalienability of these assets means nothing other than their not belonging to the commerce of men, similar to the Roman legal concept of "extra commercium" assets. Therefore, said assets cannot be alienated—by any means of private or public law—it being inherent to their legal nature not to be reduced to private domain in any form. Hence another of their characteristics is their imprescriptibility, that is, the non-susceptibility of being acquired through the passage of time under the legal concept of adverse possession (usucapión), since possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time for which it was held. The current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone develops imprescriptibility in its Article 7 by establishing that the lands situated in it may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias), and may not be appropriated or legalized in the name of a private individual by that or any other means. The regulation that the Law makes of the maritime-terrestrial zone is, in all respects, consistent with the public domain character of the lands comprised in it, and it is defined—Article 9—as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific littorals of the Republic, also including the lands and rocks that the sea leaves uncovered at low tide, as well as marine islands, islets, and rocks, any land or natural formation that rises above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic, with the exception of Isla del Coco and other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. Article 10 divides the maritime-terrestrial zone into two sections: the Public Zone (Zona pública) and the Restricted Zone (Zona restringida), the first being the strip of 50 meters wide from the ordinary high tide line, as well as the areas that are uncovered during low tide, the islets, rocks, and other small areas and natural formations that rise out of the sea, and the mangroves of the continental and insular littorals and the estuaries (esteros) (Article 11); and the second being the remaining 150 meters or, in the case of islands, the remaining lands. The law prohibits any type of occupation—under any title—in the Public Zone, but allows concessions in the Restricted Zone, as provided in its Articles 20 and 39, respectively, a technique specific to public domain assets that, by that very fact, does not diminish their character. Said concessions (Article 41) may only be for the use and enjoyment of specific areas under the conditions and for the term that that law determines, the latter being regulated in its Articles 48, 49, and 50, and matters relating to their extinction and cancellation in 51 and 52, respectively. Numeral 56 stipulates the reversion of the full use and enjoyment to the respective municipality, once a concession is extinguished. It is clear, consequently, that since the lands and other formations comprised in the maritime-terrestrial zone are of public domain, the legal possibility of their reduction to private domain in any form must be dismissed; the only manner in which private subjects may use and enjoy said lands—without this implying their private appropriation—is through the concession that the municipalities grant, but only in the 150 meters of the Restricted Zone, or by registration—between 1970 and 1974—in accordance with Transitory Provision III of Law No. 4558 of 1970." At present, the law governing matters relating to the planning of the maritime-terrestrial zone is Law 6043, Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of March 2, 1977, which includes basic aspects such as the distinction between the public zone and the restricted zone, the granting of concessions, and other aspects of interest (Articles 6 and 7). It is understood that no type of right may be exercised over the public zone, whereas in the restricted zone, permits or concessions may be granted, which shall be granted by the respective municipalities. Similarly, Article 7 of the law establishes that through the procedure of possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias), no right may be obtained in the aforementioned zone. However, at the time the events that are the subject of this lawsuit occurred, specifically the titling of the property in the name of La Prieta S.A. (August 7, 1972), Law 4558, Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, was in force, which regulated the use of the zone in the following terms:

"Article 6.- The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone from the ordinary high tide line shall be inalienable and in no case may be subject to lease or sale. Therefore, no one may claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for leisure, recreation, or free circulation. The constructions or installations currently located in that zone may not be remodeled, and in the event of their destruction, new constructions must respect this inalienable zone.

Article 7.- The remaining one hundred fifty meters, inland, may be subject to lease, under the following rules:

• a)Lots intended for building residences or recreational villas for the use of the lessee or his close relations and that do not constitute a lucrative activity may only be leased in extensions no greater than one hectare and provided that the beach frontage does not exceed twenty-five meters. No person together with his spouse or unmarried children may have more than one lease contract of this type.
• b)Parcels intended for the establishment of recreational centers, hotels, motels or restaurants and the like may be leased in larger extensions, in accordance with the planning of the zone. In every case of a lease of this type, the respective municipality must first hear the opinion of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute.
• c)In no case may parcels be leased for the establishment of industries in the zones to which this law refers, except those related to tourism development. But in any case, such industries must be located outside the urban area.
• d)The leases regulated in the preceding subsections shall be granted for a period of one year, but may be extended up to a maximum of ten, at the request of the interested parties. The request for extension must necessarily be made within the month prior to the expiration of the contract, under penalty of definitive cancellation of the lease. In all cases of termination of the lease, the improvements shall remain in favor of the respective municipality." However, in its original version, through Transitory Provision III, which was in force until October 4, 1971, it permitted the titling of lands within it, under the following parameters:

"Transitory Provision III.- Those persons who demonstrate having possessed in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone for more than thirty years, may request title of ownership over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed said immovables during part of that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that set forth by the current Law on Possessory Information Proceedings (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). In this case, there shall be no limitation as to the size of the lot or property to be registered in the name of the interested party." It should be understood that the referral to the possessory information proceeding (información posesoria) was that regulated by Law 4545, Law on Possessory Information Proceedings (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which allowed an administrative procedure before the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, ITCO) and that only in the event of dispute or silence on the part of that Institute was recourse made to the judicial route, as established by Article 12 of said law. For purposes of clarity, it must be noted that Transitory Provision III, just cited, was repealed by Law 4847 of October 4, 1971, that Law 4558 was suspended in its effects by Law 5602 of November 4, 1974, and that it was repealed in its entirety with the entry into force of Law 6043, Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, which is the one currently in force.

XII. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE

Before proceeding to make the considerations specific to the case, it must be noted that the analysis will be made in accordance with the evidence provided by the State, basically the registration entry, the plans, and the file from the Public Registry with the investigation that led to the immobilization of the property, as the IDA declared that no file existed to support the registration, nor did the co-defendant parties provide any evidence, especially regarding the registration of the property. As has been indicated, the central object of the proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Real Property Folio registration Placa27848, because it lies within the maritime-terrestrial zone. The State's arguments center on the public domain nature of the asset, such that it is not susceptible to being titled, while the defendant companies (Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Ltda.) consider that the property was registered under the protection of Transitory Provision III of Law 4558, and therefore, it left the public domain of the State. Before defining the legal regime in force at the time of registration, it is important for this Court to consider first of all that the registration was made based on a plan that corresponds to a completely different property, since the plan Placa27988 refers to a piece of land located at Dirección11190, of Canton 1 La Cruz, of the Province of Guanacaste, property of Nombre142711, with boundaries that do not match the registration of the property that was registered. According to the investigation conducted by the Public Registry, through official communication No. DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Nombre12413, Head of the Interinstitutional Support Unit of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, the distance between the closest points of both pieces of land is sixty-four thousand two hundred twenty meters. It is therefore concluded that, far from being a material error, as the co-defendants have been indicating, the property in question was registered without the cadastral support required by Article 8 of the Law on Possessory Information Proceedings (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) in force at the time of registration, since the plan indicated in the registry entry does not even remotely correspond, there is a defect of nullity. In second place, even with the plan correction having been made, since the number G-955494-91 was included and the area of the property was corrected, the same cited communication indicates that both the first plan and the one just cited are located within the maritime-terrestrial zone, both within the restricted zone and within the public zone, as set forth below:

"The immovable described in cadastral plan No. Placa27988, located in District 1º La Cruz, Canton: 10º La Cruz, Province: 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and performing the correlation with the information available to the office, the immovable is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone. Furthermore, the immovable described in cadastral plan G-955494-91, located in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and performing the correlation with the information available in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the Restricted Zone, and additionally, between vertices 8 and 10 it covers an area of the public zone. Regarding indicating to you the approximate distance between both pieces of land at their closest points, it is approximately 64,220 m." The location within the maritime-terrestrial zone was not contested by the co-defendant companies that appeared in the proceeding. Arguments were made regarding the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the property, but without them being conclusive, since the principal defense has been that the property was titled through Transitory Provision III of Law 4558, which precisely permitted the titling of public domain. It should be remembered that in any case, demarcation has effects for the granting of concessions in the maritime-terrestrial zone, and furthermore, the parties did not provide evidence to disprove the location of the property, besides which the evidence for better provision referred to was demarcation. Hence, both because it was proven by the cited report and because it was not disproven by those who had an interest in doing so, it must be assumed in principle that property twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero is part of the public domain, subject to the specific regime for this type of assets, with its characteristics of imprescriptibility, unattachability, and inalienability, and that it cannot be subject to private appropriation. The public zone is intended for the use and enjoyment of the generality of the country's inhabitants. The restricted zone, for its part, may have a private use through a permit or concession, from the entry into force of Law 6043, Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, or by means of the concept of lease (arrendamiento), as established by Law 4558, Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. However, the co-defendant companies have argued that the registration was made under the protection of Transitory Provision III of this last Law, which permitted, as stated, titling within the maritime-terrestrial zone. Said transitory provision contemplated the possibility of requesting a title of ownership when it was demonstrated that the person had possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owner, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone for more than thirty years, except in the public zone. In this regard, this Court considers that from the registration entry of the property, the possession for the required period of time is not recorded, since what is indicated is that it was purchased from Nombre142712 in January 1970 and that since then it has possessed it, without the total years of possession elapsed being recorded. This requirement was essential to be able to access what the transitory provision established. However, for greater abundance of reasoning, the period of validity of the transitory provision in question was also analyzed. According to the information from the Costa Rican Legal Information System, Law 4558, Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, came into effect on April 22, 1970. The mentioned transitory provision was in the original text. According to the information from the same system, the transitory provision was repealed by Law 4847, which came into effect on October 4, 1971. According to the information contained in the registration entry, the ITCO resolution ordering the registration was dated October 13, 1972, the notarization of the same was done on August 7, 1973, and the registration on August 9 of the same year. That is, at the time when the ITCO approved the registration and the procedure before the Public Registry was carried out, Transitory Provision III of Law 4558 was not in force, and therefore, the registration could not be based on that legal provision. The foregoing allows this Court to conclude that the registration was not in accordance with the law, both due to the nonexistence of an essential requirement, such as the plan, which, as indicated, did not correspond to the registered property—a situation that cannot be considered merely a material error, given that it is the foundation of the entire registration—and due to the absence of a norm that would permit the titling of a public domain asset. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that there exists a defect of absolute nullity, which is hereby declared, as it is harmful to the interests of the State insofar as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone was titled contrary to the law in the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, currently Real Property Folio registration Placa27848, from its registration entry, that is, sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registry acts derived from it, which are detailed as follows: 1) plan Placa27850 registered in the National Cadastre on March 11, 1991, which rectifies the area of the property, as it is related to the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Real Property Folio registration Placa27848, and comprises lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone; 2) entry 2344 of volume 391, according to a document submitted to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from the public deed of 6:00 p.m. on October 30, 1991, executed before Notary Public Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, whereby La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A.; 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to a document submitted to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, executed before Notary Public Mauricio González Crespo, whereby Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda, the immovable property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration Placa27849.

XIII. OF THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION

As has been set forth, property twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero forms part of the public domain, as determined in official communication No. DGT-351-2008, previously mentioned. Imprescriptibility is one of the characteristics of public domain assets, as has been repeatedly determined by both the Constitutional Chamber, in the cited judgment, and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling 104-96 of nine fifteen hours on October 4, 2010:

VII.Regarding the alleged prescription of the State's right to claim the land subject to this litigation, the Superior Court already considered: "When a possessory title has been obtained in violation of the legislation in force, the nullity of the title and the cancellation of the registration entry in the Public Registry can be sought through an ordinary lawsuit, a procedure in force in the Law on Possessory Information Proceedings ... The right that the State has to exercise this action, in the case of lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone, is not affected by any statute of limitations, for in reality it is a matter of recovering assets that had never left the State's patrimony and over which private individuals only have the right of enjoyment in accordance with the Law and its regulations." This interpretation of the Superior Court is correct and finds support in the text of Article 1 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, in accordance with which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country ...". This law is number 6043 of March 2, 1977. That is, it came into force after the possessory information proceedings of Mr. A.D. were promoted. But previously, the Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, was in force, which in its Article 6 provided that the 50 meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone are inalienable and in no case may be subject to lease or sale; and in Article 7 Ibid., it is provided that the remaining one hundred fifty meters may only be subject to lease, unless after the maximum 10 years of lease provided for by law, the municipality agrees, at the request of the interested party, to the sale of the parcel. Thus, it is clear that the parcel referred to in the present proceeding was registered against the provisions in force. It is true that in accordance with Article 6 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the littorals, nor to properties registered, in compliance with the law, in the name of private individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws." In these cases referred to by said Article 6, if the State wishes to recover the asset, it must adhere to what is provided by Article 8 Ibid., according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone is declared of public utility so that the lots, parcels, or improvements located in it, which have been sold, acquired, or possessed in ownership by private individuals, may be rescued for the national patrimony or by means of expropriation." But it should be kept in mind that Article 6 of the referenced law clearly says that these provisions shall apply when dealing with properties registered "in compliance with the law," not when dealing with cases in which, as in the present case, the property has been registered against the provisions of the legal system, in which case the State can recover the asset without having to submit to the expropriation procedure [...]. IX. The appellant supports the thesis that at the time the possessory information proceedings sought to be annulled in the present proceeding were processed, the Attorney General's Office of that time was called the Fiscal Agency, which would have let the hearing period relative to the possessory information proceedings elapse without answering. In its view, there would then be "tacit consent" for proceeding to register the asset in the name of the titleholder, which could only be annulled through a lesivity proceeding. This proceeding, according to the appeal, should have been brought before proceeding to claim the nullity of the possessory information proceedings in this venue. But the Chamber likewise does not share this opinion, since, as the Superior Court already considered in the contested ruling, the lesivity proceeding is only applicable in those cases where the Administration seeks the annulment of administrative acts declaratory of rights in favor of the administered party, as is inferred from Articles 183, subparagraph 3), of the General Law on Public Administration, 35 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, and 156 of the Tax Code. In the present case, it is evidently not a matter of challenging a declaratory administrative act of rights, but of challenging judicial possessory information proceedings, for having been processed against the provisions in force, a situation that constitutes a scenario distinct from that referred to by the contentious lesivity proceeding. (Highlighting is not from the original).

Imprescriptibility refers not only to the impossibility of any appropriation by possession of the maritime-terrestrial zone, but also to the fact that the State may exercise, without time limit, the corresponding actions for the recovery of the public domain in the exercise of its power of self-protection, or as in the present case, when there is an act declaratory of rights, by filing a lesivity lawsuit. This principle is normatively captured, as indicated before, in subparagraph 2) of Article 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, when it indicates that there is no time limit for filing a lesivity lawsuit in the protection of the public domain. Despite the fact that this time limit corresponds to one of expiration (caducidad) for being specific to the declaration of lesivity of the challenged act, it is based on the imprescriptibility of the asset. The parties' arguments that the asset left the public domain, and therefore prescription does not apply, are not acceptable, since as already indicated, the registration of the property contained defects of absolute nullity, which are being declared in this judgment, and therefore the asset never left the ownership of the State, and its imprescriptibility therefore applies. For the foregoing, the exception raised by the co-defendant companies must be dismissed.

XIV: OF THE EXCEPTIONS OF LACK OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE LEGITIMATION, AND LACK OF RIGHT: As indicated previously, the lesivity proceeding was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, since the acts declared harmful were registry entries of the Public Registry, whose superior is the Minister of Justice. Similarly, in accordance with Article 1 of Law 6043, ownership of the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. Representation, in accordance with Article 16 of the CPCA, corresponds to the State Attorney, and therefore the exception of lack of active legitimation must be dismissed. On the other hand, the defendant parties are the companies that were benefited at the time by the registration of the property, namely Nombre142714 and Mogador de Pesca S.A., as well as the current fiduciary titleholder of the same, Penca Point Limitada. Similarly, regarding the IDA (currently the Rural Development Institute, INDER), despite its arguments that there is no file or agreement from the former ITCO, the truth is that since the registration entry is presumably based on an agreement of the Institute, it is a party to the present proceeding. For the reasons indicated, the exception of lack of passive legitimation raised must also be dismissed.

The claim of lack of right meets the same fate, as the granting of the requested nullities means the State has the right to pursue its claims.

XV: OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE IDA: In accordance with the foregoing, the IDA argues the following: it totally rejects having processed and approved possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) in October 1971 in the name of the company La Prieta S.A., by means of a resolution issued at nine hours and ten minutes on October thirteenth, nineteen hundred and seventy-two, based on Article 24 of Ley 4545 of March 20, 1970. According to that legal body, the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, hereinafter ITCO) was competent to process possessory informations, and Ley 2825, in its Article 30, subsection 23, established that the Board of Directors was the competent body to exercise the other functions and powers that corresponded to it in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers, it was for the Board of Directors to approve or reject the possessory information proceedings provided for in Ley 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of filed cases kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of La Prieta S.A., nor was any resolution issued in the name of the company, and that in the Notarial Archive, the notarization (protocolización) of the ITCO administrative resolution approving administrative possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. is not reported in the indices of Notary Public Oscar Saborío Castro for the first fortnight of August. Furthermore, it mentions that Article 11 of Ley 4545 required that requests for possessory information be brought to the attention of the Agrarian Procurator (Procurador Agrario), so if the ITCO had processed the mentioned proceedings, the Office of the Procurator General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) should have a case file resulting from the transfer made for its knowledge. It requests that the judgment declare that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., over a property located in Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, fourth district, third canton of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral plan number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the proceeding as a defendant, and that it be exempted from liability, including the costs of the proceeding. In this regard, as just indicated, the Court considers that regardless of the circumstances alleged, it has passive standing (legitimación pasiva), because a purported act of the ITCO appears in the registry entry. On the other hand, from the same evidence they provided, concerning the Notarial Index of Oscar Saborío Castro for the first fortnight of August, nineteen hundred and seventy-three, what is reported is a notarization (protocolización) and the name of the party is Nombre142713. The deed indicated in the registration entry for the property in question is a notarization, and the name of the then representative of La Prieta S.A. is precisely Nombre142713, so it can be inferred that there is some correspondence between what was reported to the Notarial Archive and what was presented to the Public Registry. As for the rest of the arguments, given the manner in which this matter is resolved and because it is based on the information appearing in the Public Registry, no reference will be made to them. Finally, regarding the declaratory ruling requested, to the effect that it be declared that the ITCO did not approve, through its Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. and that it be exempted from liability, both have the character of claims (pretensiones), which cannot be resolved except by means of a complaint or counterclaim, and since they were not filed at the appropriate procedural moment, this Court cannot hear them.

XVI. OF COSTS

Given the nature of the lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad), in which there exists an act declaring rights in favor of a private party, in this case La Prieta S.A., and in addition to the fact that both the companies Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Limitada acquired in good faith, under the protection of registry publicity, the exemption provided in subsection b) of Article 193 of the CPCA applies to both costs of this proceeding. Regarding the IDA (currently the Institute of Rural Development - Instituto de Desarrollo Rural), this Court considers that it must be ordered to pay costs, because even though the contested actions are attributable to the State, its conduct in this lawsuit, failing to provide the administrative file or any other document that could have helped clarify the situation, as well as its carelessness in reporting aspects that, as later seen, were consistent with the reality of the situation, reveal a litigation that is at least disorderly and that, far from clarifying the reality of what happened, could have actually caused confusion. For the foregoing, it must be ordered to pay both costs of this action to the State.

XVII. OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE (MEDIDA CAUTELAR)

Given the manner in which this matter is resolved, once this judgment becomes final, the precautionary measure granted by resolution No. Placa27992 issued at eight hours on December twentieth, two thousand ten, regarding the notation of the lawsuit (anotación de la demanda) in the margin of the registration, shall be lifted.

THEREFORE (POR TANTO) The defenses of prescription (prescripción), lack of active and passive standing, and lack of right interposed by the companies Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima and Penca Point Limitada are rejected. The lesivity proceeding filed by the Office of the Procurator General of the Republic against the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number cédula de persona jurídica CED111843, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number CED111846, Penca Point Limitada, legal identification number CED111844, and the Institute of Agrarian Development (currently Institute of Rural Development) is declared with merit. Consequently, it is declared detrimental (lesivo) to the interests of the State, and therefore the absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) is declared of the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, currently Folio Real registration number Placa27848, from its registration entry, that is, sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registry acts derived therefrom, detailed below: 1) plan G-955494-91 registered in the Catastro Nacional on March eleventh, nineteen hundred and ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the property, because it is related to the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number Placa27848 and encompasses lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), 2) entry 2344 of volume 391, according to document presented to the Diario of the Registry on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from public deed issued at 18:00 hrs. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to document presented to the Diario of the Public Registry on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 issued at 18:00 hours on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred, in fiduciary ownership, to Penca Point Ltda, the real estate registered in the Partido de Guancaste, registration number Placa27849. It is resolved without an award of costs against the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, and Penca Point Limitada. The Institute of Rural Development is ordered to pay both costs of the action to the State.

Nombre5192 Nombre142427 José Roberto Garita Navarro Resolución 120-2013-VI **II.-** ORDER the cancellation of the administrative warning noted on the property of the Partido de GUANACASTE registration number Placa27983 **(Placa27991). III.-** ORDER the opening of the ex officio file No. 08-390-BI to carry out the corresponding investigation. **IV-** Attach a copy of this resolution to file 08-390-BI." (see folios 1 and 2 of the administrative file). **7)** By resolution of thirteen hours fifty-five minutes of nineteen June two thousand eight of the Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles, an administrative warning was noted on the property of the Partido de Guanacaste registration number Placa27983 , while the investigations warranted by the case are carried out, at the same time it was resolved to send an official communication to the Dirección del Catastro Nacional requesting the respective study to verify the situation under investigation. **8)** That by official communication No. DGT-351-2008 of 14 May 2008, signed by Nombre12413 , Head of the Inter-institutional Support Unit of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, with the approval of Nombre22360 , Chief of the cited Department of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, addressed to Licenciado Mauricio Castro Lizano, Procurador, it was indicated: *"The property described in cadastral map No. Placa27988, located in Dirección17287 , : 10º La Cruz, Province, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and by correlating it with the information held by the office, the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Furthermore, the property described in cadastral map G-955494-91, located in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and by correlating it with the information held in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the restricted zone (Zona Restringida); additionally, between vertices 8 to 10, it encompasses an area of the public zone (zona pública). Regarding indicating the approximate distance between the two pieces of land at their closest points, it is* ***64,220 m approximately.**"* (see folio 10 of the administrative file). **9)** By resolution of eight hours eleven minutes of twenty-eight April two thousand nine of the Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles, the overlap with the concession rights described by maps G-128268-1993 and G-132740-1993 was ruled out, so it was decided to continue with the study corresponding to the information provided regarding the overlap of property 26327 in relation to map G-934467-2004, which describes a concession that has not generated a title. In the same resolution, the precautionary measure noted on the indicated property is maintained, and a hearing is granted for a period of fifteen business days to the company Penca Point Limitada, legal identification number CED111844 in its capacity as fiduciary of the property of the Partido de GUANACASTE registration number Placa27991, the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, and the Procuraduría General de la República. (see folio 70 of the administrative file). **10)** That by a document received at the Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble on twenty-one May two thousand nine, the Municipality responded to the granted hearing and explained the overlap situation between map G-934467-2004, through which a piece of land was requested in concession by the company Paseo Mar y Cielo S.A. and which overlaps with the property in question. (see folios 80 to 83 of the file). **11)** That by a document filed on twenty-nine May two thousand nine before the Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble, the company Penca Point Limitada responded to the granted hearing. (see folios 88 to 96 of the administrative file). **12)** That by resolution of fourteen hours twenty-four minutes of ten June two thousand nine of the Registro Inmobiliario, it was resolved, as relevant, to immobilize the property of the Partido de Guanacaste registration number Placa27983 in accordance with article 88 of the Reglamento del Registro Público, which shall be maintained until a competent judicial authority has heard the correction of the registry inaccuracy that gave rise to the proceedings and orders the lifting of the said immobilization, or until the owners and interested parties of said property appear to grant a public deed through which the situation affecting the property is corrected. (see folios 106 to 116 of the administrative file). **13)** That by Resolution No. 545 of thirteen hours of twenty-two October two thousand nine, the Minister of Justice resolved: *"Declare detrimental to the interests of the State (lesivos a los intereses del Estado) the document registered on 9 September 1973 in volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, relating to the property registration of the Partido de Guanacaste Folio Real registration number Placa27984 () - - (26327-000), according to presentation to the Diario del Registro Público on 7 August 1973, volume 297, entry 9470. The cadastre of map number G-95594-91. The document presented on 22 November 1991 to the Diario del Registro Público in volume 391, entry 2344, and registered on 14 September 1992, through which La Prieta S.A. sold to Nombre142709 . the property of the Partido de Guanacaste registered under Folio Real number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000). The document presented on 10 August 2005 to the Diario del Registro Público under volume 556, entry 10616, and registered on 22 August 2005, through which Mogador de Pesca S.A., transferred the property of the Partido de Guanacaste under Folio Real number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (sic) TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000), in fiduciary ownership (propiedad fiduciaria) to Penca Point S.A. Notify the Procuraduría General de la República so that it may file the respective action before the Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa."* (see folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file). **14)** That the lesividad proceeding was filed on twenty-seven September two thousand ten (see folio 2 of the judicial file). **15)** That Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, came into effect on twenty-two April nineteen hundred seventy. In its Transitorio III, it was established: *"Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone for more than thirty years, may apply for a title of ownership (título de propiedad) over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such properties for part of that time as tenants, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that established by the current Law of Possessory Informations (Informaciones Posesorias). In this case, there shall be no limitation on the extent of the lot or property to be registered in the name of the interested party."* (information obtained through the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). **16)** That through Law 4847 of four October nineteen hundred seventy-one, Transitorio III of Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, was repealed (information obtained through the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). **17)** That through Law 5602 of four November nineteen hundred seventy-four, the effectiveness of Law 4558 was suspended. (information obtained through the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). **18)** That through Law 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre of two March nineteen hundred seventy-seven, Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, was repealed in its entirety (information obtained through the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). **19)** That by official communication No. DGT-020-13, from the Department of Geodesy and Topography of the Registro Nacional, the location of the boundary markers (mojones) of the property in question was sent to this Office (see folios 200 to 204 of the judicial file).

**III.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1.-)** That La Prieta Sociedad Anónima demonstrated the possession for more than thirty years required by Transitorio III of Law 4558.

**IV. OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING:** In accordance with the declaration of lesividad made by the Minister of Justice, the object of this proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number Placa27985 , titled in favor of the company La Prieta S.A., and the transfers subsequently carried out, and map number G-95594-91, because the property is within the maritime-terrestrial zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre).

**V. ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF:** In summary, the State's representative provides a recounting of the registry and cadastral acts that served as the basis for the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, originally in favor of La Prieta S.A., then to Mogador de Pesca S.A., and finally in the name of Penca Point Limitada. Likewise, it points out the investigations carried out by the Registro Público to determine that the maps used as the basis for registering the properties located them within the maritime-terrestrial zone and even within the public zone (zona pública), which led to the immobilization of the property being ordered. It concludes that both property 5-26327-000 and map G-955494-1991 unduly include public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) belonging to the State located in the maritime-terrestrial zone and that this led to the declaration of lesividad that is the object of this proceeding. As the legal basis for its claim, it affirms that the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State and, as a demanial asset (bien demanial), is inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, and cannot be claimed by adverse possession. It maintains that, in the case of natural public domain assets, as occurs with the coastal zone, the principle of initial registration (inmatriculación) applies and that to consolidate its regime, its declaration and allocation for public use by law is sufficient, and that it can only be de-allocated in the same manner. Therefore, it considers the removal of a demanial asset from its public purpose by administrative act to be illegal. It adds that registration does not validate the nullity of a title, and that registration does not cure the defects of the registered document or the act it contains, which subsist independently of it. It states that, in the face of illegitimate registration, the individual acquires no right over the asset and that the same applies to the cadastre of survey plans, as these also do not confer ownership or possession rights, just as there is no useful or valid exercise of possession because it is a public domain asset. It concludes that since the registration of the property Placa27986 unduly includes lands from the maritime-terrestrial zone, its nullity defects are absolute and imprescriptible, both due to the nature of the asset and the absence of valid ownership and for contravening prohibitive laws. In the conclusions rendered at the Preliminary Hearing (Audiencia Preliminar) held for this purpose, regarding the defenses (excepciones) filed by the co-defendant parties, it indicates that what is being requested is the nullity of registry and cadastral entries for a piece of land that is within the maritime-terrestrial zone, and that the State is the owner of the same, and its representation corresponds to the Procuraduría General de la República, which therefore holds active legal standing (legitimación activa). Regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción), it maintains that public domain assets are not affected by statutes of limitations or expiration (caducidad), by virtue of article 7 of the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Likewise, it affirms that in application of article 34.2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (hereinafter CPCA), the declaration of lesividad regarding public domain assets is not subject to time limits. As for the defense of lack of passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva) with respect to the IDA, it must be assessed that the origin of the registration was processed in an ITCO file and that is why it appears as a party in the proceeding. Regarding the application of Transitorio III of Law 4558, according to its text, the possessory information should have been processed before the corresponding Court, so since this procedure was not carried out, the registration is null and void. Finally, it points out that all the facts of the claim are accredited.

**VI. ARGUMENTS OF THE INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO:** The IDA totally denies having processed and approved possessory information (información posesoria) proceedings in October 1971 in the name of the company Nombre142714 , by resolution of nine hours ten minutes of thirteen October nineteen hundred seventy-two, based on article 24 of Law 4545 of March 20, 1970. According to that legal body, the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (hereinafter ITCO) was competent to process possessory informations, and Law 2825, in its article 30 subsection 23, established that it was the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) that was competent to exercise the other functions and attributions corresponding to it in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers, it was the Board of Directors that corresponded to approve or reject the possessory information proceedings provided for in Law 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of cases received, kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of Nombre142714 , nor was a resolution issued in the name of the company found, and that in the Notarial Archive, no record is reported in the first fortnight of August, in the indices of Notary Public Oscar Saborío Castro, of the protocolization of the administrative resolution of the ITCO, through which administrative possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. was approved. On the other hand, it mentions that article 11 of Law 4545 required that requests for possessory information be brought to the attention of the Agrarian Procurator, so if the ITCO had processed the mentioned proceedings, the Procuraduría General de la República should have a file on the case resulting from the transfer made for its review. It requests that the judgment declare that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., over a land located in Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, fourth district, third canton of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral map number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the proceeding as a defendant and exempted from liability, including the costs of the proceeding.

**VII. ON THE POSITION OF MOGADOR DE PESCA S.A.:** The company argues that the State declines to refer to the fact that the property was registered under Transitorio 3 of Law 4545, since the legislator authorized and legalized the registration of properties that qualified under the requirements established therein, and that the property that was at one time under its ownership met those requirements and is therefore not of public domain. It also considers that the State claims the nullity of the title based on erroneous facts, as the property was not created in 1991 but was registered in 1973 in accordance with the legislation in force at that time, and the fact that there is a material error in the map does not result in the nullity of the property and its registration. Based on the foregoing, i.e., that the registration of the property is valid, it concludes that the inclusion of cadastral map G-955494-91 to describe the property and to reduce its area (cabida) is also valid. It also considers that should there be any defect in the registration of the map or its use for the indicated purpose, any action to challenge and annul the map or its use has already prescribed (prescribió) as more than ten years have elapsed, and that article 456 of the Civil Code protects the acquirer who relies on what the Registry states. It indicates that the State does not prove that the property is incorrectly registered. In the conclusions given at the Preliminary Hearing, it also stated that the transfer was made in good faith, and that the registration was made based on Transitorio III of Law 4558, whereby the property left the domain of the State, and therefore the institute of the statute of limitations (prescripción) is applicable. Furthermore, it maintains that the acquisition was made under the protection of article 456 of the Civil Code, based on the registry publicity (publicidad registral). Finally, it requests that should the claim be granted, they be exempted from the payment of costs, due to evident good faith.

**VIII. POSITION OF PENCA POINT LIMITADA:** The co-defendant bases its opposition firstly on article 6 of Law 6043, which indicates that the provisions of the law do not apply to properties registered in accordance with the law, and therefore it should not apply to the property in question, as it was registered at the time under the protection of Law 4558, following the possessory information procedure described in Law 4545, as shown in its registration entry. It argues that with this latter law, the ITCO was empowered to process possessory informations and administratively grant titles of ownership. It adds that while Law 4545 was in force, Law 4558 was approved, which, in its Transitorio III, empowered all persons who had possessed lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone to apply for a title of ownership over the properties, provided they met the conditions indicated in the legal text, using for such purposes the procedure established by the Law of Possessory Informations, which empowered La Prieta S.A. to title a piece of land within the maritime-terrestrial zone. It considers that the State has not offered any evidence aimed at verifying that the possessory information procedure was not carried out in accordance with the laws applicable at the time of its processing, probably because the possessory information file was lost by the IDA, so lacking certainty about the legal basis on which the possessory information was approved, the application of the principle *in dubio pro administrado* in its favor is mandatory, and it should be taken as a fact that the property Dirección17288 was registered under the protection of the law, which would lead to the conclusion that its creation does not violate the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. In the conclusions rendered at the Preliminary Hearing, the company indicated that there is a lack of active legal standing because the property is not within the maritime-terrestrial zone, and that for this same circumstance, it also cannot be sued.

**XI. ON THE EFFECTS OF DEFAULT (REBELDÍA):** Duty of the Tribunal to analyze the right and claim of the plaintiff despite the declaration of default. The CPCA in its article 65 indicates that if the defendant does not answer the complaint within the established period, they shall be declared in default ex officio, and the complaint shall be deemed affirmatively answered regarding the facts, without prejudice to the defendant being able to appear at any time, taking the proceeding in the state it is in. Regarding the effects of the declaration of default, the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia has indicated that *"...Certainly, failing to answer the complaint leads to default and to the facts being deemed affirmatively answered, but it does not negate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual scenario. However, the defaulting party may appear at any time during the proceeding and offer new evidence (arts. Placa21479 .), which, if pertinent for clarifying the facts, the judge may admit for a better decision. Consequently, default alone is not sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only attains this value if other evidence of the same nature does not contradict the fictional answer. Therefore, default must be assessed together with the rest of the evidentiary elements present in the proceeding." (Voto 801-F-02 of 11 hours 10 minutes of 18 October 2002). Thus, the answer due to default would not be sufficient to grant the claims of the counterclaim, if other evidentiary elements lead, under the application of the rules of sound judgment (sana crítica), to confirm that the legal prerequisites necessary to grant the claims sought are not present..."* (See resolution No. 991-F-2004, of 15 hours 20 minutes of 17 November 2004). Under this principle, it can be deduced that the declaration of default does not negate the jurisdictional body's power to gather evidence, verify the factual scenario as well as the plaintiff's claims, and resolve substantive defenses. Although the procedural effect of default implies the affirmative answer of the facts invoked in the complaint, the truth is that this effect does not relieve the judge of their duty to examine the evidence and analyze the merits of the case. Despite the scope of default, the duty to prove the constitutive facts of the right alleged in court remains, as derived from numeral 82 of the CPCA, in relation to precept 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, of supplementary application in this matter as allowed by article 220 of the CPCA.

This evidentiary burden, as a prerequisite for the success of the claims, subsists regardless of whether the opposing party has or has not responded to the lawsuit, ergo, the mere declaration of default does not negate the plaintiff's obligation to prove their right. In this sense, default, even with its procedural effects, is a legal institution different from acquiescence, so its occurrence does not automatically imply the granting of what was requested without a review of the merits. Consequently, under these circumstances, the judge must not assume the non-existence of controversy and dispense with evidence, but rather seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 of the same Procedural Code and by the legality control that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution and Article 1 of the Code of procedure). Consistent with what has been explained, it is the opinion of this Court that in this case, despite the declaration of default by the company La Prieta S.A., the body of evidence brought to the record must be analyzed in order to verify the factual framework and define whether the plaintiff's claims have or lack legal foundation.

            **X. PREREQUISITES FOR THE LESIVIDAD PROCESS**. In the present case, the State seeks a declaration of nullity for the following registry inscriptions:

  "*1) The property of Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27986 is null from its inscription, therefore the National Registry must cancel volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 97, entry 9470, as it improperly encompasses lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)*, a public domain asset where the powers of administrative self-protection rule. *2) The cadastral map number Placa27987 is null, and consequently the National Registry must cancel it, for comprising lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). 3) The entry 2344 of volume 391 is null and the National Registry must cancel it, according to the document presented to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991, and inscribed on September 14, 1992, originating from the public deed of 6:00 p.m. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 4) The entry 10616 of volume 556 is null and must be canceled, according to the document presented to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005, and inscribed on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda., the property inscribed in Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849.*"   considering them harmful to public interests. From this perspective, it is necessary, briefly, to establish compliance with the various prerequisites that the legal system imposes for the filing of a lesividad process, since the absence of one of these elements would prevent and make a review of the merits unnecessary. In general, lesividad is constituted as a jurisdictional mechanism by virtue of which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From this perspective, in this type of dispute, lesividad is subjective in nature, insofar as it seeks the annulment of conduct that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. This figure is enshrined in Article 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, a rule that sets the prior elements and procedural regulations for this figure. However, it is also referenced in Article 173 of the General Law of Public Administration. From the viewpoint of procedural prerequisites, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active legal standing is granted to the Administration that issued the challenged act, while the passive legal standing belongs to the recipient of the effects of the conduct, that is, the one who obtains its benefits. As for the objective aspect, lesividad is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-conforming with the legal system, that is, acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (Articles 128, 158, 165 and concordant of the aforementioned General Law No. 6227). In this line, the Administration must declare that conduct harmful to public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal administrative actions that are essential to formulate the action. Indeed, in the procedural order, the supreme maximum head of the respective Public Administration is required to declare the lesividad of the act, whether due to harm to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose, the head must have a legal-technical criterion as a basis to support that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conduct, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only actions internal to the Administration, since it will be   within the judicial process that the third party may establish their defense arguments. Now, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the aforementioned General Law), that is, from the Central Administration, the lawsuit may only be filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Article 16 of Law No. Placa494), upon prior request of the supreme maximum head and prior internal declaration of lesividad, with a detail of the reasons for that criterion. Regarding the temporal dimension, the new procedural regulations establish a period of one year counted from the issuance of the act (and not from its notification) to declare the act harmful to public interests, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a period of one year is granted to bring the contentious-administrative action as a fatal statute of limitations, except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case the declaration of lesividad may be made as long as their effects endure, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of said effects. In that hypothesis, the eventual favorable judgment will provide for the nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the retroactivity regime of absolute nullities established by Article 171 of the General Law of Public Administration. The exception to this temporal aspect of one year is configured for the protection of the public domain, in which case the lesividad action is not subject to a time limit due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of assets as derived from Article 261 of the Civil Code. Now, in tax matters, the lesividad action, in addition to the referenced rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. In this fiscal matter, according to Article 41 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, the maximum period to bring the process shall be the same as that imposed by the legal system as the statute of limitations for the respective substantive right. In addition to this, in this fiscal dynamic, as the power of the natural head to review the conduct of lower Tax Administrations is prohibited (Article 102, subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by imperative of law to the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), as derived from Article 156 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, constituting in that appellate phase an improper monophasic hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the period to declare the lesividad that runs against the Minister of the Finance portfolio (competence that is sustained in that they meet the condition of supreme maximum head of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), is computed from the moment in which that improper monophasic controlling body makes known to the Administration a quo, what was resolved by virtue of its appellate competence. Prior to that instant, the natural head is in a material and legal impossibility of knowing of an act that may be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect and therefore, incapacitated to exercise their powers to declare that action harmful. Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, as one is not before the aforementioned case of improper monophasic hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the period is computed from the adoption of the act. In the present case, from the analysis of the record, it is concluded that the internal lesividad declaration meets the prerequisites indicated. Because the lesividad of the registry acts is grounded on the improper inscription of part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre),   according to the State's theory of the case, which is part of the public domain, the analysis of the period for filing the lesividad lawsuit shall be conducted in accordance with Article 34.2, without prejudice to what is later analyzed. Said article, as indicated, does not subject the declaration of lesividad for public domain assets to a time limit. However, once this has been declared, it is understood that it would be subject to the one-year statute of limitations indicated in Article 39.1.e) of the CPCA, for the filing of the lesividad lawsuit. Having made the previous clarification, according to what is recorded on pages 10 to 20 of the judicial file, the Minister of Justice, as Head of the Public Registry, declared the lesividad of the acts whose nullity is requested in the judgment, by resolution at one o'clock in the afternoon of October twenty-second, two thousand nine. The lesividad lawsuit was filed, according to what is recorded on page two of the judicial file, on the second day of September two thousand ten, that is, before the one-year period previously indicated. The lawsuit is presented by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the companies that have benefited   from the challenged acts, so in terms of the legitimizing scope, both active and passive, the referenced requirements are met. Thus, the analysis of the present action proceeds next.

**XI. OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE:** As recognized by national legislation and jurisprudence, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a demanial asset, which shares the characteristics of this type of asset, which are imprescriptibility, unattachability, and inalienability. Its recognition as such is based on Article 261 of the Civil Code, which makes the distinction between assets of the public domain and assets of the fiscal domain of the administration:

"*Things destined, by law, in a permanent manner to any service of general utility, and those which all may take advantage of by being delivered to public use, are public things.* *All other things are private and the object of particular property, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who in this case, as civil persons, do not differ from any other person.*" Similarly, this recognition has been in place since the last century, as has been repeatedly established by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, among others, in judgment 2241-09, at twelve hours and eleven minutes on February thirteenth, two thousand nine, in which it states:

"*In previous judgments, this Court has repeatedly recognized (among others, see judgments number 2360-93, 5399-93, 5977-93, 5976-93, and 0502-I-95), that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a demanial asset; thus, by judgment number 0447-91, at 3:30 p.m. on February 21, 1991, it clearly considered that it is indeed a public domain asset, under the terms of Article 261 of the Civil Code:* *"The demanial character of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (or marine shore as it was formerly called) is recognized from time immemorial, and Roman Law itself captures that status, as 'common things' and 'extra commercium'. In our environment, with all clarity since the last century, the public character of that marine strip adjacent to the national territory, over which it exercises its sovereignty, has been recognized ... it is not possible to consider Article 45 of the Constitution violated, since limitations are not imposed on private property, but rather, by regulating the public domain, the law establishes conditions through which the use and enjoyment of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by private individuals is possible. Thus, whoever intends by unauthorized means to exercise a private use of that zone will have the possibility of consummating it forbidden, as it is also acceptable, from time immemorial, that these are assets imprescriptible in favor of private individuals and that they are outside of commerce."* *The legal nature of demanial property is virtually different, as this Chamber already indicated by resolution number 2306-91 at 2:45 p.m. on November 6, in which it stated:* *"The public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets, demanial assets, public goods or things, which do not belong individually to private parties and are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected by the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express rule. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover dominion. As they are outside of commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to exploitation can be acquired, though not a right to property. The use permit is a unilateral legal act issued by the Administration, in the use of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the private individual is the beneficial ownership of the asset, with the State always reserving the direct dominion over the thing. The precariousness of any right or use permit is consubstantial to the figure and alludes to the possibility that the administration, at any time, revokes it, whether due to the State's need to fully occupy the asset, for the construction of a public work, as well as for reasons of security, hygiene, aesthetics, all to the extent that if a conflict of interests arises between the purpose of the asset and the granted permit, the natural use of the public thing must prevail. Consequently, the national regime of public domain assets places them outside the commerce of men and therefore the permits granted shall always be precarious and revocable by the Administration, unilaterally, when reasons of necessity or general interest so dictate."* *Likewise, in resolution N°1996-05756 at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on October thirtieth, nineteen ninety-six, the Chamber indicated:* *“Within that property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public zone and the restricted zone. The public zone is by definition excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of private individuals, and cannot be the object of occupation in any case, as it is destined for ‘public use’, as clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that due to their topography are inaccessible. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works is permitted in said zone, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the respective municipality, always attending to the public use* *they must be destined for. The regime of this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing may be built by private individuals, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and on the understanding that they will be destined for public use. Note that the regime of this zone is so strict, that if due to natural causes the topography changes and modifies the demarcation of the zones, and constructions end up within the public zone, the rights over what exists will be conserved, but no modifications or remodeling may be carried out, seeking their transfer to the restricted zone or, as a last resort, their expropriation. This is established by Article 24 of the Law, which states:* *“**Article 24***: *If due to natural causes the topography of the land varies with the consequent change in distances and for that reason a construction or installation ends up located within the public zone, the owner shall retain their rights but may not carry out repairs or remodeling. Its transfer to the restricted zone or its alignment to it will be sought, with authorized aid from the respective municipality or the Costa Rican Tourism Institute if it concerns a person of limited economic resources. If the above is not possible, expropriation shall proceed.”* *“Even for properties inscribed before the enactment of the law, with lands comprising the public zone, their particular use is absolutely restricted and will only proceed with express agreements* *of the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) (Article 25), as well as the exceptions established in Article 18 for certain specific projects, such as port structures, industrial plants, etc., which by their very nature need to be built near the sea, in which case the express authorization of the mentioned institutions is also necessary.”* Similarly, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has referred in detail to the historical evolution that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) has had, in judgment 007-93, at fifteen hours five minutes on January twentieth, nineteen ninety-three:

"*Although the current legal regime of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone is basically established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, and its reforms and additions, for the correct understanding of the legal implications of this matter, it is useful to analyze the legislative evolution on the topic, but highlighting the aspects referring both to the determination of its legal nature, as a public domain asset, and to its surface extension. In this regard, many regulatory provisions have, in some form or another, established regulations on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), formerly known as the maritime mile. Some of them - the most important - are the following: Law No. 162 of June 8, 1828, Decree No. 12 of December 10, 1839, Law No. 14 of February 26, 1840, Law No. 128 of August 19, 1853, Decree No. 4 of July 30, 1858, Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, Law No. 42 of August 13, 1875, Law No. 22 of February 7, 1881, Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884, and its reforms, Fiscal Code of 1885 (Law No. 8 of October 31, 1885), Law No. 58 of July 29, 1892, Law No. 7 of November 4, 1892, Law No. 15 of March 27, 1896, Law No. 60 of August 13, 1914, Law No. 82 of April 5, 1923, Law No. 75 of August 30, 1924, Law No. 11 of October 22, 1926, through which the Fiscal Code of 1885 was reformed, Law No. 29 of December 3, 1934, General Law on Uncultivated Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939, Decree No. 6 of April 2, 1940 (Regulation to the General Law on Uncultivated Lands), Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, Law No. 201 of August 26, 1943, Decree Law No. 500 of April 19, 1949, Law of Lands and Colonization No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, Law No. 2906 of November 24, 1961, Law No. 4071 of January 22, 1968, Forestry Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law No. 4928 of December 17, 1971, which reformed the previous one, and Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, which suspended it. It is not the case to make an exhaustive analysis of the diverse regulatory provisions on the matter; however, it is necessary to point out that from the first legal provision issued in the republican era - Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828 - the reserve of one maritime mile on the coasts of both seas was established, which according to what was recorded in Law No. 128 of August 19, 1953, had been thus since the colonial era by provision of the Royal Decree of October 15, 1754. Throughout the 19th century, the various laws issued reaffirm this concept, providing for the reserve of one maritime mile along both littorals. The General Regulations of the Public Treasury of 1839, 1858, and 1868, maintained the reserve created in 1828; but, for these purposes, what is important to take into account is the clear determination, in the legislation promulgated in the last century, of the so-called maritime mile as a public domain asset, with its consequent character of inalienability and non-denounceability. Thus, for example, the General Code of 1841 considered the ebb and flow of the sea and its shores as public domain; the aforementioned Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, reaffirmed the non-denounceable character of the lands of the maritime mile; in the Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884 - the only provision of the 19th century in which the term Maritime-Terrestrial Zone was used - said zone was classified as public domain; and the Fiscal Code of 1885 established that the lands comprised within a zone of one mile in latitude along the coasts of both seas could not be alienated. It is clear then, without detriment to the background of the colonial era mentioned, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both littorals has not been part of the uncultivated lands - the crown lands of the Colony - but has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that proper to public domain assets and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter promulgated throughout the 20th century - culminating in the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977 - the classification of the lands comprised in said zone as public domain assets was, obviously, maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas bathed by the ebb and flow, extending up to the distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the margins of the rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century was specifying the extension of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but at no time denied its character as a demanial asset and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; in this way, the first law enacted in the present century in which reference was made to the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) - No. 75 of August 30, 1924 - reaffirmed in its Article 6 the demanial character of those lands and the impossibility of exploiting or usufructing from them. Always reaffirming its inalienable character, it was in Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922 - which reformed the Fiscal Code of 1855 - where for the first time the extension was specified as 1,672 meters from the ordinary high tide line along the coasts of both seas and 500 meters along both margins of the rivers. This measurement was maintained until the year 1942, and was reaffirmed in the Law on Uncultivated Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939, and in the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942. Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, reduced the extension of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line for the Atlantic coast, and the same was done by Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, for the Pacific coast. These two laws constituted, without a doubt, the most important deaffectations operated in the zone, as they permitted the private acquisition of its lands, excepting 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line.*" Based on these two provisions and with the exception of the 200 meters counted from the ordinary high tide line, the remaining 1,672 meters ceased to be public domain from the moment they could be reduced to private domain. However, the lands contained within the 200 meters excepted by the two aforementioned laws continued to be public domain assets, not reducible to private domain because they are inalienable and imprescriptible. It is therefore correct to maintain that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) was left, as of the mentioned laws, with an extension of 200 meters counted from the high tide line, which is what it currently has, maintaining its character as a demanial asset. This measure of 200 meters, together with the demanial character of the lands comprised therein, was reaffirmed in the then-current Article 7 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización Nº 2825 of October 14, 1961, and was repeated in the Ley Forestal Nº 4465 of November 25, 1969, and in the Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 4558 of April 22, 1970. But in this last law, due to the legislator's intention to transfer to the Municipality important areas located within the inalienable 200 meters, with the idea of developing tourist zones, only 50 meters were eventually defined as absolutely inalienable, with the remaining 150 passing under the administration of said municipalities when so defined by the Instituto de Turismo, but those areas of agricultural and non-tourist suitability would continue under the administration of the then Instituto de Tierras y Colonización. The indicated 200 meters is the measure established by Article 9 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 6043 of March 2, 1977, currently in force. From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to conclude that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by Article 9 of the current Law on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), has been in the public domain—and the lands comprised therein, demanial assets—since at least 1828. The variations that the legislation of the past and present centuries have introduced on the matter have never generally disaffected these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip of greater extension—the so-called nautical mile (milla marítima)—but never a lesser one. In the same terms as happened with Law Nº 19 of November 12, 1942, in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, and Law Nº 201 of January 26, 1943, in relation to the Pacific Ocean, which disaffected a significant area, going from 1,672 meters to 200 meters, also with Law Nº 4558 of April 22, 1970, specifically through its Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III), 150 meters of the 200 were disaffected, insofar as private individuals who had possessed lots or properties (fincas) within the 200 meters were authorized to register them through the procedure of Informaciones Posesorias. In this regard, possession of more than 30 years, fulfilled in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, was required. But this provision had a short life, as it was repealed by virtue of Law Nº 5602 of November 4, 1974. For this reason, there are registral inscriptions within the 150 of the 200 meters in the country—in a relatively recent period—but expressly authorized by law, and only for those titleholders benefited by Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III), which was in effect between April 22, 1970, and November 4, 1974. The maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is and always has been, it bears repeating, in the public domain. Its current legal regime is established by Law Nº 6043 of March 2, 1977, its reforms, and its regulation (Decreto Nº 7841-P of December 16, 1977), this Law being the first specific one on the matter. The characteristics of inalienability and imprescriptibility are inherent to it. This is clear from the stipulations in its first article, which to that effect provides: "Article 1. The maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this law." Because they are public domain assets, they belong to the State, are subject to a special legal regime, and their purpose—destination—is common use and exploitation. The inalienability of these assets means nothing other than their not belonging to the commerce of men, similar to the Roman law figure of assets "extra commercium." Therefore, said assets cannot be alienated—by any means of private law or public law—their non-reduction to private domain under any form being consubstantial to their legal nature. Hence, another of their characteristics is their imprescriptibility, that is, their non-susceptibility to being acquired through the passage of time under the legal figure of usucapion (usucapión), because possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time during which they have been possessed. The current Law on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) develops imprescriptibility in its Article 7 by establishing that the lands located therein cannot be the object of possessory informations (informaciones posesorias), and cannot be appropriated or legalized in the name of a private individual by that or any other means. The regulation that the Law makes of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is, in all respects, consistent with the demanial character of the lands comprised therein, and is defined—Article 9—as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, also including the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide, as well as maritime islands, islets, and reefs, all land or natural formation that rises above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic, with the exception of Isla del Coco and other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. Article 10 divides the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) into two sections: the Public Zone (Zona pública) and the Restricted Zone (Zona restringida), the former consisting of the strip of 50 meters wide from the ordinary high tide line, as well as the areas that are uncovered during low tide, the islets, reefs, and other small areas and natural formations that rise out of the sea, and the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and the estuaries (esteros) (Article 11); and the latter consisting of the remaining 150 meters or, in the case of islands, of the other lands. The law prohibits any type of occupation—under any title whatsoever—in the Public Zone (Zona pública), but allows concessions in the Restricted Zone (Zona restringida), according to the provisions in its Articles 20 and 39, respectively, a technique characteristic of demanial assets which, for that very reason, do not detract from their character. Said concessions (Article 41) may only be for the use and enjoyment of determined areas under the conditions and during the term that that law determines, the latter being regulated in its Articles 48, 49, and 50, and matters relating to their extinction and cancellation in 51 and 52, respectively. Numeral 56 stipulates the reversion of full use and enjoyment to the respective municipality once a concession is extinguished. It is therefore clear that, since the lands and other formations comprised in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) are in the public domain, the legal possibility of their reduction to private domain under any form must be discarded; the only way in which private subjects can use and enjoy said lands—without this implying their private appropriation—is through the concession that the municipalities grant, but only in the 150 meters of the Restricted Zone (Zona restringida), or by registration—between 1970 and 1974—in accordance with Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III) of Law Nº 4558 of 1970." Currently, the law governing matters related to the planning of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is Law 6043, Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre of March second, nineteen seventy-seven, which gathers basic aspects, such as the distinction between the public zone (zona pública) and the restricted zone (zona restringida), the granting of concessions, and other aspects of interest (Articles 6 and 7). It is understood that no type of right can be exercised over the public zone (zona pública), while in the restricted zone (zona restringida), permits or concessions may be granted, which will be granted by the respective municipalities. Likewise, Article 7 of the law establishes that by means of the possessory informations (informaciones posesorias) procedure, no right can be obtained in the mentioned zone. However, at the time the facts subject of this claim occurred, specifically the titling of the property in the name of La Prieta S.A. (August 7, 1972), Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, was in force, which regulated the exploitation of the zone, in the following terms:

"Article 6.- The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre) from the ordinary high tide line shall be inalienable and in no case may be the object of lease or sale. Therefore, no one may claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for purposes of recreation, leisure, or free circulation. The constructions or installations currently located in that zone shall not be remodeled, and in the event of their destruction, new constructions shall respect this inalienable zone.

Article 7.- The remaining one hundred fifty meters, inland, may be the object of lease, within the following rules:

• a)Lots destined for building residences or recreational country houses for the use of the lessee or their relatives and that do not constitute a lucrative activity may only be leased for extensions no greater than one hectare and provided that the frontage to the beach does not exceed twenty-five meters. No person, together with their spouse or unmarried children, may have more than one lease contract of this class.
• b)Parcels destined for the establishment of recreational centers, hotels, motels, or restaurants and similar, may be leased for larger extensions, in accordance with the planning of the zone. In any case of lease of this type, the respective municipality must previously hear the opinion of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo.
• c)In no case may parcels be leased for the establishment of industries in the zones to which this law refers, except those related to tourist exploitation. But in any case, such industries must be located outside the urban area.
• d)The leases regulated in the preceding subsections shall be granted for a term of one year, but may be extended up to a maximum of ten, at the request of the interested parties. The extension request must necessarily be made within the month prior to the expiration of the contract, under penalty of definitive cancellation of the lease. In all cases of termination of the lease, the improvements shall become the property of the respective municipality." However, in its original version, through Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III), which was in force until October fourth, nineteen seventy-one, it allowed the titling of lands within the same, under the following parameters:

"Transitorio III.- Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties (fincas) in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), for more than thirty years, may request a property title over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even when they may have possessed such immovables during part of that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that established by the current law of Informaciones Posesorias. In this case, there shall be no limitation as to the extension of the lot or property (finca) to be inscribed in the name of the interested party." It must be understood that the referral to the possessory information (información posesoria) was that regulated by Law 4545, Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which allowed an administrative procedure before the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO) and that only in the event of contention or silence on the part of that Institute was recourse to the judicial route made, according to what was established by Article 12 of said law. For purposes of clarity, it must be indicated that Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III), just cited, was repealed by Law 4847 of October fourth, nineteen seventy-one; that Law 4558 was suspended in its effects by Law 5602 of November fourth, nineteen seventy-four; and that it was repealed in its entirety with the entry into force of Law 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, which is the one currently in force.

**XII. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:** Before entering into the considerations pertinent to the case, it must be indicated that the analysis will be made in accordance with the evidence provided by the State, basically the registration entry, the plats (planos), and the Public Registry file with the investigation that led to the immobilization of the property (finca), since the IDA declared that no file existed to support the registration, nor did the co-defendant parties provide any evidence, especially regarding the registration of the property (finca). As has been indicated, the central object of the proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the property (finca) of Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number Placa27848, because the same is within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). The State's arguments center on the demaniality of the asset, for which reason it cannot be titled, while the defendant companies (Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Ltda.) consider that the property (finca) was registered under the protection of Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III) of Law 4558, and that it therefore left the public domain of the State. Before defining the legal regime in force at the time of registration, it is important for this Tribunal to consider first that the registration was made based on a plat (plano) that corresponds to a completely different property (finca), since the plat (plano) Placa27988 refers to a piece of land located in Dirección11190, of Cantón 1 La Cruz, of the Province of Guanacaste, owned by Nombre142711, with boundaries that do not match the registration of the property (finca) that was inscribed. According to the investigation carried out by the Public Registry, through official letter No. DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Nombre12413, Head of the Unidad de Apoyo Interinstitucional of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, the distance between the closest points of both terrains is sixty-four thousand two hundred twenty meters. It is therefore concluded that, far from being a material error, as the co-defendants have been indicating, the property (finca) in question was registered without the cadastral backing required by Article 8 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias in force at the time of registration, since the plat (plano) indicated in the registry entry does not even remotely correspond, so there is a nullity defect. Secondly, even with the correction of the plat (plano) already made, since number G-955494-91 was included and the area of the property (finca) was corrected, the same cited official letter indicates that both the first plat (plano) and the one just cited are located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), both within the restricted zone (zona restringida) and within the public zone (zona pública), as stated below:

"The immovable described in the cadastral plat (plano) Nº Placa27988, located in Distrito 1º La Cruz, Cantón: 10º La Cruz, Provincia, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and carrying out the correlation with the information available in the office, the immovable is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Furthermore, the immovable described in the cadastral plat (plano) G-955494-91, located in Potrero, Distrito: 4ª Tempate, Cantón: 5ª Santa Cruz, Provincia 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and carrying out the correlation with the information available in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the Restricted Zone (Zona Restringida), and also between vertices 8 to 10 it covers an area of the public zone (zona pública). Regarding indicating the approximate distance between both terrains at their closest points, the same is approximately 64,220 m." The location within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) was not contested by the co-defendant companies that appeared in the proceeding. Allegations were made regarding the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the property (finca), but without them being conclusive, since the main defense has consisted of the fact that the property (finca) was titled through Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III) of Law 4558, which precisely allowed the titling of public domain. It must be remembered that in any case, demarcation (amojonamiento) has effects for the granting of concessions in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and, in addition, the parties did not provide evidence to disprove the location of the property (finca), besides the fact that the evidence for better provision referred to was the demarcation (amojonamiento). Hence, both because it was proven by the cited report and because it was not disproven by those who had an interest in doing so, it must in principle be accepted that the property (finca) twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero is part of the public domain, subject to the regime characteristic of this type of assets, with its characteristics of imprescriptibility, unattachability, and inalienability, and that it cannot be the object of private appropriation. The public zone (zona pública) is destined for the use and enjoyment of the generality of the country's inhabitants. The restricted zone (zona restringida), for its part, may have a privative use, through a permit or concession, as of the entry into force of Law 6043, Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, or by means of the figure of lease, as established by Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. However, the co-defendant companies have argued that the registration was made under the protection of Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III) of this last Law, which allowed, as stated, titling within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Said transitory provision contemplated the possibility of requesting a property title, when demonstrating having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties (fincas) in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), for more than thirty years, except in the public zone (zona pública). In this regard, this Tribunal considers that the registration entry of the property (finca) does not record possession for the required period of time, since what is indicated is that it was bought from Nombre142712 in January of nineteen seventy and that they possessed it since then, without the total years of possession elapsed being recorded. This requirement was essential to be able to access what the transitory rule established. However, for greater abundance, the validity period of the transitory provision in question was also analyzed. According to information from the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica, Law 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, came into effect on April twenty-two, nineteen seventy. The mentioned transitory provision was in the original text. According to information from the same system, the transitory provision was repealed by Law 4847, which came into effect on October fourth, nineteen seventy-one. According to the information contained in the registration entry, the resolution from ITCO ordering the registration was on October thirteen, nineteen seventy-two, the formal recording (protocolización) of the same was done on August seventh, nineteen seventy-three, and the registration on August ninth of the same year. That is, at the time ITCO approves the registration and the procedure is done before the Public Registry, Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III) of Law 4558 was not in force, and therefore the registration could not be based on that legal norm. The foregoing allows this Tribunal to conclude that the registration was not in accordance with the law, both because of the non-existence of an essential requirement, which was the plat (plano), which as indicated, the mentioned one did not correspond to the registered property (finca), a situation that cannot be considered merely as a material error due to it being the basis of all registration, and because of the absence of a norm that would allow the titling of a public domain asset. The above leads to the conclusion that there is a defect of absolute nullity, which is hereby declared as being harmful to the interests of the State insofar as a part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) was titled contrary to law, in the registration of the property (finca) of Partido de Guanacaste, currently Folio Real registration number Placa27848, from its registration entry, i.e., sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registral acts derived from it and detailed below: 1) the plat (plano) Placa27850 inscribed in the Catastro Nacional on March eleven, nineteen ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the property (finca), because it is related to the property (finca) of Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number Placa27848, and comprises terrains of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), 2) entry 2344 of volume 391, according to a document presented to the Diario del Registro on November 22, 1991, and inscribed on September 14, 1992, originated by public deed of 6:00 p.m. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property owned by Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A., 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to a document presented to the Diario del Registro Público on August 10, 2005, and inscribed on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred, in fiduciary ownership, to Penca Point Ltda, the immovable inscribed in Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849.

**XIII. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (EXCEPCIÓN DE PRESCRIPCIÓN):** As has been set out, the property (finca) twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero is part of the public domain, as determined in official letter No. DGT-351-2008, previously mentioned.

Imprescriptibility is one of the characteristics of public domain assets (bienes demaniales), as has been repeatedly determined by both the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in the cited ruling, and the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment 104-96 of nine hours fifteen minutes on October fourth, two thousand ten:

VII.Regarding the alleged statute of limitations (prescripción) on the State's right to claim the land that is the subject of this litigation, the Superior Court already considered: "When a possessory title has been obtained in violation of current legislation, one may seek, through an ordinary trial, the nullity of the title and the cancellation of the registration entry in the Public Registry, a procedure in effect in the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) ... The right that the State has to exercise this action, in the case of lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), is not affected by any statute of limitations, since it is actually a matter of recovering assets that never left the State's patrimony and which private parties only have the right to enjoy in accordance with the Law and its regulations." This interpretation by the Superior Court is correct and finds support in the text of Article 1 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country ...". This law is number 6043 of March 2, 1977. That is, it came into force after the possessory information of Mr. A.D. was promoted. But previously, the Law on Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, was in force, which in its Article 6 provided that the 50 meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone are inalienable and in no case may be the object of lease or sale; and in Article 7 Ibid., it is provided that the remaining one hundred and fifty meters may only be the object of lease, except that after the maximum of 10 years of lease provided for by the law, the municipality agrees, at the request of the interested party, to the sale of the plot. Thus, it is clear that the plot to which this proceeding refers was registered against the provisions in force. It is true that in accordance with Article 6 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the coastlines, nor to properties registered, subject to the law, in the name of private individuals, nor those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws." In these cases referred to in said Article 6, if the State wishes to recover the asset, it must abide by the provisions of Article 8 Ibid., according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone is declared of public utility so that the lots, parcels, or improvements located therein, that may have been sold, acquired, or possessed as property, by private individuals, may be rescued for the national patrimony or through expropriation (expropiación)." But it should be kept in mind that Article 6 of the referenced law clearly states that these provisions shall apply when dealing with properties registered "subject to the law," not when dealing with cases in which, as in the present one, the property has been registered against the provisions of the legal system, in which case the State may recover the asset without having to undergo the expropriation procedure [...].

IX.The appellant supports the thesis that at the time the possessory information sought to be annulled in this proceeding was processed, the Attorney General's Office of that time was called the Fiscal Agency (Agencia Fiscal), which would have let the hearing related to the possessory information lapse without responding. In his opinion, there would then be a "tacit consent" for proceeding to register the asset in the name of the titleholder, which could only be annulled through a lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad). This proceeding, as stated in the appeal, should have been initiated before proceeding to claim the nullity of the possessory information in this venue. But the Chamber also does not share this opinion, since, as already found by the Superior Court in the contested judgment, the lesivity proceeding is only appropriate in those cases where the Administration seeks the annulment of administrative acts that declare rights in favor of the administered party, as is clear from Articles 183, subsection 3), of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), 35 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa), and 156 of the Tax Code (Código Tributario). In the present case, it is evidently not a challenge to an administrative act declaratory of rights, but rather a challenge to judicial possessory information proceedings, because they were processed against the provisions in force, a situation that constitutes a different scenario from the one referred to in the contentious proceeding for lesivity. (The highlighting is not from the original).

Imprescriptibility refers not only to the impossibility of an appropriation by possession of the maritime-terrestrial zone, but also to the fact that the State may exercise, without time limit, the corresponding actions for the recovery of the public domain in exercise of its power of self-protection (autotutela), or as in the present case, when there is an act declaratory of rights, the filing of a lesivity action. This principle is normatively enshrined, as previously indicated, in subsection 2) of Article 34 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), when it states that there is no time limit for filing a lesivity action in the protection of the public domain. Even though this time limit is one of expiration (caducidad) as it pertains to the declaration of lesivity of the challenged act, it is based on the imprescriptibility of the asset. The arguments of the parties, that the asset left the public domain and therefore the statute of limitations does not apply, are not acceptable, since, as already indicated, the registration of the property contained defects of absolute nullity, which are being declared in this judgment, meaning the asset never left the State's ownership and therefore its imprescriptibility applies. For the foregoing reasons, the exception filed by the co-defendant companies must be rejected.

XIV: ON THE EXCEPTIONS OF LACK OF ACTIVE LEGITIMATION (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) AND PASSIVE LEGITIMATION (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN PASIVA), AND LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO): As previously indicated, the lesivity proceeding was filed by the General Attorney's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), because the acts declared damaging (lesivos) were registry entries of the Public Registry, whose head is the Minister of Justice. Likewise, according to Article 1 of Law 6043, ownership of the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. Representation, according to Article 16 of the CPCA, corresponds to the State's Attorney (Abogado del Estado), so the exception of lack of active legitimation must be rejected. On the other hand, the companies that were at the time benefited by the property registration have been sued, namely Nombre142714 and Mogador de Pesca S.A., as well as the current fiduciary owner thereof, Penca Point Limitada. Likewise, regarding the IDA (now the Institute of Rural Development, INDER), despite its allegations that there is no file or agreement of the former ITCO, the truth is that since the registration entry is presumably based on an agreement of the Institute, it is a party to this proceeding. For the reasons stated, the exception of lack of passive legitimation filed must also be rejected. The same fate befalls the lack of right exception, since by granting the nullities requested, the State is assisted by the right to its claims.

XV: ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE IDA: In accordance with what was said above, the IDA argues the following: it wholly denies having processed and approved possessory information proceedings in October 1971 in the name of the company La Prieta S.A., by resolution of nine hours ten minutes on October thirteenth, nineteen seventy-two, based on Article 24 of Law 4545 of March 20, 1970. According to that legal body, the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, hereinafter ITCO) was competent to process possessory information, and Law 2825, in its Article 30 subsection 23, established that the Board of Directors was competent to exercise the other functions and attributions that corresponded to it in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers, it was the Board of Directors that was responsible for approving or rejecting the possessory information proceedings provided for in Law 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of admitted cases kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of La Prieta S.A., nor was a resolution issued in the company's name, and that in the Notarial Archive (Archivo Notarial), no protocolization of the administrative resolution of the ITCO approving administrative possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. is reported in the first half of the month of August, in the indices of Notary Public Oscar Saborío Castro. Moreover, it mentions that in Article 11 of Law 4545, the possessory information applications were brought to the attention of the Agrarian Attorney (Procurador Agrario), so if the ITCO had handled the mentioned proceedings, the General Attorney's Office of the Republic should have a file of the case resulting from the transfer made for its knowledge. It requests that the judgment declare that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., over land located at Playa Potrero of Santa Cruz, fourth district, third canton of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral map number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the proceeding as a defendant, and that it be exempted from liability, including the costs of the proceeding. In this regard, as just indicated, the Court considers that regardless of the circumstances adduced, passive legitimation corresponds to it, because an alleged action by the ITCO is documented in the registry entry. On the other hand, from the very evidence they provided, regarding the notarial index of Oscar Saborío Castro for the first half of August nineteen seventy-three, what is reported is a protocolization and the party's name is Nombre142713. The deed indicated in the registration entry of the property in question is a protocolization, and the name of the then representative of La Prieta S.A. is precisely Nombre142713, so it can be inferred that there is some correspondence between what was reported to the Notarial Archive and what was submitted to the Public Registry. As for the rest of the allegations, due to the way in which this is resolved and because it is based on the information contained in the Public Registry, no reference will be made to them. Finally, regarding the declaration requested, that it be declared that the ITCO did not approve, through its Board of Directors, on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., and that it be exempted from liability, both have the character of claims, which cannot be resolved except by means of a lawsuit or counterclaim, and since they were not filed at the appropriate procedural moment, this Court cannot hear them.

XVI. ON THE COSTS (COSTAS)

Due to the nature of the lesivity proceeding, in which there is an act declaratory of rights in favor of an administered party, in this case La Prieta S.A., and in addition to the fact that both the companies Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Limitada acquired in good faith, under the protection of registry publicity, the exemption from both costs of this proceeding applies, in accordance with subsection b) of Article 193 of the CPCA. As for the IDA (now the Institute of Rural Development), this Court considers that it must be ordered to pay costs, because even though the challenged conduct is that of the State, its behavior in this action, with the failure to provide the administrative file or any other document that could have helped clarify the situation, as well as its carelessness in denouncing aspects that were later seen to be consistent with the reality of the situation, reveal a litigation that is at least disorderly and that, far from clarifying the reality of what happened, could instead have led to confusion. For the foregoing, it must be ordered to pay, in favor of the State, both costs of this action.

XVII. ON THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE (MEDIDA CAUTELAR)

Due to the way in which this is resolved, once this judgment is final, proceed to render without effect the precautionary measure granted through resolution No. Placa27992 of eight hours on December twentieth, two thousand ten, regarding the annotation of the lawsuit in the margin of the registration.

POR TANTO

The exceptions of statute of limitations (prescripción), lack of active and passive legitimation, and lack of right filed by the companies Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima and Penca Point Limitada are rejected. The lesivity proceeding filed by the General Attorney's Office of the Republic against the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number CED111843, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number CED111846, Penca Point Limitada, legal identification number CED111844, and the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, currently the Institute of Rural Development) is granted. Consequently, it is declared damaging (lesivo) to the interests of the State, and therefore the absolute nullity is declared of the registration of the property of the Guanacaste Party, currently Folio Real registration number Placa27848, from its registration entry, that is, sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Guanacaste Party, as well as the cadastral and registry acts derived from it and detailed below: 1) Map G-955494-91 registered in the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional) on March eleventh, nineteen ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the property, because it is related to the property of the Guanacaste Party, Folio Real registration number Placa27848, and includes lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone, 2) Entry 2344 of volume 391, according to a document submitted to the Registry's Daily on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from public deed of 18:00 hrs. on October 30, 1991, issued before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property owned in the Guanacaste Party, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A., 3) Entry 10616 of volume 556, according to a document submitted to the Public Registry's Daily on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 18:00 hrs. on August 8, 2005, issued before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda., the property registered in the Guanacaste Party, registration number Placa27849. It is resolved without an award of costs against the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, and Penca Point Limitada.

The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural is ordered to pay, in favor of the State, both sets of costs of the action.

Nombre5192 Nombre142427 José Roberto Garita Navarro *Expediente 10-003159-1027-CA* *Resolución 120-2013-VI* of October 30, 1991, executed before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, whereby La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration folio 26327-000, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 4) The entry 10616 of volume 556 is null and must be cancelled, according to the document submitted to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, executed before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, whereby Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda, the property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration folio 26327-000." by considering them harmful to the public interest. From this perspective, it is necessary, briefly, to establish compliance with the various requirements imposed by the legal system for the filing of a lesividad proceeding, since the absence of one of these elements would prevent and make unnecessary the examination of the merits. Generally, lesividad constitutes a jurisdictional mechanism by virtue of which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From that perspective, in this type of dispute, lesividad is subjective in nature, as it seeks the annulment of conduct that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. This figure is codified in Article 34 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), a rule that sets the preliminary elements and procedural regulations of this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). From the perspective of procedural requirements, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active standing is granted to the issuing Administration of the challenged act, while the passive standing holder is the recipient of the effects of the conduct, that is, the one who obtains its benefits. Regarding the objective aspect, lesividad is constituted as a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-conforming with the legal system, that is, acts suffering from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (Articles 128, 158, 165 and related articles of the cited General Law No. 6227). In this line, the Administration must declare that conduct harmful to the public interest, which must be established within a framework of internal administrative actions that are imperative for formulating the action. Indeed, in the procedural order, it is required that the supreme maximum head of the respective Public Administration declare the lesividad of the act, whether due to harm to economic, fiscal, or other interests deriving from the public interest, for which purpose, they must have a base legal-technical opinion supporting that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conduct, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only internal actions of the Administration, since it will be within the judicial process that the third party may present their defense arguments. Now, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the cited General Law), that is, from the Central Administration, the lawsuit may only be filed by the Procuraduría General de la República (Article 16 of Law No. 8508), upon prior request of the supreme maximum head and prior internal declaration of lesividad, detailing the reasons for that criterion. Regarding the temporal dimension, the new procedural regulations establish a term of one year counted from the issuance of the act (not from its notification) to declare the act harmful to the public interest, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year), a term of one year is granted to file the contentious administrative action as a statute of limitations, except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case, the declaration of lesividad may be made as long as its effects persist, the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of those effects. In that hypothesis, the eventual favorable judgment will order the nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the retroactivity regime of absolute nullities established by Article 171 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). The exception to that temporal aspect of one year is configured in the protection of public domain, in which case the lesividad action is not subject to a term due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of property as derived from Article 261 of the Civil Code. Now, in tax matters, the lesividad action, in addition to the referenced rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). In this fiscal matter, pursuant to Article 41 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), the maximum term for filing the proceeding shall be the same as the statute of limitations imposed by the legal system for the respective substantive right. In addition to this, in this fiscal dynamic, as the review power of the natural head of the conduct of lower Tax Administrations is prohibited (Article 102, subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by legal mandate to the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, as derived from Article 156 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), constituting in that appellate phase an improper monophasic hierarchy (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the term to declare the lesividad that runs against the Minister of Finance (a competence sustained by the fact that they meet the condition of supreme maximum head of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), is computed from the moment that improper monophasic controlling body informs the Administration A quo of what was ordered by virtue of its appellate competence. Prior to that moment, the natural head is materially and legally unable to know of an act that may be potentially harmful to the fiscal, economic, or public interests they must protect and, therefore, incapacitated from exercising their powers to declare that conduct harmful. Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, not being in the aforementioned scenario of improper monophasic hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the term is computed from the adoption of the act. In the specific case, from the analysis of the case file, it is concluded that the internal declaration of lesividad meets the indicated requirements. Because the lesividad of the registry acts is based on the improper registration of part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), according to the State's theory of the case, which is part of the public domain (demanio público), the analysis of the term for the filing of the lesividad proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with Article 34.2, without prejudice to what is analyzed later. Said article, as indicated, does not subject the declaration of lesividad on public domain property to a term. However, once it has been declared, it is understood that it would be subject to the one-year statute of limitations indicated in Article 39.1.e) of the CPCA, for the filing of the lesividad proceeding. Having made the previous clarification, according to what is recorded on folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file, the Minister of Justice, as Head of the Public Registry, declared the lesividad of the acts whose nullity is requested in judgment, by resolution at 1:00 p.m. on October 22, two thousand nine. The lesividad proceeding was filed, as recorded on folio two of the judicial file, on September 2, two thousand ten, that is, before the one-year term previously indicated. The lawsuit is filed by the Procuraduría General de la República against the companies that have benefited from the challenged acts, so in terms of both active and passive standing scope, the referenced requirements are met. Thus, the examination of the present action proceeds forthwith.

XI. OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE (ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE)

As recognized by national legislation and jurisprudence, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a public domain (demanial) property, which shares the characteristics of this type of property, which are imprescriptibility, non-attachability, and inalienability. Its recognition as such is made based on Article 261 of the Civil Code, which distinguishes between property of the public domain and fiscal domain property of the administration:

"Things are public which, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those from which everyone can benefit by being delivered to public use.

All other things are private and subject to individual property, even if they belong to the State or to the Municipalities, who in this case, as civil persons, do not differ from any other person." Likewise, the recognition has been made since the last century, as the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has repeatedly established, among others, in judgment 2241-09, at 12:11 p.m. on February 13, two thousand nine, in which it indicates:

"In previous judgments, this Court has repeatedly recognized (among others, see judgments number 2360-93, 5399-93, 5977-93, 5976-93, and 0502-I-95), that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a public domain (demanial) property; thus, by judgment number 0447-91, at 3:30 p.m. on February 21, 1991, it clearly considered that it is indeed a public domain property, in the terms of Article 261 of the Civil Code:

'The public domain (demanial) character of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (or marine riparian zone as it was formerly called) has been recognized since time immemorial, and Roman Law itself captures that status, as 'res comunes' and 'extra comercium'. In our environment, since the last century it has been clearly recognized the public character of that marine strip adjacent to the national territory, over which it exercises its sovereignty ... it is not possible to consider Article 45 of the Constitution violated, since limits are not imposed on private property, but rather by regulating the public domain (dominio público), what the law does is establish conditions through which the use and enjoyment of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by individuals is possible. Thus, whoever intends by unauthorized means to exercise a private use of that zone will have the possibility of consummating it barred, as it is also accepted, since time immemorial, that these are imprescriptible property in favor of individuals and are out of commerce.' The legal nature of public domain (demanial) property is virtually different, as this Chamber already indicated by resolution number 2306-91 at 2:45 p.m. on November 6, in which it indicated:

'Public domain (dominio público) is composed of property that manifests, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest. They are called dominical property, public domain (demanial) property, public property or things, which do not belong individually to individuals and are destined for public use and subjected to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these properties belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express rule. Characteristic notes of these properties are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, non-attachable, cannot be mortgaged or be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law, and the administrative action substitutes for the injunctions to recover ownership. As they are out of commerce, these properties cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a right to property. The use permit is a unilateral legal act dictated by the Administration, in the use of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the individual is the useful domain of the property, the State always reserving the direct domain over the thing. The precariousness of any right or use permit is consubstantial to the figure and alludes to the possibility that the Administration, at any moment, revoke it, whether due to the State's need to fully occupy the property, for the construction of a public work as well as for reasons of safety, hygiene, aesthetics, all to the extent that if a contraposition of interests arises between the property's purpose and the granted permit, the natural use of the public thing must prevail. Consequently, the national regime of public domain (dominio público) property places them outside the commerce of men and, therefore, the permits granted shall always be on a precarious basis and revocable by the Administration, unilaterally, when reasons of necessity or general interest so indicate.'" Likewise, in resolution No. 1996-05756 at 2:42 p.m. on October 30, nineteen ninety-six, the Chamber indicated:

"Within that property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public zone and the restricted zone. The public zone is by definition excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of individuals, and cannot be the object of occupation in any case, as it is destined for 'public use', as clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that due to their topography are inaccessible. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works is permitted in said zone, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes), the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), and the respective municipality, always attending to the public use for which they must be destined. The regime of this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing may be constructed by individuals, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and under the understanding that they will be destined for public use. Note that the regime of this zone is so strict, that if due to natural causes the topography changes and modifies the demarcation of the zones, and constructions remain within the public zone, the rights over the existing one will be conserved, but modifications or remodelings may not be made, seeking its transfer to the restricted zone or, as a last resort, its expropriation. This is established by Article 24 of the Law, which states:

'Article 24: If due to natural causes the topography of the land varies with the consequent change in distances and for that reason a construction or installation turns out to be located within the public zone, the owner shall conserve their rights but may not make repairs or remodelings. Its transfer to the restricted zone or its alignment to it shall be sought, with assistance authorized from the respective municipality or the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) if it concerns a person of scarce economic resources. If the above is not possible, its expropriation shall proceed.'" Even for properties registered before the promulgation of the law, with lands that comprise the public zone, their particular use is absolutely restricted and shall only proceed with express agreements from the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo) (Article 25), as well as the exceptions established in Article 18 for certain specific projects, such as port structures, industrial plants, etc., which by their very nature need to be built in the vicinity of the sea, in which case express authorization from the mentioned institutions is also necessary." Similarly, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has referred in detail to the historical evolution that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) has undergone, in judgment 007-93, at 3:05 p.m. on January 20, nineteen ninety-three:

Although the current legal regime of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) is basically established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, and its reforms and additions, for a correct understanding of the legal implications of this matter, it is convenient to analyze the legislative evolution on the topic, but underlining the aspects referring both to the determination of its legal nature, as public domain (dominio público) property, and to its surface area extension. In this regard, there have been many regulatory provisions that in one way or another have established regulations on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), formerly better known as the maritime mile (milla marítima). Some of them - the most important - are the following: Law No. 162 of June 8, 1828, Decree No. 12 of December 10, 1839, Law No. 14 of February 26, 1840, Law No. 128 of August 19, 1853, Decree No. 4 of July 30, 1858, Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, Law No. 42 of August 13, 1875, Law No. 22 of February 7, 1881, Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884 and its reforms, Fiscal Code of 1885 (Law No. 8 of October 31, 1885), Law No. 58 of July 29, 1892, Law No. 7 of November 4, 1892, Law No. 15 of March 27, 1896, Law No. 60 of August 13, 1914, Law No. 82 of April 5, 1923, Law No. 75 of August 30, 1924, Law No. 11 of October 22, 1926, by which the Fiscal Code of 1885 was reformed, Law No. 29 of December 3, 1934, General Law of Uncultivated Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939, Decree No. 6 of April 2, 1940 (Regulation to the General Law of Uncultivated Lands), Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, Law No. 201 of August 26, 1943, Decree Law No. 500 of April 19, 1949, Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, Law No. 2906 of November 24, 1961, Law No. 4071 of January 22, 1968, Forest Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, Tourist Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law No. 4928 of December 17, 1971, which reformed the previous one, and Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, which suspended it. It is not appropriate to make an exhaustive analysis of the various regulatory provisions on the matter; however, it is necessary to point out that from the first legal provision issued in the republican era - Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828 - the reservation of one maritime mile (milla marítima) on the coasts of both seas was established, which according to what was set forth in Law No. 128 of August 19, 1953, had been so since the colonial era by provision of the Royal Decree of October 15, 1754. Throughout the entire 19th century, the various issued laws reaffirm this concept, providing for the reservation of one maritime mile (milla marítima) along both coastlines. The General Regulations of the Public Treasury of 1839, 1858, and 1868 maintained the reservation created in 1828; but, for these purposes, what is important to take into account is the clear determination, in the legislation promulgated in the last century, of the so-called maritime mile (milla marítima) as a public domain (dominio público) property, with its consequent character of inalienability and non-claimability. Thus, for example, the General Code of 1841 considered the ebb and flow of the sea and its shores as public domain; the aforementioned Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, reaffirmed the non-claimable character of the lands of the maritime mile (milla marítima); in Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884 - the only provision of the 19th century in which the term Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) was used - said zone was classified as public domain; and the Fiscal Code of 1885 established that the lands included in a zone one mile in width along the coasts of both seas could not be alienated. It is clear then, without detriment to the indicated colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the land reserve along both coastlines has not been part of the uncultivated lands (baldíos) - the crown lands (tierras realengas) of the Colony - but has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that characteristic of public domain (dominio público) property and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter promulgated throughout the 20th century - culminating in the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977 - the classification as public domain (dominio público) property of the lands included in said zone was obviously maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas bathed by the ebb and flow, extending up to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the site where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century gradually specified the extent of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but at no time denied its character as public domain (demanial) property and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; in this way, the first law enacted in the present century in which reference was made to the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) - No. 75 of August 30, 1924 - reaffirmed in its Article 6 the public domain (demanial) character of those lands and the impossibility of exploiting and usufructing them. Always reaffirming its inalienable character, it was in Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922 - which reformed the Fiscal Code of 1855 - where for the first time the extent was specified at 1,672 meters from the ordinary high tide line along the coasts of both seas and 500 meters along both banks of rivers. This measurement was maintained until the year 1942, and was reaffirmed in the Law on Uncultivated Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939, and in the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942. Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, reduced the extent of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line for the Atlantic coast, and Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, did the same for the Pacific coast. These two laws undoubtedly constituted the most important declassifications (desafectaciones) operated in the zone, as they allowed the private acquisition of its lands, excepting 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line. As of these two provisions, and with the exception of the 200 meters counted from the ordinary high tide line, the rest of the 1,672 meters ceased to be public domain from the moment they could be reduced to private domain. However, the lands contained within the 200 meters excepted by the two aforementioned laws continued to be public domain (dominio público) property, not reducible to private domain as they are inalienable and imprescriptible. Therefore, it is correct to maintain that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) remained, as of the mentioned laws, with an extent of 200 meters counted from the high tide line, which is what it currently has, maintaining its character as public domain (demanial) property. This measurement of 200 meters, together with the public domain (demanial) character of the lands included therein, was reaffirmed in then-current Article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and was repeated in Forest Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, and in the Tourist Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970. But in this last law, due to the legislator's intention to transfer to the Municipality important areas located within the inalienable 200 meters, with the idea of gradually developing tourist zones, only 50 meters came to be defined as absolutely inalienable, the remaining 150 meters passing under the administration of said municipalities when so defined by the Tourism Institute, but those areas of agricultural and non-touristic suitability would remain under the administration of the then Land and Colonization Institute.

The 200 meters indicated is the measurement established by Article 9 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, currently in force. From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to conclude that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, has been public domain—and the lands comprised within it, demanial assets (bienes demaniales)—since at least 1828. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present one have introduced on the matter have never generally removed these 200 meters from public domain; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip of greater extension—the so-called maritime mile—but never a lesser one. In the same terms as occurred with Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, and Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, in relation to the Pacific Ocean, which removed a significant area from public domain, going from 1,672 meters to 200 meters, also with Law No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, specifically through its Transitorio III, 150 meters of the 200 were removed from public domain, in that it authorized private individuals who had possessed lots or properties within the 200 meters to register them through the procedure of Informaciones Posesorias. In this regard, possession of more than 30 years, fulfilled in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, was required. However, this provision had a short life because by virtue of Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, it was repealed. For this reason, there are in the country registral inscriptions within the 150 meters of the 200 meters—in relatively recent times—but expressly authorized by law, and only for those titleholders benefited by Transitorio III, which was in effect between April 22, 1970, and November 4, 1974. The maritime terrestrial zone is and always has been, it is repeated, public domain. Its current legal regime is that established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, its amendments, and its regulation (Decreto No. 7841-P of December 16, 1977), this Law being the first specific one on the matter. The characteristics of inalienability (inalienabilidad) and imprescriptibility (imprescriptibilidad) are inherent to it. This is clear from the stipulations in its first article, which to that effect provides: "Article 1. The maritime terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this law." Because they are public domain assets, they belong to the State, are subject to a special legal regime, and their purpose—their destination—is common use and enjoyment. The inalienability of these assets means nothing other than their not belonging to the commerce of men, in a manner similar to the Romanistic figure of "extra comercium" assets. Therefore, said assets cannot be alienated—by any means of private law or public law—their non-reduction to private domain under any form being consubstantial to their legal nature. Hence, another of their characteristics is their imprescriptibility, that is, the non-susceptibility of being acquired through the passage of time under the legal figure of usucapion (usucapión), since possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time during which it has been possessed. The current Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone develops imprescriptibility in its Article 7 by establishing that the lands situated within it cannot be the object of possessive informations (informaciones posesorias), and cannot be appropriated or legalized in the name of a private individual by that or any other means. The regulation that the Law makes of the maritime terrestrial zone is, in everything, consistent with the demanial character of the lands comprised therein, and it is defined—Article 9—as the strip two hundred meters wide along the entire Atlantic and Pacific littorals of the Republic, also including the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide, as well as the maritime islands, islets, and crags, any land or natural formation that rises above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic, with the exception of Isla del Coco and other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. Article 10 divides the maritime terrestrial zone into two sections: the Zona Pública and the Zona Restringida, the first being the strip 50 meters wide from the ordinary high tide line, as well as the areas left uncovered during low tide, the islets, crags, and other small areas and natural formations that rise out of the sea, and the mangroves of the continental and insular littorals and the estuaries (Article 11); and the second being the remaining 150 meters or, in the case of the islands, by the other lands. The law prohibits any type of occupation—under whatever title—in the Zona Pública, but permits concessions in the Zona Restringida, according to the provisions in its articles 20 and 39, respectively, a technique proper to demanial assets which, for the same reason, does not diminish their character. Said concessions (Article 41) may only be for the use and enjoyment of determined areas under the conditions and during the term that that law determines, the latter being regulated in its articles 48, 49, and 50, and matters relating to their extinction and cancellation in 51 and 52, respectively. In numeral 56, the reversion of full use and enjoyment to the respective municipality is stipulated, once a concession is extinguished. It is clear, consequently, that since the lands and other formations comprised in the maritime terrestrial zone are of public domain, the legal possibility of their reduction to private domain under any form must be discarded; the only way in which private subjects can use and enjoy said lands—without this implying their private appropriation—is through the concession that the municipalities grant, but only in the 150 meters of the Zona Restringida, or by registration—between 1970 and 1974—in accordance with Transitorio III of Law No. 4558 of 1970." Currently, the law governing matters relating to the planning of the maritime terrestrial zone is Law 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of March 2, 1977, which covers basic aspects, such as the distinction between the Zona Pública and the Zona Restringida, the granting of concessions, and other aspects of interest (articles 6 and 7). It is understood that no type of right can be exercised over the Zona Pública, while in the Zona Restringida, permits or concessions may be granted, which shall be granted by the respective municipalities. Likewise, Article 7 of the law establishes that no right in the mentioned zone can be obtained through the procedure of possessive informations. However, at the time the events subject to this claim occurred, specifically the titling of the property in the name of La Prieta S.A. (August 7, 1972), Law 4558, Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, was in force, which regulated the use of the zone, in the following terms:

"Article 6.- The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone from the ordinary high tide line shall be inalienable and in no case may they be the object of lease or sale. Therefore, no one may claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for purposes of recreation, leisure, or free circulation. The constructions or installations currently located in that zone may not be remodeled, and in case of their destruction, the new constructions must respect this inalienable zone.

Article 7.- The remaining one hundred fifty meters, inland, may be the object of lease, within the following rules:

• a)Lots intended to build residences or recreational country houses for the use of the lessee or his relatives and that do not constitute a lucrative activity may only be leased in extensions no greater than one hectare and provided that the beach front does not exceed twenty-five meters. No person, together with their spouse or unmarried children, may have more than one lease contract of this kind.
• b)Parcels intended for the establishment of recreational centers, hotels, motels, or restaurants and similar businesses may be leased in larger extensions, in accordance with the planning of the zone. In every case of a lease of this type, the respective municipality must first hear the opinion of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo.
• c)In no case may parcels be leased for the establishment of industries in the zones referred to in this law, except those related to tourist exploitation. But in every case, such industries must be located outside the urban area.
• d)The leases regulated in the preceding subsections shall be granted for a term of one year, but may be extended up to a maximum of ten, at the request of the interested parties. The extension request must necessarily be made within the month prior to the expiration of the contract, under penalty of definitive cancellation of the lease. In all cases of termination of the lease, the improvements shall remain in favor of the respective municipality." However, in its original version, through Transitorio III, which was in effect until October 4, 1971, it permitted the titling of lands within it, under the following parameters:

"Transitorio III.- Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone, for more than thirty years, may request a property title over them, except for the reserve referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such real estate during part of that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that established by the current law of Informaciones Posesorias. In this case, there shall be no limitation as to the extension of the lot or property to be registered in the name of the interested party." It must be understood that the reference to the possessive information was that regulated by Law 4545, Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which allowed an administrative proceeding before the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO) and that only in case of dispute or silence on the part of that Institute, was the judicial route resorted to, as established in Article 12 of said law. For purposes of clarity, it must be indicated that Transitorio III, just cited, was repealed by Law 4847 of October 4, 1971, that Law 4558 was suspended in its effects by Law 5602 of November 4, 1974, and that it was repealed in its entirety with the entry into force of Law 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, which is the one currently in force.

XII. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE

Before entering into the considerations specific to the case, it must be indicated that the analysis will be made in accordance with the evidence provided by the State, basically the registration entry, the plans, and the file from the Registro Público with the investigation that led to the immobilization of the property, since the IDA declared that no file existed to support the registration, nor did the co-defendant parties provide any evidence, especially regarding the registration of the property. As has been indicated, the central object of the proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, because it is within the maritime terrestrial zone. The State's arguments center on the demaniality of the asset, for which reason it is not susceptible to being titled, while the defendant companies (Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Ltda.) consider that the property was registered under the protection of Transitorio III of Law 4558, for which reason it left the public domain of the State. Before defining the legal regime in force at the time of registration, for this Tribunal it is important to consider, in the first place, that the registration was made based on a plan that corresponds to a totally different property, since plan G-9749-71 refers to a piece of land located in District 1, La Cruz, of Canton 1 La Cruz, of the Province of Guanacaste, property of Gabriela González Volio, with boundaries that do not match the registration of the property that was registered. According to the investigation carried out by the Registro Público, through official letter No. DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Manuel Adolfo Mena Abarca, Head of the Unidad de Apoyo Interinstitucional of the Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía, the distance between the closest points of both terrains is sixty-four thousand two hundred twenty meters. It is concluded then that, far from being a material error, as the co-defendants have been indicating, the property in question was registered without the cadastral support required by Article 8 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias in force at the time of registration, since the plan indicated in the registral entry not corresponding even remotely, there is a defect of nullity. In the second place, even after the correction of the plan was made, as plan number G-955494-91 was included and the area of the property was corrected, the same cited official letter indicates that both the first plan and the one just cited are located within the maritime terrestrial zone, both within the Zona Restringida and within the Zona Pública, as set forth below:

"The real estate described in cadastral plan Nº G-9749-71, situated in District 1º La Cruz, Canton: 10º La Cruz, Province, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and making the correlation with the information available to the office, the real estate is located within the maritime terrestrial zone. Furthermore, the real estate described in cadastral plan G-955494-91, situated in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and making the correlation with the information available in the Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía, is located within the Zona Restringida, in addition, between vertices 8 to 10, it covers an area of the Zona Pública. Regarding indicating to you the approximate distance between both terrains at their closest points, the same is approximately 64,220 m." The location within the maritime terrestrial zone was not contested by the co-defendant companies that appeared in the proceeding. Allegations were made regarding the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the property, but without them being conclusive, since the main defense has consisted in the fact that the property was titled by means of Transitorio III of Law 4558, which precisely permitted the titling of public domain. It must be remembered that in any case, demarcation has effects for the granting of concessions in the maritime terrestrial zone and furthermore, the parties did not provide evidence to refute the location of the property, besides the fact that the evidence for better providing referred to demarcation. Hence, both because it was proven by the cited report, and because it was not refuted by those who had an interest in doing so, in principle it must be assumed that the property twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero is part of the public domain, subject to the regime proper to this type of asset, with its characteristics of imprescriptibility, unattachability (inembargabilidad), and inalienability, and that it cannot be the object of private appropriation. The Zona Pública is destined for the use and enjoyment of the generality of the country's inhabitants. The Zona Restringida, for its part, may have a private use, through a permit or concession, from the entry into force of Law 6043, Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, or through the figure of lease, as established by Law 4558, Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone. However, the co-defendant companies have argued that the registration was made under the protection of Transitorio III of this latter Law, which permitted, as was said, titling within the maritime terrestrial zone. Said transitory contemplated the possibility of requesting a property title, when it was demonstrated to have possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone, for more than thirty years, except in the Zona Pública. In this regard, this Tribunal considers that from the registration entry of the property, the possession for the required period of time is not recorded, since what is indicated is that it was bought from Rufina Ríos Grijalba in January of nineteen seventy and that since then she possessed it, without the total years elapsed of possession being recorded. This requirement was essential to be able to access what the transitory norm established. However, for greater abundance, the validity period of the transitory clause in question was also analyzed. According to the information from the Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica, Law 4558, Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, came into effect on April twenty-second, nineteen seventy. The mentioned transitory was found in the original text. According to the information from the same system, the transitory was repealed by Law 4847, which came into effect on October fourth, nineteen seventy-one. According to the information contained in the registration entry, the resolution from ITCO that ordered the registration was dated October thirteenth, nineteen seventy-two, the protocolization of the same was done on August seventh, nineteen seventy-three, and the registration on August ninth of the same year. That is, at the time ITCO approved the registration and the procedure before the Registro Público was carried out, Transitorio III of Law 4558 was not in force, meaning the registration could not be protected by that legal norm. The foregoing allows this Tribunal to conclude that the registration was not in accordance with the law, both due to the non-existence of an essential requirement, such as the plan, which, as indicated, did not correspond to the registered property—a situation that cannot be considered merely a material error, given that it is the basis of all registration—and due to the absence of a norm that permitted the titling of a public domain asset. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that there exists a defect of absolute nullity, which is hereby declared as being harmful to the interests of the State insofar as part of the maritime terrestrial zone was titled contrary to law, in the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, currently Folio Real registration number twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, from its registration entry onwards, that is sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registral acts derived from it and which are detailed below: 1) plan G-955494-91 registered in the Catastro Nacional on March eleventh, nineteen ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the property, because it is related to the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Folio Real registration number twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero and comprises lands of the maritime terrestrial zone, 2) entry 2344 of volume 391, according to a document presented to the Diario del Registro on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from public deed at 18:00 hrs. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number 26327-000, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A., 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to a document presented to the Diario del Registro Público on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 at 18:00 hrs. on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda., the real estate registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number 26327-000.

XIII. OF THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION

As has been stated, the property twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero forms part of the public domain, as determined in official letter No. DGT-351-2008, previously mentioned. Imprescriptibility is one of the characteristics of demanial assets, as has been repeatedly determined, both by the Sala Constitucional, in the cited ruling, and by the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, in ruling 104-96 at nine hours fifteen minutes on October fourth, two thousand ten:

VII.Regarding the alleged prescription of the State's right to reclaim the land subject of the present litigation, the Tribunal Superior already considered: "When a possessory title has been obtained in violation of current legislation, the nullity of the title and the cancellation of the registration entry in the Registro Público can be sought through an ordinary trial, the procedure being in force in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ... The right that the State has to exercise this action, in the case of the lands of the maritime terrestrial zone, is not affected by any prescription term, because in reality it is about rescuing assets that had never left the State's patrimony and which private individuals only have the right to enjoy in accordance with the Law and its regulations." Said interpretation of the Tribunal Superior is correct and finds support in the text of Article 1 of the Law on Maritime Terrestrial Zone, according to which: "The maritime terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country ...". Said law is number 6043 of March 2, 1977. That is, it entered into force after the possessive information of Mr. A.D. was promoted. But prior to that, the Law of Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, was in force, which in its Article 6 provided that the 50 meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone are inalienable and in no case can they be the object of lease or sale; and in Article 7 Ibidem, it is provided that the remaining one hundred fifty meters can be the object only of lease, unless after the maximum 10 years of lease that the law provides, the municipality agrees, at the request of the interested party, to the sale of the parcel.

Thus, it is clear that the parcel referred to in this proceeding was registered in violation of the provisions in force. It is true that according to Article 6 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the coastlines, nor to properties registered, in accordance with the law, in the name of private individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws." In these cases referred to in said Article 6, if the State wishes to recover the property, it must abide by the provisions of Article 8 Ibid., according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone is declared of public utility so that the lots, walls, or improvements located therein, which have been sold, acquired, or possessed in ownership by private individuals, may be recovered for the national patrimony or by means of expropriation." But it should be kept in mind that Article 6 of the law of reference clearly states that these provisions shall apply when dealing with properties registered "in accordance with the law," not when dealing with cases in which, as in the present one, the property has been registered in violation of the provisions of the legal system, in which case the State may recover the property without having to submit to the expropriation process [...]. IX. The appellant sustains the thesis that at the time the possessory information proceeding sought to be annulled in this case was processed, the Procuraduría of that time was called the Fiscal Agency, which had allegedly allowed the hearing relating to the possessory information to lapse without responding. In his opinion, there would then be a "tacit consent" for proceeding to register the property in the name of the title holder, which could only be annulled through a lesivity (lesividad) proceeding. This proceeding, as stated in the appeal, should have been initiated before proceeding to claim the nullity of the possessory information in this venue. But the Chamber does not share this opinion either, since, as the Superior Court already held in the challenged judgment, the lesivity (lesividad) proceeding proceeds only in those cases where the Administration seeks the annulment of administrative acts declaring rights in favor of the administered party, as is clear from Articles 183, subsection 3), of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 35 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, and 156 of the Código Tributario. In the present case, it is evidently not a matter of challenging an administrative act declaring rights, but of challenging judicial possessory information proceedings, because they were processed in violation of the provisions in force, a situation which constitutes a different scenario from the one referred to by the lesivity (lesividad) contentious proceeding. (The emphasis is not from the original).

Imprescriptibility refers not only to the impossibility of appropriating the maritime-terrestrial zone through possession, but also to the fact that the State may exercise, without a time limit, the corresponding actions for the recovery of the public domain in exercise of its self-help (autotutela) power, or as in the present case, where there is an act declaring rights, the filing of a lesivity (lesividad) proceeding. This principle is normatively embodied, as previously indicated, in subsection 2) of Article 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, when it indicates that there is no time limit for filing a lesivity (lesividad) proceeding in the protection of the public domain. Despite the fact that said time limit corresponds to a statute of limitations (caducidad) because it is inherent to the declaration of lesivity (lesividad) of the challenged act, it is grounded in the imprescriptibility of the property. The arguments of the parties, to the effect that the property left the public domain and therefore prescription does not apply, are not admissible, since, as already indicated, the registration of the property contained defects of absolute nullity, which are being declared in this judgment, so the property never left the State's ownership and therefore its imprescriptibility applies. For the foregoing reasons, the exception raised by the co-defendant companies must be rejected.” DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Nombre12413, Officer in Charge of the Interinstitutional Support Unit of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, with the approval of Nombre22360, Head of the cited Department of the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional), addressed to Licenciado Mauricio Castro Lizano, Procurador, indicated: "The property described in cadastral plan No. Placa27988, located at Dirección17287, : 10º La Cruz, Province, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and making the correlation with the information available to the office, the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Furthermore, the property described in cadastral plan G-955494-91, located in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and making the correlation with the information available in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the Restricted Zone (Zona Restringida), and also between vertices 8 to 10 it encompasses an area of the public zone (zona pública). Regarding (sic) indicating the approximate distance between both terrains at their closest points, the same is approximately 64,220 m." (see folio 10 of the administrative file).

• 9)By resolution at eight hours eleven minutes on April twenty-eighth, two thousand nine, of the Public Registry of Real Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles), the overlap with the concession rights described in plans G-128268-1993 and G-132740-1993 was discarded; therefore, it was decided to continue with the study corresponding to the information provided regarding the overlap of farm 26327 in relation to plan G-934467-2004, which describes a concession that has not generated a title. In the same resolution, the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) annotated on the indicated property is maintained, and a hearing is granted for a period of fifteen business days to the company Penca Point Limitada, legal identification number CED111844, in its capacity as fiduciary of the farm of the Partido of GUANACASTE, registration number Placa27991, to the Municipality of Santa Cruz, and to the Procuraduría General de la República. (see folio 70 of the administrative file).
• 10)That by a document received at the Directorate of the Public Registry of Real Property on May twenty-first, two thousand nine, the Municipality answered the granted hearing and explained the situation of overlap between plan G-934467-2004, through which a terrain was requested in concession by the company Paseo Mar y Cielo S.A., and which overlaps with the farm in question. (see folios 80 to 83 of the file).
• 11)That by a document filed on May twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, before the Directorate of the Public Registry of Real Property, the company Penca Point Limitada answered the granted hearing. (see folios 88 to 96 of the administrative file).
• 12)That by resolution at fourteen hours twenty-four minutes on June tenth, two thousand nine, of the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario), it was resolved, as relevant, to immobilize the farm of the Partido of Guanacaste, registration number Placa27983, in accordance with Article 88 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, which shall be maintained until such time as a competent judicial authority has heard the correction of the registry inaccuracy (inexactitud registral) that gave rise to the proceedings and orders the lifting of the referred immobilization, or until the owners and interested parties of said property appear to grant a public deed (escritura pública) through which the situation affecting the farm is corrected. (see folios 106 to 116 of the administrative file).
• 13)That by Resolution No. 545 at thirteen hours on October twenty-second, two thousand nine, the Minister of Justice resolved: "Declare injurious to the interests of the State the document registered on September 9, 1973, in volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, relating to the property registration of the Partido of Guanacaste, Real Folio registration number Placa27984 () - - (26327-000), according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 297, entry 9470. The cadastre of plan number G-95594-91. The document presented on November 22, 1991, to the Public Registry Daily in volume 391, entry 2344, and registered on September 14, 1992, through which La Prieta S.A. sold to Nombre142709 . the property of the partido of Guanacaste registered under Real Folio number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000). The document presented on August 10, 2005, to the Public Registry Daily under volume 556, entry 10616, and registered on August 22, 2005, through which Mogador de Pesca S.A., transferred the farm of the partido of Guanacaste, Real Folio number TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (sic) TWENTY-SEVEN ZERO-ZERO-ZERO (26327-000), in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point S.A. Notify the Procuraduría General de la República so that it may file the respective action before the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction." (see folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file).
• 14)That the lesividad (declaration of injury to state interests) process was filed on September twenty-seventh, two thousand ten (see folio 2 of the judicial file).
• 15)That Law 4558, Law for the Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre), came into effect on April twenty-second, nineteen seventy. In its Transitorio III, it established: "Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or farms in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), for more than thirty years, may request a title of ownership over them, except for the reserve referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such properties during part of that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that set forth in the current Informaciones Posesorias Law. In this case, there shall be no limitation as to the size of the lot or farm to be registered in the name of the interested party." (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System).
• 16)That through Law 4847 of October fourth, nineteen seventy-one, Transitorio III of Law 4558, Law for the Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, was repealed (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System).
• 17)That through Law 5602 of November fourth, nineteen seventy-four, the validity of Law 4558 was suspended. (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System).
• 18)That through Law 6043, Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) of March second, nineteen seventy-seven, Law 4558, Law for the Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, was repealed in its entirety (information obtained through the Costa Rican Legal Information System).
• 19)That by official letter No. DGT-020-13, from the Department of Geodesy and Topography of the National Registry, the location of the boundary markers (mojones) of the farm in question was sent to this Office (see folios 200 to 204 of the judicial file).

III.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1.-) That La Prieta Sociedad Anónima has demonstrated the possession for more than thirty years required by Transitorio III of Law 4558.

IV. PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS

In accordance with the declaration of lesividad made by the Minister of Justice, the purpose of this process is the annulment of the registration of the farm of the Partido of Guanacaste, Real Folio registration number Placa27985, titled in favor of the company La Prieta S.A., and the transfers made subsequently, and plan number G-95594-91, because the farm is within the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre).

V. ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF PARTY

In summary, the representative of the State recounts the registry and cadastral acts that served as the basis for the registration of the farm of the Partido of Guanacaste twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero, originally in favor of La Prieta S.A., then to Mogador de Pesca S.A., and finally in the name of Penca Point Limitada. Similarly, it points out the investigations made by the Public Registry to determine that the plans that served as the basis for registering the farms located them within the maritime-terrestrial zone and even within the public zone, which led to the immobilization of the farm. It concludes that both farm 5-26327-000 and plan G-955494-1991 unduly comprise public domain assets that belong to the State located in the maritime-terrestrial zone, and that this led to the declaration of lesividad that is the subject of this process. As the legal basis for its claim, it states that the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State and, as a demanial asset (bien demanial), it is inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, and cannot be acquired by adverse possession. It maintains that in the case of assets of the natural public domain, as occurs with the coastal zone, the principle of inmatriculación (initial registration) governs, and that to consolidate its regime, its declaration and allocation to public use by law is sufficient, and that they can only be released from such allocation in the same way. For this reason, it considers that the removal of a demanial asset from its public purpose by an administrative act is illegal. It adds that the registry does not validate the nullity of a title, and that the registration does not rectify the defects that the registered document or the contained act has, and that they subsist regardless of the same. It states that in the face of an illegitimate registration, the individual does not acquire any right over the asset, and that the same happens with the cadastre of survey plans, as it also does not confer ownership or possession rights, just as there is no useful or valid exercise of possession because it is a public domain asset. It concludes that since the registration of property Placa27986 unduly comprises lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone, its nullity defects are absolute and imprescriptible, both due to the nature of the asset, the absence of valid ownership, and for being contrary to prohibitive laws. In the conclusions expressed at the Preliminary Hearing (Audiencia Preliminar) held for this purpose, regarding the exceptions (excepciones) raised by the co-defendant parties, it indicates that the nullity of registry and cadastral entries of a terrain that is within the maritime-terrestrial zone is being requested, and that the State is the owner thereof, and the representation of the same corresponds to the Procuraduría General de la República, therefore it has active standing (legitimación activa). Regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción), it maintains that public domain assets are not affected by prescription or expiration, by virtue of Article 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. Likewise, it states that in application of Article 34.2 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (CPCA), lesividad regarding public domain assets is not subject to time limits. Regarding the exception of passive standing (legitimación pasiva) with respect to the IDA, it must be assessed that the origin of the registration was processed in an ITCO file, and for that reason it is a party in the process. Regarding the application of Transitorio III of Law 4558, according to its text, the possessory information (información posesoria) should have been processed before the corresponding Court, so since that procedure was not carried out, there is nullity of the registration. Finally, it points out that all the facts of the complaint are accredited.

VI. ARGUMENTS OF THE INSTITUTE OF AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario)

The IDA totally rejects having processed and approved possessory information proceedings in October 1971 in the name of the company Nombre142714 ., through a resolution at nine hours ten minutes on October thirteenth, nineteen seventy-two, based on Article 24 of Law 4545 of March 20, 1970. According to that legal body, the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, ITCO) was competent to process possessory information, and Law 2825, in its Article 30, subsection 23, established that it was the Board of Directors that was competent to exercise the other functions and attributions that corresponded to it in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers that it was up to the Board of Directors to approve or reject the possessory information proceedings provided for in Law 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of filed cases kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of Nombre142714 ., nor was a resolution issued in the name of the company, just as in the Notarial Archive, no record is reported in the first half of August, in the indices of Notary Public Oscar Saborío Castro, of the protocolization of the ITCO administrative resolution approving administrative possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. On the other hand, it mentions that in Article 11 of Law 4545, the Procurador Agrario was informed of the possessory information applications; therefore, if the ITCO had handled the mentioned proceedings, the Procuraduría General de la República should have a file on the case resulting from the transfer made for its knowledge. It requests that the judgment declare that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., over a terrain located at Playa Potrero of Santa Cruz, fourth district, third canton of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral plan number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the process as a defendant, and that it be exempted from liability, including the costs of the process.

VII. THE POSITION OF MOGADOR DE PESCA S.A.

The company argues that the State declines to refer to the fact that the farm was registered under Transitorio 3 of Law 4545, since the legislator authorized and legalized the registration of properties that qualified under the requirements established therein, and that the property that was at some time of its ownership met those requirements, and therefore it is not public domain. It also considers that the State claims the nullity of the title based on mistaken facts, because the farm was not created in 1991, but was registered in 1973 in accordance with the legislation in force at that time, and the fact that there is a material error in the plan does not result in the nullity of the farm and its registration. Based on the foregoing, that the registration of the farm is valid, it concludes that the inclusion of cadastral plan G-955494-91 to describe the farm and to decrease its area is also valid. It also considers that if there were any defect in the registration of the plan or its use for the indicated purpose, any action to sue and annul the plan or its use has already expired, as more than ten years have elapsed, and that Article 456 of the Civil Code protects the acquirer who relies on what the Registry states. It indicates that the State does not prove that the farm is incorrectly registered. In the conclusions given at the Preliminary Hearing, it also stated that the transfer was made in good faith, as well as that the registration was made based on Transitorio III of Law 4558, so the property left the State's domain, and therefore the statute of limitations applies. It also maintains that the acquisition was made under the protection of Article 456 of the Civil Code, based on registry publicity. Finally, it requests that if the claim is granted, they be exempted from paying costs due to evident good faith.

VIII. POSITION OF PENCA POINT LIMITADA

The co-defendant bases its opposition firstly on Article 6 of Law 6043, which indicates that the provisions of the law are not applicable to properties registered subject to law, so it should not apply to the farm in question, because it was registered at the time under Law 4558, following the possessory information procedure described in Law 4545, as is evident from its registration entry. It argues that with this latter law, the ITCO was empowered to process possessory information and administratively grant property titles. It adds that while Law 4545 was in force, Law 4558 was approved, which in its Transitorio III empowered all persons who had possessed lots or farms in the maritime-terrestrial zone to request a property title over the properties, provided the conditions indicated in the legal text were met, using for such purposes the procedure set forth in the Informaciones Posesorias Law, which empowered La Prieta S.A. to title a terrain within the maritime-terrestrial zone. It considers that the State has not offered any evidence aimed at verifying that the possessory information procedure was not carried out in compliance with the applicable laws at the time of its processing, probably because the file of the possessory information was misplaced by the IDA, so since there is no certainty about the legal basis through which the possessory information was approved, the application of the principle in dubio pro administrado, in its favor, is mandatory, and it must be taken as a fact that farm Dirección17288 was registered under the protection of the law, which would lead to the conclusion that its creation is not a violation of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. In the conclusions expressed at the Preliminary Hearing, the company indicated that there is a lack of active standing because the property is not within the maritime-terrestrial zone, and that for this same circumstance, it cannot be sued either.

XI. ON THE EFFECTS OF THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (REBELDÍA)

The Court's duty to analyze the plaintiff's right and claim despite the declaration of default judgment. The CPCA in its Article 65 indicates that if the defendant does not answer the claim within the established period, they shall be declared in default ex officio, and the claim shall be considered affirmatively answered regarding the facts, without prejudice to the defendant's ability to appear at any time, taking the process in the state in which it is found. Regarding the effects of the declaration of default judgment, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated that: "...Certainly, the failure to answer the claim leads to default judgment and to considering the facts affirmatively answered, but it does not negate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture. But furthermore, the defaulting party may appear at any time in the process and offer new evidence (arts. Placa21479 .), which, if pertinent for the clarification of the facts, the judge may admit for a better resolution. Therefore, default judgment is not in itself sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only reaches this value if other evidence of the same lineage does not contradict the fictional answer. For this reason, default judgment must be assessed with the rest of the probative elements present in the process." (Voto 801-F-02 of 11:10 a.m. on October 18, 2002). Thus, the answer in default would not be sufficient to grant the requests of the counterclaim, if other elements of judgment lead, under the application of the rules of sound criticism, to a finding that the necessary legal grounds do not exist to grant the pleaded claims..." (See resolution No. 991-F-2004, at 3:20 p.m. on November 17, 2004). Under this approach, it can be deduced that the declaration of default judgment does not negate the power of the jurisdictional body to gather evidence, verify the factual picture as well as the plaintiff's claims, and resolve the substantive exceptions. Although the procedural effect of default judgment implies the affirmative answer to the facts invoked in the complaint, the truth of the matter is that this effect does not relieve the judge of their duty to examine the evidence and analyze the merits of the case. With all the scope of default judgment, the duty to prove the facts constituting the right being claimed in the jurisdictional venue remains, as is clear from numeral 82 of the CPCA, in relation to precept 317 of the Civil Procedural Code, applicable supplementally in this matter as permitted by Article 220 of the CPCA. This burden of proof, as a precondition for the success of the claims, subsists regardless of whether the opposing party has or has not answered the claim; ergo, the mere declaration of default judgment does not negate the plaintiff's obligation to prove their right. In this sense, default judgment, even with its procedural effects, is a legal concept different from acquiescence (allanamiento), so its occurrence does not automatically imply the granting of what was requested without an examination of the merits. Consequently, under these circumstances, the judge should not assume the absence of controversy and dispense with the evidence, but rather seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 of the same Procedural Code and because of the legality control that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution and Article 1 of the Procedural Code).

Responding to what has been explained, it is the criterion of this Tribunal that in this case, despite the declaration of default of the company La Prieta S.A., the body of evidence brought to the case file must be analyzed in order to verify the factual framework and define whether the plaintiff's claims have a legal basis or not.

**X. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LESIVIDAD PROCEEDING**. In this case, the State seeks a declaration of nullity of the following registry entries: "1) The property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27986 is null from its registration, therefore the National Registry must cancel volume 2120, entry 403, sequence 001, according to presentation to the Public Registry Daily on August 7, 1973, volume 97, entry 9470, as it improperly encompasses lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), a public domain asset where the powers of administrative self-protection (autotutela administrativa) apply. 2) The cadastral map number Placa27987 is null, and consequently the National Registry must cancel it, because it comprises lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). 3) Entry 2344 of volume 391 is null and the National Registry must cancel it, according to the document presented to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from the public deed of 6:00 p.m. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 4) Entry 10616 of volume 556 is null and must be canceled, according to the document presented to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to Public Deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred, under fiduciary ownership, to Penca Point Ltda, the property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa27849." because it considers them detrimental (lesiva) to public interests. From this perspective, it is necessary to briefly establish compliance with the various requirements imposed by the legal system for filing a lesividad proceeding, since the absence of one of these elements would preclude and make unnecessary the examination of the merits. In general terms, the lesividad proceeding is a jurisdictional mechanism by which the Administration seeks the suppression of its own act, which, in principle, generates a favorable effect for a third-party recipient. From this perspective, in this type of dispute, the lesividad is subjective in nature, as it seeks the annulment of a conduct that grants a right or, in general, a beneficial situation to a person. This figure is established in Article 34 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, a rule that sets forth the prior elements and procedural regulations for this figure. However, it is also referenced in numeral 173 of the General Law of Public Administration. From the perspective of procedural requirements, subjective, objective, procedural, and temporal conditions are imposed. Regarding the subjective aspect, active legal standing (legitimación activa) is granted to the Administration issuing the challenged act, while the passive legal standing (legitimado pasivo) belongs to the recipient of the effects of the conduct, that is, whoever obtains its benefits. As for the objective aspect, the lesividad constitutes a mechanism for the legal elimination of administrative acts that are substantially non-conforming with the legal system, that is, acts that suffer from some level of invalidity, whether absolute or relative, in any of its typologies (articles 128, 158, 165 and concordant articles of the aforementioned General Law No. 6227). In that line, the Administration must declare that conduct detrimental (lesiva) to public interests, which must be established within a framework of internal actions by the administration that are essential to formulate the action. Indeed, in the procedural order, it is required that the supreme highest head of the respective Public Administration declare the act's detriment (lesividad), whether due to injury to economic, fiscal, or other interests arising from the public interest, for which purpose, it must have a legal-technical criterion as a basis to support that determination. Unlike other figures for the suppression of public conducts, it does not require a hearing for the third party, but only actions within the Administration itself, since it will be within the judicial process that the third party can establish its defense arguments. However, when the act emanates from the State (see Article 1 of the aforementioned General Law), that is, from the Central Administration, the lawsuit can only be filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) (canon 16 of Law No. Placa494), upon prior request of the supreme highest head and prior internal declaration of detriment (lesividad), detailing the reasons for that criterion. Regarding the temporal dimension, the new procedural regulations establish a period of one year counted from the issuance of the act (not from its notification) to declare the act detrimental (lesivo) to public interests, and after that declaration (and not from the expiration of that first year) a period of one year is granted to file the contentious-administrative action as a fatal statute of limitations (plazo de caducidad), except in cases of acts with absolute nullity, in which case, the declaration of detriment (lesividad) can be made as long as its effects persist, with the aforementioned year running from the definitive cessation of those effects. In that hypothesis, any eventual favorable judgment will order the nullity only for the future inapplicability of the act, constituting an express exception to the retroactivity regime for absolute nullities established by Article 171 of the General Law of Public Administration. The exception to this temporal aspect of one year is configured in the protection of public domain (tutela de dominio público), in which case the lesividad action is not subject to any time limit due to the application of the general clause of imprescriptibility of that type of asset as derived from Article 261 of the Civil Code. Now, in tax matters, the lesividad action, in addition to the aforementioned rules, is regulated in Article 165 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. In this fiscal matter, according to Article 41 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the maximum period to initiate the process will be the same as the one imposed by the legal system as the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) for the respective substantive right. In addition to this, in this fiscal dynamic, since the review power of the natural head over the conducts of lower Tax Administrations is prohibited (numeral 102, subsections b and d of Law No. 6227), a competence that has been granted by legal imperative to the Tax Administrative Tribunal, as derived from Article 156 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, constituting in this appeal phase an improper monophasic hierarchy (jerarquía impropia monofásica) (non-hierarchical control), it is clear that the period to declare the detriment (lesividad) running against the Minister of the Finance portfolio (competence supported by the fact that he meets the condition of supreme highest head of both the reviewed body and the non-hierarchical controller, both part of the same structure of that Administration), is computed from the moment in which that improper monophasic controller body informs the Administration A quo of what was decided by virtue of its appellate competence. Prior to that moment, the natural head is in a material and legal impossibility to know of an act that could be potentially detrimental (lesivo) to the fiscal, economic, or public interests it must safeguard, and therefore, unable to exercise its powers to declare that action detrimental (lesiva). Of course, when the act deemed irregular derives from a lower administration, as it is not in the aforementioned scenario of improper monophasic hierarchy, such exceptionality is not applicable, and the period is computed from the adoption of the act. In this case, from the analysis of the case file, it is concluded that the internal declaration of detriment (lesividad) meets the indicated requirements. Since the detriment (lesividad) of the registry acts is based on the improper registration of part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), according to the State's theory of the case, which is part of the public domain (demanio público), the analysis of the time limit for filing the lesividad lawsuit will be carried out in accordance with Article 34.2, without prejudice to what is analyzed later. Said article, as indicated, does not subject the declaration of detriment (lesividad) concerning public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) to any time limit. However, once it has been declared, it is understood that it would be subject to the one-year statute of limitations (plazo de caducidad) indicated in Article 39.1.e) of the CPCA for filing the lesividad lawsuit. Having made the previous clarification, according to what is recorded on folios 10 to 20 of the judicial file, the Minister of Justice, as Head of the Public Registry, declared the detriment (lesividad) of the acts whose nullity is requested in a judgment, by resolution issued at one o'clock in the afternoon on October twenty-second, two thousand nine. The lesividad lawsuit was filed, as recorded on folio two of the judicial file, on September second, two thousand ten, that is, before the one-year period previously indicated. The lawsuit is presented by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the companies that have benefited from the challenged acts, therefore, in terms of both active and passive legal standing, the referred requirements are met. Thus, we proceed to the examination of the present action.

**XI. OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE (ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE):** As recognized by national legislation and jurisprudence, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a demanial asset (bien demanial), which shares the characteristics of this type of asset, which are imprescriptibility, unseizability, and inalienability. Its recognition as such is based on Article 261 of the Civil Code, which distinguishes between public domain assets (bienes de dominio) and fiscal domain assets of the administration:

"Public things are those which, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those from which everyone can benefit because they are delivered for public use.

All other things are private and subject to particular property, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who in this case, as civil persons, are no different from any other person." Similarly, this recognition has been established since the last century, as the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has repeatedly stated, among others, in ruling 2241-09, issued at twelve hours eleven minutes on February thirteenth, two thousand nine, in which it indicates:

"In previous rulings, this Tribunal has repeatedly recognized (among others, see rulings number 2360-93, 5399-93, 5977-93, 5976-93, and 0502-I-95), that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is a demanial asset (bien demanial); thus, in ruling number 0447-91, issued at 3:30 p.m. on February 21, 1991, it clearly considered that it is indeed a public domain asset (bien de dominio público), in the terms of Article 261 of the Civil Code:

'The demanial character of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (or marine riverbank as it was formerly called) has been recognized since time immemorial, and Roman Law itself records that status, as 'res comunes' and 'extra comercium'. In our environment, the public character of that marine strip adjacent to the national territory, over which it exercises its sovereignty, has been clearly recognized since the last century... it is not possible to consider Article 45 of the Constitution violated, since limitations are not imposed on private property, but rather, by regulating the public domain, the law establishes conditions through which the use and enjoyment of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by individuals is possible. Thus, anyone who intends by unauthorized means to exercise a private use of that zone will be barred from the possibility of consummating it, as it is also accepted, since time immemorial, that these are assets imprescriptible in favor of individuals and that are outside of commerce.' The legal nature of demanial property is virtually different, as this Chamber already indicated by resolution number 2306-91 issued at 2:45 p.m. on November 6, in which it stated:

'Public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets, demanial assets, public assets or things, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are destined for public use and subjected to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected by the service they provide and which is invariably essential under an express rule. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover ownership. As they are outside of commerce, these assets cannot be subject to possession, although a right to use can be acquired, although not a right to property. The use permit is a unilateral legal act issued by the Administration, in the exercise of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the individual is the useful domain (dominio útil) of the asset, the State always reserving the direct domain (dominio directo) over the thing. The precariousness of any right or use permit is consubstantial to the figure and alludes to the possibility that the administration, at any time, may revoke it, whether due to the State's need to fully occupy the asset, for the construction of a public work, as well as for reasons of security, hygiene, aesthetics, all this to the extent that if a contradiction of interests arises between the purpose of the asset and the granted permit, the natural use of the public thing must prevail. Consequently, the national regime of public domain assets places them outside the commerce of men, and therefore, the permits that are granted will always be at a precarious title and revocable by the Administration, unilaterally, when reasons of necessity or general interest so indicate.' Likewise, in Resolution N°1996-05756 issued at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on October thirtieth, nineteen ninety-six, the Chamber indicated:

"Within that property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public zone and the restricted zone. The public zone is by definition excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of individuals, and cannot be subject to occupation in any case, as it is destined for 'public use', according to what is clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that due to their topography are inaccessible. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works in said zone is permitted, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), and the respective municipality, always attending to the public use to which they must be destined. The regime of this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing can be built by individuals, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and on the understanding that they will be destined for public use. Note that the regime of this zone is so strict, that if due to natural causes the topography changes and modifies the demarcation of the zones, and constructions end up within the public zone, the rights over what exists will be preserved, but no modifications or remodeling can be made, seeking their transfer to the restricted zone or, ultimately, their expropriation. This is established by Article 24 of the Law, which states:

'Article 24: If due to natural causes the topography of the land varies with the consequent change in distances and for that reason a construction or installation is located within the public zone, the owner shall retain their rights but may not make repairs or remodeling. Its transfer to the restricted zone or its alignment to it shall be sought, with help authorized from the respective municipality or the Costa Rican Tourism Institute if it concerns a person of limited economic resources. If the above is not possible, its expropriation shall be carried out.' Even for properties registered before the enactment of the law, with lands that comprise the public zone, the particular use of the same is absolutely restricted and will only proceed with express agreements from the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the National Housing and Urbanism Institute (INVU) (Article 25), as well as the exceptions established in Article 18 for certain specific projects, such as port structures, industrial plants, etc., which by their very nature need to be built near the sea, in which case the express authorization of the mentioned institutions is also necessary." Similarly, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has referred in detail to the historical evolution of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), in ruling 007-93, issued at fifteen hours five minutes on January twentieth, nineteen ninety-three:

Although the current legal regime of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) is basically established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, and its amendments and additions, for a correct understanding of the legal implications of this matter, it is appropriate to analyze the legislative evolution on the subject, but highlighting the aspects referring both to the determination of its legal nature, as a public domain asset (bien de dominio público), and to its surface extension. In this regard, there have been many regulatory provisions that have, in one way or another, established regulations on the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), formerly better known as the maritime mile. Some of them - the most important - are the following: Law No. 162 of June 8, 1828, Decree No. 12 of December 10, 1839, Law No. 14 of February 26, 1840, Law No. 128 of August 19, 1853, Decree No. 4 of July 30, 1858, Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, Law No. 42 of August 13, 1875, Law No. 22 of February 7, 1881, Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884 and its amendments, Fiscal Code of 1885 (Law No. 8 of October 31, 1885), Law No. 58 of July 29, 1892, Law No. 7 of November 4, 1892, Law No. 15 of March 27, 1896, Law No. 60 of August 13, 1914, Law No. 82 of April 5, 1923, Law No. 75 of August 30, 1924, Law No. 11 of October 22, 1926, by which the Fiscal Code of 1885 was amended, Law No. 29 of December 3, 1934, General Law of Waste Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939, Decree No. 6 of April 2, 1940 (Regulations to the General Law of Waste Lands), Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, Law No. 201 of August 26, 1943, Decree Law No. 500 of April 19, 1949, Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, Law No. 2906 of November 24, 1961, Law No. 4071 of January 22, 1968, Forest Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, Tourism Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law No. 4928 of December 17, 1971 which amended the previous one, and Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, which suspended it. It is not necessary to make an exhaustive analysis of the various regulatory provisions on the matter; however, it is necessary to point out that from the first legal provision issued in the republican era - Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828 - the reservation of one maritime mile on the coasts of both seas was established, which according to what was recorded in Law No. 128 of August 19, 1953, had been so since colonial times by provision of the Royal Decree of October 15, 1754. Throughout the 19th century, the various enacted laws reaffirmed this concept, providing for the reservation of one maritime mile along both coastlines. The General Regulations of the Public Treasury of 1839, 1858, and 1868 maintained the reservation created in 1828; but, for these purposes, the important thing to take into account is the clear determination, in the legislation enacted in the last century, of the so-called maritime mile as a public domain asset (bien de dominio público), with its consequent characteristic of inalienability and non-claimability (indenunciabilidad). Thus, for example, the General Code of 1841 considered the ebb and flow of the sea and its banks as public domain; the aforementioned Law No. 7 of August 31, 1868, reaffirmed the non-claimable (indenunciable) character of the lands of the maritime mile; in the Water Law No. 8 of May 26, 1884 - the only provision of the 19th century in which the term Maritime-Terrestrial Zone was used - said zone was classified as public domain; and the Fiscal Code of 1885 established that lands comprised within a zone of one mile in width along the coasts of both seas could not be alienated. It is clear then, without prejudice to the indicated colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both coastlines has not been part of the waste lands (baldíos) - the Crown lands of the Colony - but has always been subject to a different legal regime, that of public domain assets (bienes de dominio público), and therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century - culminating in the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977 - the classification as public domain assets of the lands comprised in said zone was, obviously, maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas bathed by the ebb and flow, extending up to the distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century gradually specified the extension of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but at no time denied its character as a demanial asset (bien demanial) and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; thus, the first law enacted in the present century in which reference was made to the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) - No. 75 of August 30, 1924 - reaffirmed in its Article 6 the demanial character of those lands and the impossibility of exploiting and usufructing from them. Always reaffirming its inalienable character, it was in Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922 - which amended the Fiscal Code of 1855 - where the extension was first specified as 1,672 meters from the ordinary high-water mark along the coasts of both seas, and 500 meters along both banks of rivers. This measurement was maintained until the year 1942, and was reaffirmed in the Law on Waste Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939 and in the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942. Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942 reduced the extension of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) to 200 meters from the ordinary high-water mark for the Atlantic coast, and Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943 did the same for the Pacific coast. These two laws constituted, without doubt, the most important de-affectations (desafectaciones) operated in the zone, as they allowed the private acquisition of its lands, excepting 200 meters from the ordinary high-water mark. As of these two provisions, and with the exception of the 200 meters counted from the ordinary high-water mark, the rest of the 1,672 meters ceased to be public domain from the moment they could be reduced to private domain. However, the lands contained within the 200 meters excepted by the two aforementioned laws continued to be public domain assets, not reducible to private domain because they are inalienable and imprescriptible. Therefore, it is correct to maintain that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) was left, as of the mentioned laws, with an extension of 200 meters counted from the high-water mark, which is what it currently has, maintaining its character as a demanial asset (bien demanial).

This 200-meter measurement, together with the public domain (demanialidad) nature of the lands comprised within it, was reaffirmed in the then-current Article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and was repeated in the Forestry Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, and in the Law on Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970. However, in this last law, due to the legislator's intention to transfer important areas located within the inalienable 200 meters to the Municipality, with the idea of gradually developing tourist zones, only 50 meters came to be defined as absolutely inalienable, with the remaining 150 meters passing under the administration of said municipalities when so defined by the Tourism Institute, but those areas of agricultural and non-tourist suitability would continue under the administration of the then Institute of Lands and Colonization. The indicated 200 meters is the measurement established by Article 9 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, currently in force. From this brief study of the legislation regarding the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to conclude that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high-water mark along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, has been public domain (dominio público) —and the lands comprised within it, public domain assets (bienes demaniales)— since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present have introduced on the matter have never generally released (desafectado) these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a larger strip in extent—the so-called maritime mile—but never a smaller one. In the same terms as happened with Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, and Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, in relation to the Pacific Ocean, which released a significant area, going from 1,672 meters to 200 meters, also with Law No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, specifically through its Transitory Provision III (Transitorio III), 150 meters of the 200 were released, insofar as private individuals who had possessed lots or farms within the 200 meters were authorized to register them through the procedure of Possessory Information Proceedings (Informaciones Posesorias). In this regard, possession of more than 30 years, held in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, was required. But this provision had a short life because by virtue of Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, it was repealed. For this reason, there are record registrations in the country within the 150 meters of the 200—in a relatively recent period—but expressly authorized by law, and only for those titleholders benefited by Transitory Provision III, which was in effect between April 22, 1970, and November 4, 1974. The maritime terrestrial zone is and always has been, it is repeated, public domain. Its current legal regime is that established by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, its amendments, and its regulation (Decree No. 7841-P of December 16, 1977), this Law being the first specific one on the matter. The characteristics of inalienability (inalienabilidad) and imprescriptibility (imprescriptibilidad) are inherent to it. This is clear from the stipulations in its first article, which to that effect states: "Article 1. The maritime terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national heritage, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this law." Because they are public domain assets, they belong to the State, are subject to a special legal regime, and their purpose—destination—is common use and exploitation. The inalienability of these assets means nothing other than their non-participation in the commerce of men, similar to the Romanist concept of assets "extra comercium." Therefore, said assets cannot be alienated—by any means of private law or public law—their non-reduction to private domain under any form being consubstantial to their legal nature. Hence, another of their characteristics is their imprescriptibility, that is, their unsusceptibility to being acquired through the passage of time under the legal concept of usucapion (usucapión), because possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time for which it has been possessed. The current Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone develops imprescriptibility in its Article 7 by establishing that the lands situated within it cannot be the object of possessory information proceedings, and they cannot be appropriated or legalized in the name of a private individual by that or any other means. The regulation that the Law makes of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone is, in all respects, consistent with the public domain nature of the lands comprised within it, and it is defined—Article 9—as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, also including the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide, as well as maritime islands, islets, and crags, any land or natural formation that rises above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic, with the exception of Isla del Coco and other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. Article 10 divides the Maritime Terrestrial Zone into two sections: the Public Zone (Zona pública) and the Restricted Zone (Zona restringida), the first being constituted by the strip of 50 meters wide from the ordinary high-water mark, as well as the areas left uncovered during low tide, the islets, crags, and other small areas and natural formations that rise out of the sea, and the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and the estuaries (Article 11); and the second being constituted by the remaining 150 meters or, in the case of islands, by the remaining lands. The law prohibits any type of occupation—under any title whatsoever—in the Public Zone, but permits concessions (concesiones) in the Restricted Zone, according to the provisions of its Articles 20 and 39, respectively, a technique characteristic of public domain assets which, for that very reason, does not diminish their nature. Said concessions (Article 41) may only be for the use and enjoyment of determined areas under the conditions and during the term that said law determines, the latter being regulated in its Articles 48, 49, and 50, and matters relating to their extinction and cancellation in 51 and 52, respectively. In provision 56, the reversion of full use and enjoyment to the respective municipality is stipulated, once a concession is extinguished. It is clear, consequently, that since the lands and other formations comprised in the maritime terrestrial zone are public domain, the legal possibility of their reduction to private domain under any form must be dismissed; the only manner in which private subjects can use and enjoy said lands—without this implying their private appropriation—is through the concession that the municipalities grant, but only within the 150 meters of the Restricted Zone, or by registration—between 1970 and 1974—in accordance with Transitory Provision III of Law No. 4558 of 1970." Currently, the law governing matters relating to the management of the maritime terrestrial zone is Law 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of March Second, Nineteen Seventy-Seven, which includes basic aspects such as the distinction between the public zone and the restricted zone, the granting of concessions, and other aspects of interest (Articles 6 and 7). It is understood that no type of right can be exercised over the public zone, whereas in the restricted zone, permits or concessions may be granted, which shall be granted by the respective municipalities. Likewise, Article 7 of the law establishes that through the procedure of possessory information proceedings, no right can be obtained in the aforementioned zone. However, at the time the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred, specifically the titling of the property in the name of La Prieta S.A. (August 7, 1972), Law 4558, Law on Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, was in force, which regulated the use of the zone in the following terms:

"Article 6.- The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone from the ordinary high-water mark shall be inalienable and in no case may be the object of lease or sale. Therefore, no one may claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for purposes of recreation, leisure, or free circulation. The constructions or installations currently located in that zone may not be remodeled, and in the event of their destruction, new constructions must respect this inalienable zone.

Article 7.- The remaining one hundred fifty meters, inland, may be the object of lease, within the following rules:

• a)Lots intended for building residences or recreational villas for the use of the lessee or his/her relatives and that do not constitute lucrative activity, may only be leased in extensions no larger than one hectare and provided that the beach frontage does not exceed twenty-five meters. No person, together with his/her spouse or unmarried children, may have more than one lease contract of this class.
• b)Parcels intended for the establishment of leisure centers, hotels, motels, or restaurants and similar, may be leased in larger extensions, in accordance with the planning of the zone. In any case of this type of lease, the respective municipality must previously hear the opinion of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute.
• c)In no case may parcels be leased for the establishment of industries in the zones to which this law refers, except those related to tourist exploitation. But in any case, such industries must be located outside the urban area.
• d)The leases regulated in the preceding subsections shall be granted for a term of one year, but may be extended up to a maximum of ten, at the request of the interested parties. The request for extension must necessarily be made within the month prior to the expiration of the contract, under penalty of definitive cancellation of the lease. In all cases of termination of the lease, the improvements shall remain in favor of the respective municipality." However, in its original version, through Transitory Provision III, which was in force until October fourth, nineteen seventy-one, it permitted the titling of lands within the zone, under the following parameters:

"Transitory III.- Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and under title of owners, lots or farms in the maritime-terrestrial zone, for more than thirty years, may request title of ownership over them, except for the reserve referred to in Article 6 of this law, even when they might have possessed such real estate during part of that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its Institutions. The procedure shall be that established by the current law on Possessory Information Proceedings. In this case, there shall be no limitation as to the extension of the lot or farm to be registered in the name of the interested party." It must be understood that the referral to possessory information proceedings was that regulated by Law 4545, Law of Possessory Information Proceedings, which permitted an administrative proceeding before the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO) and that, only in case of opposition or silence on the part of that Institute, was a recourse to the judicial route taken, as established by Article 12 of said law. For purposes of clarity, it must be indicated that Transitory Provision III, just cited, was repealed by Law 4847 of October fourth, nineteen seventy-one; that Law 4558 was suspended in its effects by Law 5602 of November fourth, nineteen seventy-four; and that it was repealed in its entirety with the entry into force of Law 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, which is the one currently in force.

XII. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE

Before making the considerations specific to the case, it must be indicated that the analysis will be made in accordance with the evidence provided by the State, basically the registration entry, the plans, and the file from the Public Registry with the investigation that led to the immobilization of the farm, given that IDA declared that no file existed supporting the registration, nor did the co-defendant parties provide any evidence, especially regarding the registration of the farm. As has been indicated, the central object of the proceeding is the annulment of the registration of the farm of the Partido de Guanacaste, Real Folio registry number Placa27848, for being located within the maritime terrestrial zone. The State's arguments center on the public domain nature of the asset, meaning it is not susceptible to being titled, while the defendant companies (Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Ltda.), consider that the farm was registered under the protection of Transitory Provision III of Law 4558, and therefore it left the public domain of the State. Before going on to define the legal regime in force at the time of registration, it is important for this Tribunal to consider first, that the registration was made based on a plan that corresponds to a totally different farm, since the plan Placa27988 refers to a piece of land located in Dirección11190, of Canton 1 La Cruz, of the Province of Guanacaste, owned by Nombre142711, with boundaries that do not coincide with the registration of the farm that was registered. According to the investigation carried out by the Public Registry, through official letter No. DGT-351-2008 of May 14, 2008, signed by Nombre12413, Head of the Inter-Institutional Support Unit of the Department of Geodesy and Topography, the distance between the closest points of both terrains is sixty-four thousand two hundred twenty meters. It is concluded then, that far from being a material error, as the co-defendants have been indicating, the farm in question was registered without the cadastral support required by Article 8 of the Law of Possessory Information Proceedings in force at the time of registration, since as the plan indicated in the registry entry does not correspond even remotely, there is a vice of nullity. Secondly, even with the plan corrected, since the number G-955494-91 was included and the area of the farm was corrected, the same cited official letter indicates that both the first plan and the one just cited are located within the maritime terrestrial zone, both within the restricted zone and within the public zone, as set out below:

"The property described in the cadastral plan No. Placa27988, situated in District 1º La Cruz, Canton: 10º La Cruz, Province, 5º Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional, and making the correlation with the information available to the office, the property is located within the maritime terrestrial zone. Furthermore, the property described in cadastral plan G-955494-91, situated in Potrero, District: 4ª Tempate, Canton: 5ª Santa Cruz, Province 5ª Guanacaste, according to the Geographic Location given by the responsible professional and making the correlation with the information available in the Department of Geodesy and Topography, is located within the Restricted Zone, and in addition, between vertices 8 to 10 it covers an area of the public zone. Regarding the approximate distance between both terrains at their closest points, this is approximately 64,220 m." The location within the maritime terrestrial zone was not contested by the co-defendant companies that appeared in the proceeding. Arguments were made regarding the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the farm, but without these being conclusive, since the main defense has consisted of the claim that the farm was titled via Transitory Provision III of Law 4558, which precisely permitted the titling of public domain. It must be remembered that, in any case, the demarcation has effects for the granting of concessions in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, and furthermore, the parties did not provide evidence that would disprove the location of the farm, aside from the fact that the evidence for better provision referred to the demarcation. Hence, both because it was proven by the cited report, and because it was not disproved by those who had an interest in doing so, in principle it must be taken as a starting point that the farm twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero is part of the public domain, subject to the regime characteristic of this type of asset, with its characteristics of imprescriptibility, unattachability (inembargabilidad), and inalienability, and that it cannot be the object of private appropriation. The public zone is destined for the use and enjoyment of the general population of the country. The restricted zone, for its part, may have a privative use, through permit or concession, from the entry into force of Law 6043, Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, or through the figure of lease, as established by Law 4558, Law on Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone. However, the co-defendant companies have argued that the registration was made under the protection of Transitory Provision III of this latter Law, which permitted, as stated, titling within the maritime terrestrial zone. This transitory provision contemplated the possibility of requesting a title of ownership when it was demonstrated that lots or farms in the maritime-terrestrial zone had been possessed in a quiet, public, peaceful manner, and under title of owners, for more than thirty years, except in the public zone. In this regard, this Tribunal considers that the registration entry of the farm does not record possession for the required length of time, because what is indicated is that it was bought from Nombre142712 in January nineteen seventy and that from that time onwards it was possessed, without recording the total years of possession elapsed. This requirement was essential to be able to access what the transitory provision established. Nevertheless, for greater abundance, the period of validity of the transitory provision in question was also analyzed. According to the information from the Costa Rican Legal Information System, Law 4558, Law on Tourism Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, entered into force on April twenty-second, nineteen seventy. The original text contained the mentioned transitory provision. According to information from the same system, the transitory provision was repealed by Law 4847, which came into effect on October fourth, nineteen seventy-one. According to the information contained in the registration entry, ITCO's resolution ordering the registration was dated October thirteenth, nineteen seventy-two; the protocolization thereof was on August seventh, nineteen seventy-three; and the registration on August ninth of the same year. That is, at the time ITCO approved the registration and the proceeding before the Public Registry was carried out, Transitory Provision III of Law 4558 was not in force, meaning the registration could not be protected under that legal norm. The foregoing allows this Tribunal to conclude that the registration was not in accordance with law, both because of the absence of an essential requirement, the plan, which as indicated, did not correspond to the farm registered—a situation that cannot be considered merely a material error given it is the support for any registration—and because of the absence of a norm permitting the titling of a public domain asset. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that there is a vice of absolute nullity, which is hereby declared for being harmful to the interests of the State insofar as part of the maritime terrestrial zone was titled contrary to law, in the registration of the farm of the Partido de Guanacaste, currently Real Folio registry number Placa27848, from its registration entry, that is, sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registry acts derived therefrom, detailed below: 1) plan Placa27850 registered in the National Cadastre on March eleventh, nineteen ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the farm, for being related to the farm of the Partido de Guanacaste, Real Folio registry number Placa27848, and comprising lands of the maritime terrestrial zone; 2) entry 2344 of volume 391, according to document presented to the Registry Daily on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from public deed of 6:00 p.m. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registry number Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A.; 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to document presented to the Public Registry Daily on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 of 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred, in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda., the property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registry number Placa27849.

XIII. ON THE EXCEPTION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN)

As has been explained, farm twenty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven-zero zero zero forms part of the public domain, as determined in official letter No. DGT-351-2008, previously mentioned. Imprescriptibility is one of the characteristics of public domain assets, as has been repeatedly determined by both the Constitutional Chamber, in the cited ruling, and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment 104-96 of nine hours fifteen minutes on October fourth, two thousand ten:

VII.

Regarding the alleged statute of limitations on the State's right to claim the land subject to this litigation, the Superior Court already considered: "</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">When a possessory title has been obtained in violation of legislation in force, the nullity of the title and the cancellation of the registration entry in the Public Registry can be sought through an ordinary proceeding, a procedure in force in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ... The right that the State has to exercise this action, in the case of lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), is not affected by any statute of limitations, because in reality it is a matter of rescuing property that had never left the State's patrimony and over which private parties only have the right to enjoy according to the Law and its regulations</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">". This interpretation by the Superior Court is correct and finds support in the text of Article 1 of the Ley sobre Zona Marítimo Terrestre, according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible (inalienable e imprescriptible). Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country ...". Said law is number 6043 of March 2, 1977. That is, it came into force after the possessory information (información posesoria) of Mr. A.D. was initiated. </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">But previously, the Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, governed, which in its Article 6 provided that the 50 meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone are inalienable and in no case can be subject to lease or sale; and in Article 7 Ibidem, it is provided that the remaining one hundred fifty meters can only be subject to lease, unless after the maximum of 10 years of lease provided for by the law, the municipality agrees, at the request of the interested party, to the sale of the parcel. Thus, it is clear that the parcel to which the present proceeding refers was registered against the provisions in force.</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> It is true that according to Article 6 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the coastlines, nor to properties registered, in accordance with the law, in the name of private individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy the laws recognize". </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">In these cases referred to in said Article 6, if the State wants to recover the property, it must adhere to what is provided in Article 8 Ibidem, according to which: "The maritime-terrestrial zone is declared of public utility so that the lots, parcels or improvements located therein, that may have been sold, acquired or possessed in ownership by private individuals, can be rescued for the national patrimony or by means of expropriation". But bear in mind that Article 6 of the referenced law clearly states that these provisions will apply when dealing with properties registered "in accordance with the law", not when dealing with cases in which, like the present one, the property has been registered against the provisions of the legal system, in which case the State can recover the property without having to submit to the expropriation process</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> [...]. IX. The appellant sustains the thesis that at the time the possessory information that is sought to be annulled in the present proceeding was processed, the Attorney General's Office of that time was called Agencia Fiscal, which would have allowed the hearing related to the possessory information to lapse without responding. In their view, there would then be a "tacit consent" for the property to be registered in the name of the titleholder, which could only be annulled through a lesividad (lesividad) proceeding. This proceeding, as stated in the appeal, should have been initiated before proceeding to claim the nullity of the possessory information in this avenue. But the Chamber does not share this opinion either, since, as the Superior Court already considered in the contested judgment, the lesividad proceeding is appropriate only in those cases in which the Administration seeks the annulment of administrative acts declaratory of rights in favor of the administered party, as can be inferred from Articles 183, subsection 3), of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 35 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, and 156 of the Código Tributario. In the present case, it is evidently not an impugnation of an administrative act declaratory of rights, but rather the impugnation of judicial possessory information proceedings, because these were processed against the provisions in force, a situation that constitutes a different scenario from the one referred to in the lesividad contentious proceeding.</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">(Highlighting is not from the original).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">Imprescriptibility refers not only to the impossibility of appropriation by possession of the maritime-terrestrial zone, but also to the fact that the State can exercise, without time limit, the corresponding actions for the recovery of the public domain in exercise of its power of self-protection (autotutela), or as in the present case, when there is an act declaratory of rights, the filing of the lesividad action. Said principle is normatively enshrined, as previously indicated, in subsection 2) of Article 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, when it indicates that there is no deadline for filing the lesividad action in the protection of the public domain. Although said deadline corresponds to a statute of limitations (caducidad) as it is inherent to the declaration of lesividad of the questioned act, it is grounded on the imprescriptibility of the property. The arguments of the parties, to the effect that the property left the public domain, and therefore the statute of limitations does not apply, are not receivable, because as already indicated, the registration of the property contained defects of absolute nullity, which are being declared in this judgment, meaning the property never left the ownership of the State and therefore its imprescriptibility applies. For the foregoing, the defense interposed by the co-defendant companies must be rejected. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">XIV: OF THE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING TO SUE AND TO BE SUED, AND LACK OF RIGHT: </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">As previously indicated, the lesividad proceeding was filed by the Procuraduría General de la República, since the acts declared lesivos were registry entries of the Public Registry, whose superior is the Minister of Justice. Likewise, in accordance with Article 1 of Law 6043, the ownership of the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. Representation, according to Article 16 of the CPCA, corresponds to the State Attorney (Abogado del Estado), so the defense of lack of standing to sue must be rejected. Furthermore, the companies that at the time benefited from the registration of the property have been sued, namely Nombre142714</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">. and Mogador de Pesca S.A., as well as its current fiduciary titleholder, Penca Point Limitada. Similarly, regarding the IDA (currently Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), despite its allegations that there is no file, nor agreement of the former ITCO, the fact is that since the registration entry is presumably based on an agreement of the Institute, it is a party to the present proceeding. For the reasons stated, the defense of lack of standing to be sued must also be rejected. The defense of lack of right meets the same fate, because since the requested nullities are being granted, the State is entitled to its claims. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">XV: OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE IDA: </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">According to the foregoing, the IDA argues the following: it totally rejects having processed and approved possessory information proceedings in October 1971 in the name of the company La Prieta S.A., by means of a resolution at nine hours ten minutes on the thirteenth of October of nineteen seventy-two, based on Article 24 of Ley 4545 of March 20, 1970. According to that body of law, the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (hereinafter ITCO) was competent to process possessory informations and Ley 2825, in its Article 30 subsection 23, established that it was the Board of Directors that was competent to exercise the other functions and attributions that corresponded to it in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, it considers that it was up to the Board of Directors to approve or disapprove the possessory information proceedings provided for in Ley 4545, and the Board of Directors did not issue an agreement approving the possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. It also indicates that in the list of incoming cases kept by the ITCO, no case was found in the name of La Prieta S.A., nor a resolution issued in the name of the company, as well as that in the Notarial Archive, no protocolization of the administrative resolution of the ITCO is reported in the first fortnight of August, in the indexes of Notary Public Oscar Saborío Castro, by which administrative possessory information is approved in the name of La Prieta S.A. On the other hand, it mentions that in Article 11 of Ley 4545, the possessory information applications were communicated to the Procurador Agrario, so if the ITCO had processed the mentioned proceedings, the Procuraduría General de la República should have a file on the case resulting from the transfer made for its knowledge. It requests that it be declared in the judgment that the ITCO did not approve, by agreement of the Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A., over a land located in Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, fourth district, third canton of the province of Guanacaste, with cadastral map number Placa27988, that it be excluded from the proceeding as a defendant and exempted from liability, including the costs of the proceeding.</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> In this regard, as just indicated, the Court considers that regardless of the circumstances alleged, it is entitled to passive standing, because the registry entry records a supposed action by the ITCO. Moreover, from the evidence they themselves provided, regarding the notarial index of Oscar Saborío Castro for the first fortnight of August nineteen seventy-three, what is reported is a protocolization and the name of the party is Nombre142713</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">. The deed indicated in the registration entry of the property in question is a protocolization and the name of the then representative of La Prieta S.A. is precisely Nombre142713</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">, so it can be inferred that there is some correspondence between what was reported to the Notarial Archive and what was presented to the Public Registry. As for the rest of the allegations, due to the manner in which the matter is resolved and because they are based on the information recorded in the Public Registry, no reference will be made to them. Finally, regarding the declaration requested, that it be declared that the ITCO did not approve, through its Board of Directors on October 13, 1972, possessory information in the name of La Prieta S.A. and that it be exempted from liability, both are in the nature of claims, which cannot be resolved except by means of a complaint or counterclaim, which, not having been filed at the appropriate procedural moment, cannot be heard by this Court. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">XVI. OF THE COSTS: </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">Given the nature of the lesividad proceeding, in which there is an act declaratory of rights in favor of an administered party, in this case La Prieta S.A.,</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> in addition to the fact that both the companies Mogador de Pesca S.A. and Penca Point Limitada acquired in good faith, under the protection of registry publicity, the exemption from both costs of this proceeding applies, in accordance with subsection b) of Article 193 of the CPCA. Regarding the</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> IDA (currently Instituto de Desarrollo Rural), this Court considers that it should be ordered to pay costs, because even though the impugned conduct is that of the State, its behavior in this action, with the non-submission of the administrative file or any other document that could have helped clarify the situation, as well as its carelessness in denouncing aspects that later proved to be consistent with</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> the reality of the situation, reveal a litigation that is at least disorderly and which, far from clarifying the reality of what happened, could rather have called for confusion. Therefore, it must be condemned to pay in favor of the State, both costs of this action.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">XVII. OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE: </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">Due to the manner in which the matter is resolved, once this judgment becomes final, proceed to set aside the precautionary measure granted by resolution No. Placa27992 at eight hours on the twentieth of December of two thousand ten, regarding the annotation of the complaint in the margin of the registration.</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">POR TANTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'\">The defenses of statute of limitations, lack of standing to sue and to be sued, and lack of right interposed by the companies Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima and Penca Point Limitada are rejected. The lesividad proceeding filed by the Procuraduría General de la República against the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, legal entity identification number CED111843, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, legal entity identification number CED111846, Penca Point Limitada, legal entity identification number CED111844, and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (currently Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) is declared with merit. Consequently, it is declared lesivo to the interests of the State, and therefore the absolute nullity is declared of</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'\"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\">the registration of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, currently Real Folio (Folio Real) registration number Placa27848</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\">, from its registration entry, that is, sequence zero zero one of entry four hundred three, of volume two thousand one hundred twenty of the Partido de Guanacaste, as well as the cadastral and registry acts derived from it and detailed below: 1) map G-955494-91 registered in the Catastro Nacional on the eleventh of March of nineteen ninety-one, which rectifies the area of the property, as</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\"> it is related to the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, Real Folio registration number Placa27848</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\">and comprises lands of the maritime-terrestrial zone, 2) </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'\">entry 2344 of volume 391, according to the document submitted to the Registry's Diario on November 22, 1991, and registered on September 14, 1992, originating from public deed at 18:00 hrs. on October 30, 1991, granted before Notary Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, where La Prieta S.A. reduced the area of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration Placa27849, and transferred it to Mogador de Pesca S.A. 3) entry 10616 of volume 556, according to the document submitted to the Public Registry's Diario on August 10, 2005, and registered on August 22, 2005, referring to public deed No. 55 at 18:00 hours on August 8, 2005, granted before Notary Mauricio González Crespo, where Mogador de Pesca S.A. transferred in fiduciary ownership to Penca Point Ltda, the property registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration Placa27849. It is resolved with no condemnation of costs with respect to the companies La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, and Penca Point Limitada. The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural is condemned to pay, in favor of the State, both costs of the action.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">Nombre5192</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">Nombre142427</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold\">José Roberto Garita Navarro</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right\"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-size:10pt; color:#010101\"> </span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Expediente 10-003159-1027-CA</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt\"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Resolución 120-2013-VI</span></p></div></body></html>"

PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DE: EL ESTADO CONTRA:INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, LA PRIETA S.A., MOGADOR DE PESCA, S.A. Y PENCA POINT LTDA.

120-2013-VI TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCION SEXTA. Anexo A, Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, a las diez horas diez minutos del treinta de setiembre de dos mil trece.

Proceso ordinario de lesividad planteado por el Estado, representado por el Procurador, Mauricio Castro Lizano, cédula de identidad CED31145, contra el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, representado por su Presidente Ejecutivo, Nombre33207 , cédula de identidad CED19555. Actúa como apoderada general judicial del Instituto, la Licenciada Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, cédula de identidad CED28225. Se establece la demanda además en contra de La Prieta S.A., cédula de persona jurídica CED111843; Penca Point Limitada, cédula de persona jurídica CED111844, representada por Nombre39801 , cédula de identidad CED111678. Actúa como apoderado especial de la sociedad Elías Shadid Esquivel, cédula de identidad CED111845 y Mogador de Pesca S.A., cédula de persona jurídica CED111846, representada por Nombre142309 , cédula de identidad CED10433. Actúa como apoderado especial judicial de la sociedad José Alberto Schroeder Leiva, cédula de identidad CED88425.

RESULTANDO

I.- Con base en los hechos que expuso, y citas legales aducidas, las pretensiones de la parte actora plasmadas en el escrito de demanda, son: “1) Es nula la propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27986 desde su inscripción, por lo que debe el Registro Nacional debe (sic) cancelar el tomo 2120, asiento 403, secuencia 001, según presentación al Diario de Registro Público el 7 de agosto de 1973, tomo 97, asiento 9470, pues abarca indebidamente terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre, bien de dominio público donde rigen las potestades de autotutela adminstrativa. 2) Es nulo el plano catastrado número G-955494-1991, y por consiguiente el Registro Nacional debe de cancelarlo, por comprender terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre. 3) Es nulo y el Registro Nacional debe cancelar el asiento 2344 del tomo 391, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro el 22 de noviembre de 1991 e inscrito el 14 de setiembre de 1992, originado por la escritura pública de 18:00 hrs. del 30 de octubre de 1991, otorgada ante el Notario Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, donde La Prieta S.A.disminuyó la cabida propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27849, y la traspasó a Mogador de Pesca S.A.4) Es nulo y ha de cancelarse el asiento 10616 del tomo 556, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro Público el 10 de agosto de 2005 e inscrito el 22 de agosto de 2005, referido a la escritura pública No. 55 de 18:00 horas. del 8 de agosto de 2005, otorgada ante el Notario Mauricio González Crespo, donde Mogador de Pesca S.A.traspasó en propiedad fiduciaria a Penca Point Ltda, el inmueble inscrito en el Partido de Guancaste, matrícula Placa27849. 5) Son ambas costas y sus respectivos intereses a cargo de los accionados." II.- Conferida la audiencia de ley, los accionados, con excepción de La Prieta S.A., contestaron negativamente la demanda. El IDA no interpuso defensas previas, ni excepciones de fondo. Penca Point Ltda. y Mogador de Pesca S.A., interpusieron las excepciones de falta de derecho y de legitimación activa y pasiva. Nombre142709 ., interpuso además, las prescripción positiva y negativa.

III.- Por resolución No. 4720-2010, de las ocho horas del veinte de diciembre de dos mil diez, previamente otorgada en forma provisionalísima por resolución de las dieciseis horas del veintiocho de setiembre del mismo año, se acogió la medida cautelar solicitada por el Estado y se mantuvo la anotación al margen de la finca Partido de Guanacaste matrícula Placa27849 y sobre el plano catastrado Placa27987.

IV.- Por resolución de las catorce horas cinco minutos del nueve de marzo de dos mil doce, se declara en estado de rebeldía a la sociedad La Prieta S.A., se tienen por contestadas las demandas por lo otros codemandados y por interpuestas las excepciones de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, así como prescripción positiva y negativa. De igual forma se convocó a las partes a audiencia preliminar.

V.- La audiencia preliminar se celebró a partir de las trece horas treinta minutos del veinticinco de mayo de dos mil doce, con la presencia del Procurador Mauricio Castro Lizano, en representación del Estado, la Licenciada Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, en representación del IDA, y los Licenciados Elías Shadid Esquivel y José Schroeder Leiva, en representación de Penca Point S.A. y de Mogador de Pesca S.A., respectivamente. En dicha audiencia la Jueza Tramitadora reservó para sentencia el conocimiento de la excepción de prescripción interpuesta por las sociedades codemandadas. Las partes emitieron sus respectivas conclusiones.

VI.- Por resolución de las once horas quince minutos del trece de diciembre de dos mil doce, el Tribunal solicitó como prueba para mejor resolver, que el Instituto Geográfico Nacional (en adelante IGN) emitiera certificación formal acerca de la localización de los mojones en el área en litigio.

VII.- Por escrito presentado el día cuatro de febrero de este año, el IGN presentó la información solicitada.

VIII.- Por resolución de las quince horas del dieciocho de febrero de este año, se puso en conocimiento de las partes la prueba documental evacuada.

IX.Por escritos presentados el día veintisiete de febrero de dos mil trece, el Estado y Penca Point Ltda., contestaron la audiencia otorgada.

X.En los procedimientos se han seguido las prescripciones de ley, y se dicta la sentencia por unanimidad, previa deliberación de rigor.-

CONSIDERANDO

I.- DE PREVIO: En la Audiencia Preliminar realizada al efecto, no se hizo la precisión acerca de las pretensiones del proceso, por lo que se tomaran las indicadas en el escrito de contestación de la demanda y que fueron transcritas en el Resultando I de la presente resolución.

II. DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS

De importancia para la resolución del presente asunto, se tienen como probados los siguientes hechos: 1) Que el plano Placa27988, inscrito el veintisiete de setiembre de mil novecientos setenta y uno en el Catastro Nacional del Registro Nacional, describe una propiedad para titular, con un área de una hectárea ciento quince metros ochenta y nueve decímetros cuadrados, sito en el Dirección11190 , del Cantón 10 La Cruz de la Provincia de Guanacaste, con la siguiente descripción: terreno de potrero. Linderos: Norte: Faja inalienable y Nombre142710 . Sur: camino Este: Faja inalienable, Oeste: camino. Propiedad de Nombre142711 (ver folio veintidos del expediente judicial). 2) Que en el asiento uno, inscrito en los folios cuatrocientos tres y cuatrocientos cuatro del tomo dos mil ciento veinte, se inscribió la finca veintiseis mil trescientos veintisiete del Partido de Guanacaste, con la siguiente descripción: Terreno de pastos, sito en Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, Dirección17284 , . Linderos: Norte: camino público, con un frente a ese camino de ciento setenta y cuatro metros, Sur: zona inalienable de cincuenta metros de ancho, propiedad del Estado, Este: Nombre142712 , Oeste: zona inalienable de cincuenta metros de ancho, propiedad del Estado. La medida indicada era de seis hectáreas, siete mil cuatrocientos sesenta y siete metros, cuarenta y tres decímetros cuadrados, según el plano catastrado G-nueve mil setecientos cuarenta y nueve-setenta y uno. De acuerdo con lo contenido en el texto del asiento de inscripción, la sociedad La Prieta S.A., a través de su representante Nombre142713 , para inscribir la propiedad, promovió diligencias de información posesoria ante el Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (en adelante ITCO) en las cuales indicó que la adquirió por compra a Nombre142712 , el diez de enero de mil novecientos setenta y desde entonces la poseyó en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida. Continúa indicando el asiento, que el ITCO, en sentencia de las nueve horas y diez del trece de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y dos ordenó la inscripción de la finca, con las reservas, restricciones y cargas contenidas en el asiento en mención. De igual forma consta que la inscripción se hace con base en lo que consta en la escritura otorgada en San José, a las ocho horas del primero de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y tres, ante el Notario Oscar Saborío Castro, según el testimonio presentado ante el Registro Público, a las doce horas veinte minutos del siete del mismo mes y año, al tomo cuatrocientos noventa y siete, asiento nueve mil cuatrocientos sesenta del Diario del Registro Público. Dicha finca fue trasladada bajo la matrícula Placa27989, el día siete de octubre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos (ver folios 26 a 28 del expediente judicial). 3) Que el plano G-955494-91, inscrito en el Catastro Nacional del Registro Nacional, el once de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y uno, describe la siguiente propiedad: Para rectificar área. Terreno de charral, situado en Potrero, Distrito 4, Tempate, Cantón 5 Santa Cruz de la Provincia 5, Guanacaste. Área: dos hectáreas cuatro mil quinientos setenta y cinco metros, noventa y nueve decímetros cuadrados. Naturaleza de charral. Linderos: Zona inalienable del Estado y calle pública. Sur: zona inalienable del Estado. Este: Zona inalienable del Estado y Oeste: Dirección336 y Dirección17285 . Corresponde al Folio Real Placa27990 (ver folio 23 del expediente judicial). 4) Que por escritura número cincuenta y nueve, otorgada a las dieciocho horas del treinta de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y uno, ante el Notario Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón y presentada al Diario del Registro Público, tomo trescientos veintiuno, asiento dos mil trescientos cuarenta y cuatro, La Prieta S.A. como propietaria de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste veintiseis mil trescientos veintisiete-cero cero cero, con la descripción dada en el hecho dos de esta relación, rectifica la medida de la misma, para que en lugar de sesenta y siete mil cuatrocientos sesenta y siete metros cuarenta y tres decímetros cuadrados y con base en el plano catastrado Placa27850, se inscriba la cabida real de la misma, la cual es veinticuatro mil quinientos setenta y cinco metros noventa y nueve decímetros cuadrados. En el mismo acto vende la finca indicada, por la suma de cinco millones de colones, a la sociedad Mogador de Pesca S.A. Dicha rectificación y venta fueron inscritas el día once de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y dos (ver folios 17 a 20 del legajo de informes registrales). 5) Que por escritura número cincuenta y cinco, otorgada a las dieciocho horas del ocho de agosto de dos mil cinco, ante el Notario Público Mauricio González Crespo, presentada al Diario del Registro Público, al tomo quinientos cinccuenta y seis, asiento diez mil seiscientos dieciseis, la sociedad Mogador de Pesca S.A. traspasa en propiedad fiduciaria la finca Dirección17286 , a la sociedad Penca Point S.A. Dicho traspaso se inscribió el día veintidos de agosto de dos mil cinco(ver folios 24 y 25 del legajo de informes registrales). 6) Que por resolución de las siete horas cincuenta y tres minutos del diez de junio de dos mil ocho del Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles, dentro de las diligencias adminstrativas interpuestas por Nombre29452 , para que se investigue el posible desplazamiento y traslape que afecta la finca del Partido de Guanacaste 26327, se resolvió: " I. RECHAZAR AD PORTAS, las presentes diligencias adminstrativas interpuestas por Nombre29452 , por carecer de legitimación para actuar en esta sede. II.- ORDENAR el levantamiento de la advertencia administrativa consignada sobre la finca del Partido de GUANACASTE matrícula Placa27983 (Placa27991). III.- ORDENAR la apertura del expediente de oficio Nº 08-390-BI para realizar la correspondiente investigación. IV- Adjuntar copia de la presente resolución al expediente 08-390-BI." (ver folio 1 y 2 del expediente administrativo). 7) Por resolución de las trece horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del diecinueve de junio de dos mil ocho del Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles, se consignó advertencia administrativa sobre la finca del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula Placa27983 , mientras se realicen las investigaciones que ameritara el caso, a la vez que se resolvió enviar un oficio a la Dirección del Catastro Nacional solicitando el estudio respectivo para verificar la situación investigada. 8) Que por oficio No. DGT-351-2008 del 14 de mayo de 2008, firmado por Nombre12413 , Encargado de la Unidad de Apoyo Interinstitucional del Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía, con visto bueno de Nombre22360 , Jefe del citado Departamento del Instituto Geográfico Nacional, dirigido al Licenciado Mauricio Castro Lizano, Procurador, se indicó: "El inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado Nº Placa27988, situado en Dirección17287 , : 10º La Cruz, Provincia, 5º Guanacaste, según la Ubicación Geográfica dada por el profesional responsable, y efectuando la correlación con la información que dispone la oficina, el inmueble se localiza dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre. Además, el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado G-955494-91, situado en Potrero, Distrito: 4ª Tempate, Cantón: 5ª Santa Cruz, Provincia 5ª Guanacaste, según la Ubicación Geográfica dada por el profesional responsable y efectuando la correlación con la información que se dispone en el Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía se localiza dentro de la Zona Restringida, además entre los vértices 8 al 10 abarca área de la zona pública. En lo referente ha (sic) indicarle la distancia aproximada entre ambos terrenos en sus puntos más cercanos, la misma es de 64 220 m aproximadamente." (ver folio 10 del expediente administrativo). 9) Por resolución de las ocho horas once minutos del veintiocho de abril de dos mil nueve del Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Inmuebles, se descartó el traslape con los derechos de concesión que describen los planos G-128268-1993 y G-132740-1993, por lo que se decidió continuar con el estudio correspondiente a la información proporcionada al traslape de la finca 26327en relación con el plano G-934467-2004, el cual describe una concesión que no ha generado título. En la misma resolución se mantiene la medida cautelar anotada sobre el inmueble indicado y se le confiere audiencia por el plazo de quince días hábiles a la sociedad Penca Point Limitada, cédula jurídica CED111844 en su condición de fiduciaria de la finca del Partido de GUANACASTE matrícula Placa27991, a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz y a la Procuraduría General de la República. (ver folio 70 del expediente administrativo). 10) Que por escrito recibido en la Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble el día veintiuno de mayo de dos mil nueve, la Municipalidad contestó la audiencia otorgada y explicó la situación de traslape entre el plano G-934467-2004, por medio del cual se solicitó en concesión un terreno por la sociedad Paseo Mar y Cielo S.A. y que traslapa con la finca de marras. (ver folios 80 a 83 del expediente). 11) Que por escrito presentado el día veintinueve de mayo de dos mil nueve, ante la Dirección de Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble, la sociedad Penca Point Limitada, contestó la audiencia conferida. (ver folios 88 a 96 del expediente adminsitrativo). 12) Que por resolución de las catorce horas veinticuatro minutos del diez de junio de dos mil nueve del Registro Inmobilario, se resolvió, en lo que interesa, inmovilizar la finca del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula Placa27983 de conformidad con el artículo 88 del Reglamento del Registro Público, la que se mantendrá hasta tanto una autoridad judicial competente haya conocido de la subsanación de la inexactitud registral que dio origen a las diligencias y ordene el levantamiento de la referida inmovilización, o bien que los propietarios y partes interesadas de dicho inmueble comparezcan a otorgar escritura pública mediante la cual se corrija la situación que afecta a la finca. (ver folios 106 a 116 del expediente administrativo). 13) Que por Resolución Nº 545 de las trece horas del veintidos de octubre de dos mil nueve el Ministro de Justicia resolvió: "Declarar lesivos a los intereses del Estado el documento inscrito el 9 de setiembre de 1973 al tomo 2120, asiento 403, secuencia 001, relativo al registro de propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula de Folio Real número Placa27984 () - - (26327-000), según presentación al Diario del Registro Público el 7 de agosto de 1973, tomo 297, asiento 9470. El catastro del plano número G-95594-91. El documento presentado el 22 de noviembre de 1991 al Diario del Registro Público al tomo 391, asiento 2344, e inscrito el 14 de setiembre de 1992, mediante el cual La Prieta S.A. vendió a Nombre142709 . la propiedad del partido de Guanacaste inscrita al folio real número VEINTISEIS MIL TRESCIENTOS VEINTISIETE CERO- CERO- CERO (26327-000). El documento presentado el 10 de agosto de 2005 al Diario del Registro Público bajo el tomo 556, asiento 10616, e inscrito el 22 de agosto de 2005, mediante el cual Mogador de Pesca S.A., traspasó la finca del partido de Guanacaste de folio real número VEINTISEIS MIL TRECIENTOS (sic) VEINTISIETE CERO- CERO- CERO (26327-000), en propiedad fiduciaria a Penca Point S.A. Comuníquese a la Procuraduría General de la República para que presente la acción respectiva ante la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Adninistrativa." (ver folios 10 AL 20 del expediente judicial). 14) Que el proceso de lesividad fue interpuesto el día veintisiete de setiembre de dos mil diez (ver folio 2 del expediente judicial). 15) Que la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre, entró en vigencia el día veintidos de abril de mil novecientos setenta. En su Transitorio III, se establecía: "Aquellas personas que demuestren haber poseído en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y a título de dueños, lotes o fincas en la zona marítimo-terrestre, por más de treinta años, pueden solicitar título de propiedad sobre ellos, salvo la reserva a que se refiere el artículo 6º de esta ley, aún cuando hubieren poseído tales inmuebles durante parte de ese tiempo como arrendatarios, mediante contratos suscritos con el Estado o sus Instituciones. El procedimiento será el que marca la actual ley de Informaciones Posesorias. En este caso no habrá limitación en cuanto a la extensión del lote o finca a inscribir en cabeza del interesado." (información obtenida a través del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). 16) Que mediante Ley 4847 del cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y uno, se derogó el Transitorio III de la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre (información obtenida a través del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). 17) Que mediante la Ley 5602 del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro, se suspendió la vigencia de la Ley 4558. (información obtenida a través del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). 18) Que mediante la Ley 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del dos de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y siete, se derogó en su totalidad la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítima Terrestre (información obtenida a través del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). 19) Que por oficio No. DGT-020-13, del Departamento de Geodesia y Topografia del Registro Naciona, se remitió a este Despacho, la ubicación de los mojones de la finca en cuestión (ver folios 200 a 204 del expediente judicial).

III.- DE LOS HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 1.-) Que La Prieta Sociedad Anónima haya demostrado la posesión por más de treinta años requerida por el Transitorio III de la Ley 4558.

IV. OBJETO DEL PROCESO

De acuerdo con la declaratoria de lesividad hecha por el Ministro de Justicia, el objeto de este proceso es la anulación de la inscripción de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de Folio Real Placa27985 , titulada a favor de la compañía La Prieta S.A. y los traspasos realizados subsecuentemente y el plano número G-95594-91, por estar la finca dentro de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre.

V. ARGUMENTOS DE LA PARTE ACTORA

En síntesis, el representante del Estado hace un recuento de los actos registrales y catastrales que sirvieron de bases para la inscripción de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste veintiseis mil trescientos veintisiete-cero cero cero, originalmente a favor de La Prieta S.A., luego a Mogador de Pesca S.A. y finalmente a nombre de Penca Point Limitada. De igual forma señala las investigaciones hechas por el Registro Público para determinar que los planos que sirvieron de base para inscribir las fincas, las ubicaban dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre e inclusive dentro de la zona pública, por lo que se ordenó la inmovilización de la finca. Concluye que tanto la finca 5-26327-000 y el plano G-955494-1991 comprenden indebidamente bienes de dominio público que pertenecen al Estado localizados en la zona marítimo terrestre y que ello llevó a declarar la lesividad objeto de este proceso. Como fundamento jurídico de su demanda, afirma que la zona marítimo terrestre pertenece al Estado y como bien demanial es inalienable, imprescriptible, inembargable e indenunciable. Sostiene que tratándose de bienes del dominio público natural, como sucede con la zona costera rige el principio de inmatriculación y que para consolidar su régimen, basta su declaratoria y afectación al uso mediante ley y que solo pueden desafectarse de la misma forma. Por ello considera que la sustracción de un bien demanial a su destino público por acto administrativo es ilegal. Añade que el registro no convalida la nulidad de un título y que la inscripción no subsana los vicios que tiene el documento inscrito o el acto contenido y que subsisten con prescindencia de la misma. Manifiesta que ante el registro ilegítimo el particular no adquiere ningún derecho sobre el bien y que lo mismo sucede con el catastro de levantamientos de agrimensura, pues tampoco confiere derechos de propiedad o posesión, al igual que no hay un ejercicio útil ni válido de la posesión por tratarse de un bien de dominio público. Concluye que como la inscripción del inmueble Placa27986 comprende indebidamente terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre, sus vicios de nulidad son absolutos e imprescriptibles, tanto por la naturaleza del bien, como por la ausencia de titularidad hábil y contrariar leyes prohibitivas. En las conclusiones vertidas en la Audiencia Preliminar celebrada al efecto, respecto de las excepciones interpuestas por las partes codemandadas, indica que se está solicitando la nulidad de asientos registrales y catastrales de un terreno que se encuentra dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre, y que el Estado es el dueño de la misma y que la representación del mismo le corresponde a la Procuraduría General de la República, por lo que ostenta legitimación activa. Respecto de la prescripción sostiene que los bienes de dominio público no está afectados por la prescripción o la caducidad, en virtud del artículo 7 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. De igual forma, afirma que en aplicación del artículo 34.2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (en adelante CPCA), la lesividad respecto de los bienes de dominio público, no está sujeta a plazos. En cuanto a la excepción de legitimación pasiva con respecto al IDA, debe de valorarse que el origen de la inscripción fue tramitado en un expediente del ITCO y por ello figura como parte en el proceso. En cuanto a la aplicación del Transitorio III de la ley 4558, de acuerdo con el texto del mismo, la información posesoria debió de tramitarse ante el Juzgado correspondiente, por lo que al no haberse realizado ese trámite existe nulidad de la inscripción. Finalmente señala que todos los hechos de la demanda están acreditados.

VI. ARGUMENTOS DEL INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO

El IDA rechaza totalmente haber tramitado y aprobado diligencias de información posesoria en octubre de 1971 a nombre de la sociedad Nombre142714 ., mediante resolución de las nueve horas diez minutos del trece de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y dos, basado en el artículo 24 de la Ley 4545 del 20 de marzo de 1970. Conforme ese cuerpo legal, el Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (en adelante ITCO) era competente para tramitar las informaciones posesorias y la Ley 2825, en su artículo 30 inciso 23, establecía que era la Junta Directiva la competente para ejercer las demás funciones y atribuciones que le correspondían de acuerdo con las leyes y reglamentos pertinentes. Por ello, considera, era a la Junta Directiva a la que correspondía aprobar o imporbar las diligencias de información posesoria previstas en la Ley 4545 y la Junta Directiva no dictó acuerdo aprobando la información posesoria a nombre de La Prieta S.A. También indica que no existe en el listado de los casos ingresados, que llevaba el ITCO, no se encontró ningún caso a nombre de Nombre142714 ., así como tampoco una resolución emitida a nombre de la sociedad, así como que en el Archivo Notarial, no se reporta en la primera quincena del mes de agosto, en los índices del Notario Público Oscar Saborío Castro, protocolización de la resolución administrativa del ITCO, mediante la cual se aprueba información posesoria administrativa a nombre de la Prieta S.A. Por otra parte menciona que en el artículo 11 de la Ley 4545, se ponía en conocimiento del Procurador Agrario las solicitudes de información posesoria, por lo que si el ITCO hubiera atendido las diligencias mencionadas, la Procuraduría General de la República debería de tener un expediente del caso producto del traslado hecho para su conocimiento. Solicita que se declare en sentencia que el ITCO no aprobó por acuerdo de la Junta Directica el día 13 de octubre de 1972, información posesoria a nombre de La Prieta S.A., sobre un terreno sito en Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, distrito cuarto, cantón tres de la provincia de Guanacaste, con plano catastrado número Placa27988, que sde le excluya del proceso como demandada y se le exima de responsabilidad, incluyendo las costas del proceso.

VII. DE LA POSICIÓN DE MOGADOR DE PESCA S.A.

La sociedad argumenta que el Estado declina referirse que la finca se inscribió bajo el transitorio 3 de la Ley 4545, ya que el legislador autorizó y legalizó la inscripción de propiedades que calificaron bajo los requisitos ahí establecidos y que la propiedad que en algún momento fue de su titularidad cumplía con esos requisitos por lo que no es de dominio público. También considera que el Estado reclama la nulidad del título basado en hechos equivocados, pues la finca no se creó en 1991, sino que fue inscrita en 1973 de conformidad con la legislación vigente en ese momento y el hecho de que haya un error material en el plano no resulta en la nulidad de la finca y su inscripción. Basado en lo anterior, sea en que la inscripción de la finca es válida, concluye que la inclusión del plano catastrado G-955494-91 para describir la finca y para disimnuir su cabida es también válida. Considera también de que en caso de que existiera algún vicio en la inscripción del plano o su uso para el propósito indicado, cualquier acción para accionar y anular el plazo o su uso ya prescribió al haber transcurrido más de diez años y que el artículo 456 del Código Civil protege al adquirente que se confíe de lo que dice el Registro. Indica que el Estado no prueba que la finca esté mal inscrita. En las conclusiones dadas en la Audiencia Preliminar manifestó además que el traspaso se hizo de buena fe, así como que la inscripción se hizo con base en el Transitorio III de la Ley 4558, por lo que la propiedad salió del dominio del Estado y por ello es aplicable el instituto de la prescripción. Además sostiene que la adquisición se hizo al amparo del artículo 456 del Código Civil, basados en la publicidad registral. Finalmente solicita que en caso de que la demanda sea declarada con lugar, sean eximidos del pago de costas, por existir evidente buena fe.

VIII. POSICIÓN DE PENCA POINT LIMITADA

La codemandada fundamenta su oposición en primer lugar en el artículo 6 de la Ley 6043, que indica que las disposiciones de la ley no se aplican a las propiedades inscritas con sujeción a ley, por lo que no debe aplicarse a la finca de marras, pues la misma se inscribió en su momento al amparo de la Ley 4558, siguiendo el procedimiento de informaciones posesorias descrito en la Ley 4545, tal y como se desprende de su asiento de inscripción. Argumenta que con esta última ley, el ITCO estaba facultado para tramitar informaciones posesorias y otorgar administrativamente títulos de propiedad. Añade que estando vigente la Ley 4545, se aprobó la ley 4558, la cual en su Transitorio III, facultó a todas las personas que hubieran poseído lotes o fincas en la zona marítimo terrestre a solicitar título de propiedad sobre los inmuebles, siempre que se reunieran las condiciones que el texto legal indicaba, usando a tales efectos el procedimiento que marca la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, lo que facultó a La Prieta S.A. para titular un terreno dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre. Considera que el Estado no ha ofrecido prueba alguna dirigida a verificar que el trámite de información posesoria no se realizó apegado a las leyes aplicables en el momento de su trámite, probablemente porque el expediente de la información posesoria fue extraviado por el IDA, por lo que al no tenerse certeza sobre el fundamento legal mediante el cual se aprobó la información posesoria, resulta obligatorio la aplicación del principio in dubio pro administrado, a su favor y tener por un hecho de que la finca Dirección17288, fue inscrita al amparo de la ley lo que llevaría a la conclusión de que su creación no es violatoria de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. En las conclusiones vertidas en la Audiencia Preliminar, la sociedad indicó que existe falta de legitimación activa porque el inmueble no está dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre y que por esta misma circunstancia tampoco puede ser demandada.

XI. SOBRE LOS EFECTOS DE LA REBELDÍA

Deber del Tribunal de analizar el derecho y pretensión de la actora pese a declaratoria de rebeldía. El CPCA en su artículo 65 señala que si el demandado no contesta la demanda en el plazo establecido, de oficio se le declarará rebelde y se tendrá por contestada afirmativamente la demanda en cuanto a los hechos, sin perjuicio de que aquél pueda apersonarse en cualquier tiempo, tomando el proceso en el estado que se encuentre. Respecto de los efectos de la declaratoria de rebeldía ha indicado la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia que "...Ciertamente la no contestación de la demanda conduce a la rebeldía y a tener por contestados afirmativamente los hechos, pero no enerva la potestad del juez de recabar prueba y verificar el cuadro fáctico. Pero además, el rebelde puede apersonarse en cualquier tiempo al proceso y ofrecer nuevas pruebas (arts. Placa21479 .), que si son pertinentes para el esclarecimiento de los hechos puede el juez admitirlas para mejor resolver. Por consiguiente la rebeldía no es por si sola suficiente para la acreditación definitiva de los hechos, solo alcanza este valor si otras pruebas de igual linaje no contradicen la contestación ficta. Por eso la rebeldía debe ser valorada con el resto de elementos probatorios obrantes en el proceso”.(Voto 801-F-02 de las 11 horas 10 minutos del 18 de octubre del 2002). Así las cosas, no bastaría con la contestación en rebeldía para acoger los pedimentos de la reconvención, si otros elementos de juicio conllevan, bajo la aplicación de las reglas de la sana crítica, a constatar que no existen los presupuestos legales necesarios para acoger las pretensiones rogadas...." (Ver resolución No. 991-F-2004, de las 15 horas 20 minutos del 17 de noviembre de 2004). Bajo esta tesitura puede deducirse que la declaratoria de rebeldía no enerva la potestad del órgano jurisdiccional de recabar prueba, verificar el cuadro fáctico así como las pretensiones del actor y resolver las excepciones de fondo. Si bien el efecto procesal de la rebeldía supone la contestación afirmativa de los hechos invocados en la demanda, lo cierto del caso es que este efecto no releva al juzgador de su deber de examinar las probanzas y analizar el fondo de los autos. Con todo y los alcances de la rebeldía, se mantiene el deber de acreditar los hechos constitutivos del derecho que se alega en sede jurisdiccional, según se desprende del numeral 82 del CPCA, en relación al precepto 317 del Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria en esta materia por permitirlo el artículo 220 del CPCA. Esta carga probatoria, como presupuesto del suceso de las pretensiones, subsiste al margen de que la parte contraria haya o no contestado la demanda, ergo, la sola declaratoria de rebeldía no enerva la obligación del actor de probar su derecho. En este sentido, la rebeldía aún con sus efectos procesales, es un instituto diferente al allanamiento, por lo que, su ocurrencia, no supone, de manera automática, el otorgamiento de lo pedido sin examen de fondo. En consecuencia, en estas circunstancias el juzgador no debe asumir que la inexistencia de controversia y prescindir de la prueba, sino buscar la verdad real conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 82 del mismo Código Procesal y por el control de legalidad que tiene por objeto la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa (artículo 49 de la Constitución Política y 1 del Código de rito). Conteste con lo explicado es criterio de este Tribunal que en este caso, pese a la declaratoria de rebeldía de la sociedad La Prieta S.A., se debe analizar la comuna probatoria traída a los autos a efectos de verificar el cuadro fáctico y definir si las pretensiones de la actora tienen o no asidero jurídico.

X.PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL PROCESO DE LESIVIDAD. En la especie, el Estado pretende se declare la nulidad de las siguientes inscripciones registrales: "1) Es nula la propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27986 desde su inscripción, por lo que debe el Registro Nacional debe (sic) cancelar el tomo 2120, asiento 403, secuencia 001, según presentación al Diario de Registro Público el 7 de agosto de 1973, tomo 97, asiento 9470, pues abarca indebidamente terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre, bien de dominio público donde rigen las potestades de autotutela adminstrativa. 2) Es nulo el plano catastrado número Placa27987, y por consiguiente el Registro Nacional debe de cancelarlo, por comprender terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre. 3) Es nulo y el Registro Nacional debe cancelar el asiento 2344 del tomo 391, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro el 22 de noviembre de 1991 e inscrito el 14 de setiembre de 1992, originado por la escritura pública de 18:00 hrs. del 30 de octubre de 1991, otorgada ante el Notario Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, donde La Prieta S.A.disminuyó la cabida propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27849, y la traspasó a Mogador de Pesca S.A.4) Es nulo y ha de cancelarse el asiento 10616 del tomo 556, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro Público el 10 de agosto de 2005 e inscrito el 22 de agosto de 2005, referido a la escritura pública No. 55 de 18:00 horas. del 8 de agosto de 2005, otorgada ante el Notario Mauricio González Crespo, donde Mogador de Pesca S.A.traspasó en propiedad fiduciaria a Penca Point Ltda, el inmueble inscrito en el Partido de Guancaste, matrícula Placa27849." por considerarlas lesiva a los intereses públicos. Desde este plano, es menester, de manera breve, establecer el cumplimiento de los diversos presupuestos que impone el ordenamiento jurídico para la interposición de un proceso de lesividad, ya que la ausencia de uno de estos elementos impediría y haría innecesario el examen de fondo. De manera general, la lesividad se constituye en un mecanismo jurisdiccional en virtud del cual la Administración pretende la supresión de un acto suyo, propio, que en tesis de principio, genera un efecto favorable a un tercero destinatario. Desde ese plano, en este tipo de contiendas, la lesividad es de corte subjetivo, en tanto pretende la anulación de una conducta que concede un derecho o en general, una situación de beneficio a una persona. Tal figura se encuentra positivizada en el artículo 34 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, norma que fija los elementos previos y regulaciones procesales de esta figura. Empero, se encuentra referenciada además en el numeral 173 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Desde la óptica de los presupuestos procesales, se imponen condiciones subjetivas, objetivas, procedimentales y temporales. En cuanto a la arista subjetiva, la legitimación activa se concede a la Administración emisora del acto cuestionado, en tanto que el legitimado pasivo es el receptor de los efectos de la conducta, sea, quien obtiene sus bondades. En lo atinente a la arista objetiva, la lesividad se constituye como un mecanismo de eliminación jurídica de actos administrativos que sean disconformes sustancialmente con el ordenamiento jurídico, sea, los actos que padezcan de algún nivel de invalidez, sea absoluta o relativa, en cualquiera de sus tipologías (artículos 128, 158, 165 y concordantes de la citada Ley General No. 6227). En esa línea, la Administración debe declarar lesiva a los intereses públicos esa conducta, lo que debe ser establecido dentro de un marco de acciones internas de la administración que son impostergables para formular la acción. En efecto, en el orden procedimental, se impone que el jerarca máximo supremo de la Administración Pública respectiva declare la lesividad del acto, sea por lesión a intereses económicos, fiscales o de otra índole que se desprendan del interés público, para lo cual, ha de contar con un criterio jurídico-técnico de base que sustente esa determinación. A diferencia de otras figuras de supresión de conductas públicas, no requiere de audiencia al tercero, sino solo de acciones a lo interno de la Administración, ya que será dentro del proceso judicial que el tercero podrá establecer sus alegatos de defensa. Ahora bien, cuando el acto emane del Estado (ver artículo 1 de la citada Ley General), sea, de la Administración Central, la demanda solo podrá ser incoada por la Procuraduría General de la República (canon 16 de la Ley No. Placa494), previo pedimento del jerarca máximo supremo y previa declaratoria interna de lesividad, con detalle de los motivos de ese criterio. En cuanto a la dimensión temporal, la nueva normativa procesal establece un plazo de un año contado a partir de la emisión del acto (que no de su comunicación) para declarar lesivo el acto a los intereses públicos, y luego de esa declaratoria (y no a partir del vencimiento de ese primer año) se otorga un plazo de un año para plantear la acción contenciosa administrativa a modo de plazo fatal de caducidad, salvo en casos de actos con nulidad absoluta, en cuyo caso, la declaratoria de lesividad puede realizarse en tanto perduren sus efectos, corriendo el año aludido desde el cese definitivo de dichos efectos. En esa hipótesis, la eventual sentencia estimatoria dispondrá la nulidad únicamente para la inaplicabilidad futura del acto, constituyéndose en una excepción expresa al régimen de retroactividad de las nulidades absolutas establecido por el ordinal 171 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. La excepción a ese aspecto temporal de un año se configura en tutela de dominio público, caso en el que la acción de lesividad no está sujeta a plazo por la aplicación de la cláusula general de imprescriptibilidad de ese tipo de bienes según se deriva del artículo 261 del Código Civil. Ahora bien, en materia tributaria, la acción de lesividad, además de las normas referidas, se encuentra regulada en el artículo 165 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. En esta materia fiscal, conforme al artículo 41 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el plazo máximo para incoar el proceso será el mismo que imponga el ordenamiento como plazo de prescripción para el respectivo derecho de fondo. Aunado a ello, en esta dinámica fiscal, al estar vedada la potestad de revisión del jerarca natural de las conductas de las Administraciones Tributarias inferiores (numeral 102 incisos b y d de la Ley No. 6227), competencia que ha sido otorgada por imperativo de ley al Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, según se desprende del ordinal 156 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, constituyéndose en esa fase recursiva una jerarquía impropia monofásica (control no jerárquico), es claro que el plazo para declarar la lesividad que corre en contra del Ministro de la cartera de Hacienda (competencia que se sustenta en que reúne la condición de jerarca máximo supremo tanto del órgano revisado como del contralor no jerárquico, ambos parte de la misma estructura de esa Administración), se computa desde el momento en que ese órgano contralor impropio monofásico, pone en conocimiento de la Administración A quo, lo dispuesto en virtud de su competencia apelativa. Previo a ese instante, el jerarca natural se encuentra en imposibilidad material y jurídica de conocer de un acto que puede resultar potencialmente lesivo a los intereses fiscales, económicos o públicos que debe tutelar y por ende, incapacitado para ejercitar sus potestades para declarar lesiva esa actuación. Desde luego que cuando el acto que se estima irregular derive de una administración inferior, al no estarse ante el aludido supuesto de jerarquía impropia monofásica, tal excepcionalidad no es aplicable, y el plazo se computa desde la adopción del acto. En la especie, del análisis de los autos, se concluye que la declaratoria de lesividad interna cumple con los presupuestos señalados. Por fundamentar la lesividad de los actos registrales en la indebida inscripción de parte de la zona marítimo terrestre, según la teoría del caso del Estado, la cual es parte del demanio público, se hará el análisis del plazo para la interposición del juicio de lesividad de acuerdo con el artículo 34.2, sin perjuicio de lo que más adelante se analice. Dicho artículo, según se indicó, no sujeta a plazo la declaratoria de lesividad en los bienes de dominio público. No obstante, una vez que la misma se ha declarado, se entiende que la misma estaría sujeta al plazo de caducidad de un año indicado en el artículo 39.1.e) del CPCA, para la interposición del juicio de lesividad. Hecha la anterior precisión, de acuerdo con lo que consta a los folios 10 a 20 del expediente judicial, el Ministro de Justicia, como Jerarca del Registro Público, declaró la lesividad de los actos cuya nulidad se solicita en sentencia, por resolución de las trece horas del veintidos de octubre de dos mil nueve. El juicio de lesividad fue interpuesto, según consta al folio dos del expediente judicial, el día dos de setiembre de dos mil diez, es decir, antes del plazo de un año anteriormente señalado. La demanda se presenta por la Procuraduría General de la República contra las sociedades que se han beneficiado de los actos cuestionados, por lo que en términos del ámbito legitimante tanto activo como pasivo, se cumplen con las exigencias referidas. Así las cosas, se ingresa de seguido al examen de la presente acción.

XI. DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE

Tal y como lo ha reconocido la legislación y la jurisprudencia patrias, la zona marítimo terrestre es un bien demanial, el cual comparte las características de este tipos de bien, que son la imprescriptibilidad, inembargabilidad e inalienabilidad. Su reconocimiento como tal se hace con base en el artículo 261 del Código Civil, que hace la distinción entre bienes de dominio y bienes de dominio fiscal de la administración:

"Son cosas públicas las que, por ley, están destinadas de un modo permanente a cualquier servicio de utilidad general, y aquellas de que todos pueden aprovecharse por estar entregadas al uso público.

Todas las demás cosas son privadas y objeto de propiedad particular, aunque pertenezcan al Estado o a los Municipios, quienes para el caso, como personas civiles, no se diferencian de cualquier otra persona." De igual forma, el reconocimiento se hace desde el siglo pasado, tal y como lo ha establecido reiteradamente la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, entre otras, en la sentencia 2241-09, de las doce horas once minutos del trece de febrero de dos mil nueve, en la que indica:

"En sentencias anteriores, este Tribunal ha reconocido reiteradamente (entre otras, ver las sentencias número 2360-93, 5399-93, 5977-93, 5976-93, y 0502-I-95), que la zona marítimo terrestre es un bien demanial; así, por sentencia número 0447-91, de las 15:30 horas del 21 de febrero de 1991, claramente consideró que en efecto se trata de un bien de dominio público, en los términos del artículo 261 del Código Civil:

"El carácter demanial de la zona marítimo terrestre (o ribera marina como se le denominó antiguamente) se reconoce desde tiempo inmemorial, y el Derecho Romano mismo recoge ese status, como "res comunes" y "extra comercium". En nuestro medio, con toda claridad desde el siglo pasado se ha reconocido el carácter público de esa franja marina adyacente al territorio nacional, en la que ejerce su soberanía ... no es posible tener por violado el artículo 45 Constitucional, ya que no se imponen limitaciones a la propiedad privada, sino que al regularse el dominio público, la ley lo que hace es establecer condiciones mediante las que es posible el uso y disfrute de la zona marítimo terrestre, por parte de los particulares. Así quien pretenda por medios no autorizados ejercer un uso privativo de esa zona tendrá vedada la posibilidad de consumarlo, pues es aceptable también, desde tiempo inmemorial, que se trata de bienes imprescriptibles en favor de particulares y que están fuera de comercio." La naturaleza jurídica de la propiedad demanial es virtualmente diferente, como ya lo indicó esta Sala por resolución número 2306-91 de las 14:45 horas del 6 de noviembre, en la cual indicó:

"El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público. Son llamados bienes dominicales, bienes demaniales, bienes o cosas públicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres. Es decir, afectados por su naturaleza y vocación. En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa. Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos de Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio. Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al aprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad. El permiso de uso es un acto jurídico unilateral que lo dicta la Administración, en el uso de sus funciones y lo que se pone en manos del particular, es el dominio útil del bien, reservándose siempre el Estado, el dominio directo sobre la cosa. La precariedad de todo derecho o permiso de uso, es consustancial a la figura y alude a la posibilidad que la administración, en cualquier momento lo revoque, ya sea por la necesidad del Estado de ocupar plenamente el bien, por la construcción de una obra pública al igual que por razones de seguridad, higiene, estética, todo ello en la medida que si llega a existir una contraposición de intereses entre el fin del bien y el permiso otorgado, debe prevalecer el uso natural de la cosa pública. En consecuencia, el régimen patrio de los bienes de dominio público, los coloca fuera del comercio de los hombres y por ello los permisos que se otorguen serán siempre a título precario y revocables por la Administración, unilateralmente, cuando razones de necesidad o de interés general así lo señalan." Asimismo, en resolución N°1996-05756 de las catorce horas cuarenta y dos minutos del treinta de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y seis, la Sala indicó:

“Dentro de ese régimen de propiedad, destaca la división en dos zonas: la pública y la zona restringida. La zona pública está por definición excluida de cualquier tipo de explotación o construcción en manos de particulares, y no puede ser objeto de ocupación en ningún caso, pues está destinada al “uso público”, según lo establece claramente el artículo 20 de la ley, exceptuando aquellos terrenos que por su topografía sean inaccesibles. Únicamente se permite el desarrollo de obras mínimas de infraestructura en dicha zona, pero debidamente aprobadas por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y la respectiva municipalidad, atendiendo siempre al uso público al que deben destinarse. El régimen de esta zona es definitivo: no puede construirse absolutamente nada por particulares, y únicamente obras mínimas de infraestructura, debidamente autorizadas por las instituciones señaladas y en el entendido de que se destinarán al uso público. Nótese que el régimen de esta zona es tan estricto, que si por causas naturales cambia la topografía y modifica la demarcación de la zonas, y quedan construcciones dentro de la zona pública, se conservarán los derechos sobre lo existente, pero no podrán hacerse modificaciones o remodelaciones, procurándose su traslado a la zona restringida o en última instancia su expropiación. Así lo establece el artículo 24 de la Ley, que señala:

“Artículo 24 : Si por causas naturales variare la topografía del terreno con el consiguiente cambio en las distancias y por ese motivo una construcción o instalación resultare ubicada dentro de la zona pública, el propietario conservará sus derechos pero no podrá efectuar refacciones ni remodelaciones. Se procurará su traslado a la zona restringida o su alineación a ella, con ayuda que se autoriza de la respectiva municipalidad o del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo si se tratare de persona de escasos recursos económicos. De no ser posible lo anterior, se procederá a su expropiación”.

Incluso para propiedades inscritas antes de la promulgación de la ley, con terrenos que comprenden la zona pública, el uso particular de las mismas es absolutamente restringido y sólo procederá con acuerdos expresos de la respectiva municipalidad, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (artículo 25), así como las excepciones establecidas en el artículo 18 para determinados proyectos específicos, como estructuras portuarias, plantas industriales, etc., que por su propia naturaleza necesiten ser edificadas en las cercanías del mar, en cuyo caso también es necesaria la autorización expresa de las instituciones mencionadas”.

De igual forma, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se ha referido con detalle a la evolución histórica que ha tenido la zona marítimo terrestre, en la sentencia 007-93, de las quince horas cinco minutos del veinte de enero de mil novecientos noventa y tres:

Si bien el actual régimen jurídico de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre lo establece básicamente la Ley Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, y sus reformas y adiciones, para la correcta comprensión de las implicaciones jurídicas de este asunto, conviene analizar la evolución legislativa sobre el tema, pero subrayando los aspectos referidos tanto a la determinación de su naturaleza jurídica, en tanto bien de dominio público, como a su extensión superficial. Al respecto, muchas han sido las disposiciones normativas que de alguna u otra forma han establecido regulaciones sobre la zona marítimo terrestre, antes más conocida como milla marítima. Algunas de ellas -las más importantes- son las siguientes: Ley Nº 162 de 8 de junio de 1828, Decreto Nº 12 de 10 de diciembre de 1839, Ley Nº 14 de 26 de febrero de 1840, Ley Nº 128 de 19 de agosto de 1853, Decreto Nº 4 de 30 de julio de 1858, Ley Nº 7 de 31 de agosto de 1868, Ley Nº 42 de 13 de agosto de 1875, Ley Nº 22 de 7 de febrero de 1881, Ley de Aguas Nº 8 de 26 de mayo de 1884 y sus reformas, Código Fiscal de 1885 (Ley Nº 8 de 31 de octubre de 1885), Ley Nº 58 de 29 de julio de 1892, Ley Nº 7 de 4 de noviembre de 1892, Ley Nº 15 de 27 de marzo de 1896, Ley Nº 60 de 13 de agosto de 1914, Ley Nº 82 de 5 de abril de 1923, Ley Nº 75 de 30 de agosto de 1924, Ley Nº 11 de 22 de octubre de 1926, mediante la cual se reformó el Código Fiscal de 1885, Ley Nº 29 de 3 de diciembre de 1934, Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos Nº 13 de 10 de enero de 1939, Decreto Nº 6 de 2 de abril de 1940 (Reglamento a la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos), Ley Nº 19 de 12 de noviembre de 1942, Ley No. 201 de 26 de agosto de 1943, Decreto Ley Nº 500 de 19 de abril de 1949, Ley de Tierras y Colonización Nº 2825 de 14 de octubre de 1961, Ley Nº 2906 de 24 de noviembre de 1961, Ley Nº 4071 de 22 de enero de 1968, Ley Forestal Nº 4465 de 25 de noviembre de 1969, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 4558 de 22 de abril de 1970, Ley Nº 4928 de 17 de diciembre de 1971 que reformó la anterior y Ley Nº 5602 de 4 de noviembre de 1974, que la suspendió. No es del caso hacer un exhaustivo análisis de las diversas disposiciones normativas sobre la materia; sin embargo, es necesario señalar que desde la primera disposición jurídica emanada en la época republicana -Ley Nº 162 de 28 de junio de 1828- se estableció la reserva de una milla marítima en las costas de ambos mares, que según lo consignado en el Ley Nº 128 de 19 de agosto de 1953, era así desde la época colonial por disposición de la Real Cédula de 15 de octubre de 1754. A todo lo largo del siglo XIX, las diversas leyes emanadas reafirman este concepto disponiendo la reserva de una milla marítima a lo largo de ambos litorales. Los Reglamentos Generales de la Hacienda Pública de 1839, 1858 y 1868, mantuvieron la reserva creada en 1828; pero, para los efectos, lo importante a tomar en cuenta es la clara determinación, en la legislación promulgada en el siglo pasado, de la llamada milla marítima como un bien de dominio público, con su consiguiente carácter de inalienabilidad e indenunciabilidad. Así, por ejemplo, el Código General de 1841 consideraba el flujo y reflujo del mar y sus riberas de dominio público; la precitada Ley Nº 7 de 31 de agosto de 1868, reafirmó el carácter indenunciable de los terrenos de la milla marítima; en la Ley de Aguas Nº 8 de 26 de mayo de 1884 -única disposición del siglo XIX en la cual se usó el término Zona Marítimo Terrestre- se calificó a dicha zona como de dominio público; y el Código Fiscal de 1885 estableció que no podían enajenarse los terrenos comprendidos en una zona de una milla de latitud a lo largo de las costas de ambos mares. Resulta claro entonces, sin demérito del antecedente de la época colonial señalado, que desde el nacimiento de Costa Rica como Estado independiente, la reserva de terreno a lo largo de ambos litorales no ha sido parte de los baldíos -las tierras realengas de la Colonia- sino que siempre ha estado sometido a un régimen jurídico distinto, el propio de los bienes de dominio público y, por lo tanto, no reducibles a propiedad privada. En la legislación sobre la materia promulgada a lo largo del siglo XX -hasta culminar con la actual Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977- se mantuvo, obviamente, el calificativo de bienes de dominio público de los terrenos comprendidos en dicha zona. Como resultado de la evolución legislativa del siglo XIX, la zona marítimo terrestre comprendía la parte de las costas de ambos mares bañadas por el flujo y reflujo, extendiéndose hasta la distancia de una milla tierra adentro. Comprendía, además, las márgenes de los ríos hasta el sitio en que fueran navegables o fueran afectados por las mareas. La legislación de este siglo fue precisando la extensión de la zona así como los elementos que formaban parte de ella, pero en ningún momento negó su carácter de bien demanial y, en consecuencia, su imprescriptibilidad e inalienabilidad; de este modo, la primera ley dictada en el presente siglo en la cual se hizo referencia a la zona marítimo terrestre -Nº 75 de 30 de agosto de 1924- reafirmó en su artículo 6 el carácter demanial de esos terrenos y la imposibilidad de explotar y usufructuar de ellos. Siempre reafirmando su carácter inalienable, fue en la Ley Nº 11 de 22 de octubre de 1922 -que reformó el Código Fiscal de 1855- donde por primera vez se precisó la extensión en 1.672 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de las costas de ambos mares y de 500 metros a lo largo de ambos márgenes de los ríos. Esta medida se mantuvo hasta el año 1942, y fue reafirmada en la Ley sobre Terrenos Baldíos Nº 13 de 10 de enero de 1939 y en la Ley de Aguas Nº 276 de 27 de agosto de 1942. La Ley Nº 19 de 12 de noviembre de 1942 redujo la extensión de la zona marítimo terrestre a 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria para la costa del Atlántico, y lo propio hizo la Ley Nº 201 de 26 de enero de 1943 para la costa del Pacífico. Estas dos leyes constituyeron, sin duda, las más importantes desafectaciones operadas en la zona, pues permitieron la adquisición privada de sus terrenos, exceptuando 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria. A partir de estas dos disposiciones y a excepción de los 200 metros contados a partir de la pleamar ordinaria, el resto de los 1.672 metros dejaron de ser de dominio público desde el momento en que pudieron ser reducidos a dominio privado. Sin embargo, los terrenos contenidos en los 200 metros exceptuados por las dos leyes precitados, continuaron siendo bienes de dominio público, no reducibles a dominio privado por ser inalienables e imprescriptibles. Entonces, es correcto sostener que la zona marítimo terrestre quedó, a partir de las leyes mencionadas, con una extensión de 200 metros contados a partir de la pleamar, que es la que actualmente tiene, manteniendo su carácter de bien demanial. Esta medida de 200 metros, junto con el carácter demanial de los terrenos allí comprendidos, se reafirmó en el entonces vigente artículo 7 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización Nº 2825 de 14 de octubre de 1961 y se repitió en la Ley Forestal Nº 4465 de 25 de noviembre de 1969 y en la Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 4558 de 22 de abril de 1970. Pero en esta última ley, debido a la intención del legislador de traspasar a la Municipalidad importantes áreas ubicadas dentro de los 200 metros inalienables, con la idea de ir desarrollando zonas turísticas, se llegó a definir como absolutamente inalienables solo 50 metros, pasándose los restantes 150 bajo administración de dichas municipalidades cuando así lo definiera el Instituto de Turismo, pero seguirían bajo la administración del entonces Instituto de Tierras y Colonización aquellas áreas de aptitud agraria y no turística. Los 200 metros señalados es la medida establecida por el artículo 9 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, actualmente vigente. De este somero estudio sobre la legislación acerca de la zona marítimo terrestre, es fácil llegar a la conclusión de que la franja de 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de ambas costas definida como parte de la zona marítimo terrestre por el artículo 9 de la actual Ley sobre la Zona marítimo terrestre, ha sido de dominio público -y los terrenos en ella comprendidos, bienes demaniales- desde 1828, por lo menos. Las variaciones que la legislación del siglo pasado y del presente han introducido sobre la materia nunca han desafectado en forma generalizada estos 200 metros, siendo más bien que la legislación anterior a 1942 y 1943, establecía una franja mayor en extensión -la llamada milla marítima- pero nunca menor. En los mismos términos de como sucedió con la Ley Nº 19 de 12 de noviembre de 1942, en relación con el Océano Atlántico, y la Ley Nº 201 del 26 de enero de 1943, en relación con el Océano Pacífico, las cuales desafectaron una importante área pasando de 1.672 metros a 200 metros, también con la Ley Nº 4558 del 22 de abril de 1970, específicamente a través de su Transitorio III, se desafectaron 150 metros de los 200, en cuanto se autorizó a los particulares que hubieren poseído lotes o fincas dentro de los 200 metros a inscribirlos por medio del trámite de Informaciones Posesorias. En tal sentido se exigía una posesión de más de 30 años, cumplida en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y sin interrupción. Pero esta disposición tuvo una corta vida pues en virtud de la Ley Nº 5602 del 4 de noviembre de 1974 se le derogó. Por tal razón se encuentran en el país inscripciones registrales dentro de los 150 de los 200 metros -en época relativamente reciente- pero autorizado expresamente por ley, y solo para aquellos titulantes beneficiados con el Transitorio III que rigió entre el 22 de abril de 1970 y el 4 de noviembre de 1974. La zona marítimo terrestre es y siempre ha sido, se repite, de dominio público. Su actual régimen jurídico es el establecido por la Ley Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, sus reformas, y su reglamento (Decreto Nº 7841-P de 16 de diciembre de 1977), siendo esta Ley la primera específica sobre la materia. Le son inherentes las características de inalienabilidad e imprescriptibilidad. Ello resulta claro de los estipulados en su artículo primero, que al efecto dispone: "Artículo 1. La zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección, así como la de sus recursos naturales, es obligación del Estado, de sus instituciones y de todos los habitantes del país. Su uso y aprovechamiento están sujetos a las disposiciones de esta ley." Por ser bienes de dominio público pertenecen al Estado, están sujetos a un régimen jurídico especial y su finalidad -destino- es el uso y el aprovechamiento común. La inalienabilidad de estos bienes no significa otra cosa que su no pertenencia al comercio de los hombres de manera similar a la figura romanista de los bienes "extra comercium". Por lo tanto, dichos bienes no pueden ser enajenados -por ningún medio de Derecho privado ni de Derecho público- siendo consustancial a su naturaleza jurídica su no reducción al dominio privado bajo ninguna forma. De allí que otra de sus características sea su imprescriptibilidad, es decir, la no susceptibilidad de adquirirse mediante el transcurso del tiempo bajo la figura jurídica de la usucapión, pues la posesión ejercida por particulares no genera derecho de propiedad alguno, no importa el tiempo durante el que se haya poseído. La actual Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre desarrolla la imprescriptibilidad en su artículo 7 al establecer que los terrenos en ella situados no pueden ser objeto de informaciones posesorias, no pudiendo ser apropiados ni legalizados a nombre de particular por ese u otro medio. La regulación que la Ley hace de la Zona marítimo terrestre es, en todo, consecuente con el carácter demanial de los terrenos en ella comprendidos, y es definida -artículo 9- como la franja de doscientos metros de ancho a todo lo largo de los litorales del Atlántico y Pacífico de la República, incluyendo, también, los terrenos y rocas que deje el mar en descubierto en la marea baja, así como las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos, toda tierra o formación natural que sobresalga del nivel del océano dentro de mar territorial de la República, con la excepción de la Isla del Coco y otras islas cuyo dominio o administración se determine en esa ley o en leyes especiales. El artículo 10 divide la Zona marítimo terrestre en dos secciones: la Zona pública y la Zona restringida, siendo que la primera lo constituye la faja de 50 metros de ancho a partir de la pleamar ordinaria, así como las áreas que quedan al descubierto durante la marea baja, los islotes, peñascos y demás áreas pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalen del mar, y los manglares de los litorales continentales e insulares y los esteros (artículo 11); y la segunda lo constituye los 150 metros restantes o, en caso de las islas, por los demás terrenos. La ley prohíbe cualquier tipo de ocupación -bajo el título que sea- en la Zona pública, pero permite las concesiones en la Zona restringida, según lo dispuesto en sus artículos 20 y 39, respectivamente, técnica propia de los bienes demaniales que, por lo mismo, no desmerecen su carácter. Dichas concesiones (artículo 41) podrán serlo únicamente para el uso y disfrute de áreas determinadas en las condiciones y durante el plazo que esa ley determine, regulándose esto último en sus artículos 48, 49 y 50, y lo relativo a su extinción y cancelación en el 51 y 52, respectivamente. En el numeral 56 se estipula la reversión del uso y disfrute plenos a la municipalidad respectiva, una vez extinguida una concesión. Resulta claro, en consecuencia, que siendo los terrenos y demás formaciones comprendidas en la zona marítimo terrestre de dominio público, se debe descartar la posibilidad legal de su reducción a dominio privado bajo forma alguna; la única manera en que los sujetos privados pueden usar y gozar de dichos terrenos -sin que ello implique su apropiación privada- es mediante la concesión que las municipalidades hagan, pero sólo en los 150 metros de la Zona restringida, o bien por inscrito -entre 1970 y 1974- de conformidad en el Transitorio III de la Ley Nº 4558 de 1970." En la actualidad, la ley que rige lo relativo al ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre, es la Ley 6043, Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del dos de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y siete, que recoge aspectos básicos, como la distinción de la zona pública y la zona restringida, el otorgamiento de concesiones y otros aspectos de interés (artículos 6 y 7). Se entiende que sobre la zona pública no puede ejercerse ningún tipo de derecho, mientras que en la zona restringida pueden otorgarse permisos o concesiones, los cuales será otorgados por las respectivas municipalidades. De igual forma, el artículo 7 de la ley, establece que por medio del procedimiento de informaciones posesorias, no puede obtenerse ningún derecho en la mencionada zona. No obstante, al momento de suceder los hechos objeto de esta demanda, concretamente la titulación de la propiedad a nombre de La Prieta S.A. (07 de agosto de 1972), se encontraba vigente la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, que reguló el aprovechamiento de la zona, en los siguientes términos:

"Artículo 6º.- Los cincuenta metros de la zona marítimo-terrestre a partir de la pleamar ordinaria, serán inalienables y en ningún caso pueden se objeto de arrendamiento o venta. Por lo tanto, nadie puede alegar derecho alguno sobre dicha franja, que estará dedicada a uso público para fines de esparcimiento, recreo o libre circulación. Las construcciones o instalaciones actualmente ubicadas en esa zona, no pondrán ser remodeladas y en caso de destrucción de las mismas, las nuevas construcciones deberán respetar esta zona inalienable.

Artículo 7º.- Los ciento cincuenta metros restantes, tierra adentro, pueden ser objeto de arrendamiento, dentro de las siguientes normas:

• a)Los lotes destinados a construir residencias o quintas de recreo para uso del arrendatario o sus allegados y que no constituyan actividad lucrativa. sólo podrán arrendarse por extensiones no mayores de una hectárea y siempre que el frente a la playa no exceda de veinticinco metros. Ninguna persona junto con su cónyuge o hijos solteros, podrá tener más de un contrato de arrendamiento de esta clase.
• b)Las parcelas destinadas al establecimiento de centros de recreo, hoteles, moteles o restaurantes y similares, podrán arrendarse por extensiones mayores, de acuerdo con la planificación de la zona. En todo caso de arrendamiento de este tipo, la municipalidad respectiva debe oir previamente el parecer del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo.
• c)En ningún caso podrán darse en arrendamiento parcelas para el establecimiento de industrias en las zonas a que esta ley se refiere, salvo las relacionadas con la explotación turística. Pero en todo caso, tales industrias deberán ser localizadas fuera del área urbana.
• d)Los arrendamientos regulados en los incisos anteriores se otorgarán por el plazo de un año, pero podrán ser prorrogados hasta un máximo de diez, a solicitud de los interesados. La solicitud de prórroga deberá hacerse necesariamente dentro del mes anterior al vencimiento del contrato, bajo pena de cancelación definitiva del arrendamiento. En todos los casos de terminación del arrendamiento, las mejoras quedarán a favor de la municipalidad respectiva." Sin embargo, en su versión original, a través del Transitorio III, que estuvo vigente hasta el cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y uno, permitió titulación de terrenos dentro de la misma, bajo los siguientes parámetros:

"Transitorio III.- Aquellas personas que demuestren haber poseído en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y a título de dueños, lotes o fincas en la zona marítimo-terrestre, por más de treinta años, pueden solicitar título de propiedad sobre ellos, salvo la reserva a que se refiere el artículo 6º de esta ley, aún cuando hubieren poseído tales inmuebles durante parte de ese tiempo como arrendatarios, mediante contratos suscritos con el Estado o sus Instituciones. El procedimiento será el que marca la actual ley de Informaciones Posesorias. En este caso no habrá limitación en cuanto a la extensión del lote o finca a inscribir en cabeza del interesado." Debe de entenderse que la remisión a la información posesoria, era la regulada por la Ley 4545, Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, que permitía un trámite administrativo ante el Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO) y que únicamente en caso de contención o de silencio por parte de ese Instituto, se acudía a la vía judicial, según lo establecía el artículo 12 de dicha ley. Para efectos de claridad, debe de indicarse que el Transitorio III, recién citado, fue derogado mediante la Ley 4847 del cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y uno, que la Ley 4558 fue suspendida en sus efectos mediante la Ley 5602 del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro y que fue derogada en su totalidad con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, que es la que se encuentra actualmente vigente.

XII. DEL ANÁLISIS DEL CASO EN CONCRETO

Antes de entrar a hacer las consideraciones propias del caso, debe de indicarse que el análisis se hará conforme con la prueba aportada por el Estado, básicamente el asiento de inscripción, los planos y el expediente del Registro Público con la investigación que llevó a la inmovilización de la finca, ya que el IDA declaró que no existía expediente que respaldara la inscripción, ni tampoco las partes codemandadas aportaron prueba alguna, sobre todo en cuanto a la inscripción de la finca. Como se ha venido indicando, el objeto central del proceso es la anulación de la inscripción de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de Folio Real Placa27848 , por estar la misma dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre. Los argumentos del Estado se centran en la demanialidad del bien, por lo que no es susceptible de ser titulado, mientras que las sociedades demandadas (Mogador de Pesca S.A. y Penca Point Ltda.), consideran que la finca se inscribió al amparo del Transitorio III de la Ley 4558, por lo que la misma salió del dominio público del Estado. Antes de entrar a definir el régimen legal vigente al momento de la inscripción, para este Tribunal es importante considerar en primer lugar, que la inscripción se hizo con base en un plano que corresponde a una finca totalmente diferente, ya que el plano Placa27988, hace referencia a un terrero se encuentra localizado en el Dirección11190 , , del Cantón 1 La Cruz, de la Provincia de Guanacaste, propiedad de Nombre142711 , con linderos que no concuerdan con la inscripción de la finca que se inscribió. De acuerdo con la investigación hecha por el Registro Público, mediante el oficio No. DGT-351-2008 del 14 de mayo de 2008, firmado por Nombre12413 , Encargado de la Unidad de Apoyo Interinstitucional del Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía, la distancia entre los puntos más cercanos entre ambos terrenos es de sesenta y cuatro mil doscientos veinte metros. Se concluye entonces que, lejos de ser un error material, tal y como lo han venido indicando los codemandados, la finca de marras se inscribió sin el respaldo catastral requerido por el artículo 8 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias vigente al momento de la inscripción, pues al no corresponder ni lejanamente el plano indicado en el asiento registral, existe un vicio de nulidad. En segundo lugar, aún ya hecha la corrección del plano, pues se incluyó el número G-955494-91 y se corrigó la cabida de la finca, el mismo oficio citado, indica que tanto el primer plano, como el recién citado, se encuentran dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre, tanto dentro de la zona restringida, como dentro de la pública, según se expone a continuación:

"El inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado Nº Placa27988, situado en Distrito 1º La Cruz, Cantón: 10º La Cruz, Provincia, 5º Guanacaste, según la Ubicación Geográfica dada por el profesional responsable, y efectuando la correlación con la información que dispone la oficina, el inmueble se localiza dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre. Además, el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado G-955494-91, situado en Potrero, Distrito: 4ª Tempate, Cantón: 5ª Santa Cruz, Provincia 5ª Guanacaste, según la Ubicación Geográfica dada por el profesional responsable y efectuando la correlación con la información que se dispone en el Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía se localiza dentro de la Zona Restringida, además entre los vértices 8 al 10 abarca área de la zona pública. En lo referente ha (sic) indicarle la distancia aproximada entre ambos terrenos en sus puntos más cercanos, la misma es de 64 220 m aproximadamente." La localización dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre no fue controvertida por las sociedades codemandadas que se apersonaron al proceso. Se hicieron alegatos en cuanto al amojonamiento de la finca, pero sin que los mismos fueran concluyentes, ya que la defensa principal ha consistido en que la finca fue titulada mediante el Transitorio III de la Ley 4558, que precisamente permitía la titulación del dominio público. Debe de recordarse que en todo caso, el amojonamiento tiene efectos para el otorgamiento de las concesiones en la Zona Marítimo Terrestres y además, las partes no aportaron prueba que desvirtuaran la ubicación de la finca, además de que la prueba para mejor lo que hizo referencia fue al amojonamiento. De ahí, que tanto por haber sido probado por el informe citado, como por no haber sido desvirtuado por quienes tenían interés en hacerlo, en principio ha de partirse que la finca veintiseis mil trescientos veintisiete-cero cero cero, es parte del demanio público, afecto al régimen propio de este tipo de bienes, con sus características de imprescriptibilidad, inembargabilidad e inalienabilidad y que no puede ser objeto de apropiación particular. La zona pública está destinada al uso y disfrute de la generalidad de los habitantes del país. La zona restringida por su parte, puede tener un uso privativo, mediante el permiso o la concesión, a partir de la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6043, Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, o por medio de la figura del arreddamiento, según lo establecía la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Sin embargo, las sociedades codemandadas, han argüido que la inscripción se hizo al amparo del Transitorio III de esta última Ley, la cual permitía, según se dijo, la titulación dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre. Dicho transitorio contemplaba la posibilidad de solicitar título de propiedad, cuando se demostrara haber poseído en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y a título de dueños, lotes o fincas en la zona marítimo-terrestre, por más de treinta años, salvo en la zona pública. A este respecto, considera este Tribunal que del asiento de inscripción de la finca, no consta la posesión por el plazo de tiempo requerido, pues lo que se indica es que se compró a Nombre142712 en enero de mil novecientos setenta y que desde entonces la poseyó, sin que consten los años totales transcurridos de posesión. Este requisito era esencial para poder acceder a lo que establecía la norma transitoria. Sin embargo, a mayor abundamiento, se analizó también el plazo de vigencia del transitorio de marras. De acuerdo con la información del Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica, la Ley 4558, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, entró a regir el veintidos de abril de mil novecientos setenta. En el texto original se encontraba el mencionado transitorio. De acuerdo con la información del mismo sistema, el transitorio fue derogado por la Ley 4847, que rigió a partir del cuatro de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y uno. De acuerdo con la información contenida en el asiento de inscripción, la resolución del ITCO que ordenaba la inscripción fue del trece de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y dos, la protocolización de la misma se hizo el día siete de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y tres y la inscripción el nueve de agosto del mismo año. Es decir, al momento en que el ITCO aprueba la inscripción y se hace el trámite ante el Registro Público, no estaba vigente el Transitorio III de la Ley 4558, por lo que la inscripción no podía ampararse en esa norma legal. Lo expuesto permite concluir a este Tribunal, que la inscripción no se encontraba ajustada a derecho, tanto por la inexistencia de un requisito esencial, como lo era el plano, que según se indicó, el mencionado no correspondía la finca inscrita, situación que no puede ser tenida tan solo como un error material en razón de ser el sustento de toda inscripción, como por la ausencia de una norma que permitiera la titulación de un bien de dominio público. Lo anterior lleva a la conclusión de que existe un vicio de nulidad absoluta, la cual se procede a declarar por ser lesiva a los intereses del Estado en el tanto se tituló de forma contraria de derecho parte de la zona marìtimo terrestre, en la inscripción de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste, actualmente matrícula de Folio Real Placa27848 , desde su asiento de inscripción, sea la secuencia cero cero uno del asiento cuatrocientos tres, del tomo dos mil ciento veinte del Partido de Guanacaste, así como los actos catastrales y registrales que de él se deriva y que se detallan a continuación: 1) el plano Placa27850 inscrito en el Catastro Nacional del once de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y uno, el cual rectifica el área de la finca, por estar relacionado con la finca del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula de Folio Real Placa27848 y comprender terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre, 2) el asiento 2344 del tomo 391, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro el 22 de noviembre de 1991 e inscrito el 14 de setiembre de 1992, originado por la escritura pública de 18:00 hrs. del 30 de octubre de 1991, otorgada ante el Notario Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, donde La Prieta S.A.disminuyó la cabida propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27849, y la traspasó a Mogador de Pesca S.A. 3) el asiento 10616 del tomo 556, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro Público el 10 de agosto de 2005 e inscrito el 22 de agosto de 2005, referido a la escritura pública No. 55 de 18:00 horas. del 8 de agosto de 2005, otorgada ante el Notario Mauricio González Crespo, donde Mogador de Pesca S.A. traspasó en propiedad fiduciaria a Penca Point Ltda, el inmueble inscrito en el Partido de Guancaste, matrícula Placa27849.

XIII.DE LA EXCEPCIÓN DE PRESCRIPCIÓN: Como se ha venido exponiendo, la finca veintiseis mil trescientos veintisiete-cero cero cero forma parte del demanio público, según lo determinado en el oficio No. DGT-351-2008, antes mencionado. La imprescriptibilidad es una de las características de los bienes demaniales, tal como lo ha determinado reiteradamente, tanto la Sala Constitucional, en la sentencia citada, como la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el fallo 104-96 de las nueve horas quince minutos del cuatro de octubre de dos mil diez:

VII.En cuanto a la alegada prescripción del derecho del Estado a reclamar el terreno objeto del presente litigio, ya el Tribunal Superior consideró: "Cuando un título posesorio se haya obtenido con violación de legislación vigente, se puede intentar a través de un juicio ordinario, la nulidad del título y la cancelación del asiento de inscripción en el Registro Público, procedimiento vigente en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ...El derecho que el Estado tiene para ejercer esta acción, entratándose de los terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre no está afectada por ningún término de prescripción, pues en realidad se trata de rescatar bienes que nunca habían salido del patrimonio del Estado y de los que los particulares solamente tienen derecho a disfrutar conforme a la Ley y sus reglamentos". Dicha interpretación del Tribunal Superior es correcta y encuentra asidero en el texto del artículo 1º de la Ley sobre Zona Marítimo Terrestre, de conformidad con el cual: "La zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección, así como la de sus recursos naturales, es obligación del Estado, de sus instituciones y de todos los habitantes del país ...". Dicha ley, es la número 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977. Es decir, entró en vigencia luego de que se promovió la información posesoria del Sr. A.D. Pero con anterioridad, regía la Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, Nº 4558 de 22 de abril de 1970, que en su artículo 6 disponía que los 50 metros de la zona marítimo-terrestre son inalienables y en ningún caso pueden ser objeto de arrendamiento o venta; y en el artículo 7 Ibídem, se dispone que los ciento cincuenta metros restantes pueden ser objeto tan solo de arrendamiento, salvo que luego del máximo de 10 años de arrendamiento que prevé la ley, la municipalidad acuerde, a petición del interesado, la venta de la parcela. De manera tal, que resulta claro que la parcela a que se refiere el presente proceso fue inscrita en contra de las disposiciones vigentes. Cierto es que de conformidad con el artículo 6 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre: "Las disposiciones de esta Ley no se aplicarán a las áreas de las ciudades situadas en los litorales, ni a las propiedades inscritas, con sujeción a la ley, a nombre de particulares, ni aquellas cuya legitimidad reconozcan las leyes". En estos casos a que se refiere dicho artículo 6, si el Estado quiere recuperar el bien, debe estarse a lo que dispone el artículo 8 Ibídem, según el cual: "Se declara de utilidad pública la zona marítimo terrestre a efecto de que los lotes, paredes o mejoras ubicados en ella, que hubieren sido vendidos, adquiridos o poseídos en propiedad, por particulares, puedan rescatarse para el patrimonio nacional o por medio de expropiación". Pero téngase presente que el artículo 6 de la ley de referencia, dice claramente que estas disposiciones se aplicarán, cuando se trate de propiedades inscritas "con sujeción a la ley", no cuando se trata de casos en que, como el presente, la propiedad ha sido inscrita en contra de las disposiciones del ordenamiento jurídico, en cuyo caso el Estado puede recuperar el bien sin que tenga que someterse al trámite de la expropiación [...]. IX. El recurrente sustenta la tesis de que en el tiempo en que se tramitó la información posesoria que se pretende anular en el presente proceso, la Procuraduría de entonces se denominaba Agencia Fiscal, la cual habría dejado transcurrir la audiencia relativa a la información posesoria sin contestar. En su criterio habría entonces un "consentimiento tácito" para que se procediera a inscribir el bien a nombre del titulante, el cual solo podría anularse a través de un proceso de lesividad. Este proceso, según se afirma en el recurso, debió intentarse antes de proceder a reclamarse la nulidad de la información posesoria en esta vía. Pero la Sala tampoco comparte dicha opinión, toda vez que, como ya lo estimó el Tribunal Superior en el fallo impugnado, el proceso de lesividad procede solo en aquellos casos en que la Administración pretenda la anulación de actos administrativos declaratorios de derechos a favor del administrado, tal y como se desprende de los artículos 183, inciso 3), de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 35 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y 156 del Código Tributario. En el presente caso, no se trata, evidentemente, de la impugnación de un acto administrativo declarativo de derechos, sino de la impugnación de una diligencias judiciales de información posesoria, por haber sido tramitadas éstas en contra de las disposiciones vigentes, situación ésta que es constitutiva de un supuesto distinto de aquel al que se refiere el contencioso de lesividad.(El destacado no es del original).

La imprescriptibilidad alude no solo a la imposibilidad que se pueda haber una apropiación por posesión de la zona marítimo terrestre, sino también a que el Estado pueda ejecer sin límite de tiempo, las acciones correspondientes para la recuperación del dominio público en ejercicio de su potestad de autotutela, o como en el presente caso, al haber un acto declaratorio de derechos, la interposición del juicio de lesividad. Dicho principio es recogido normativamente, como antes se indicó, en el inciso 2) del artículo 34 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, cuando indica que no hay plazo para la interposición del juicio de lesividad en la tutela del dominio público. Pese a que dicho plazo corresponde a uno de caducidad por ser propio de la declaratoria de lesividad del acto cuestionado, se fundamenta en la imprescriptibilidad del bien. No son de recibo los argumentos de las partes, en cuanto a que el bien salió del dominio público, por lo que no aplica la prescripción, pues como ya se indicó, la inscripción de la finca contenía vicios de nulidad absoluta, los cuales se están declarando en esta sentencia, por lo que el bien nunca salió de la titularidad del Estado y aplica por lo tanto, su imprescriptiblidad. Por lo anterior, debe de rechazarse la excepción interpuesta por las sociedades codemandadas.

XIV: DE LAS EXCEPCIONES DE FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA Y PASIVA, Y DE FALTA DE DERECHO: Según se indicó con anterioridad, el proceso de lesividad fue interpuesto por la Procuraduría General de la República, pues los actos que se declararon lesivos fueron asientos registrales del Registro Público, cuyo jerarca es el Ministro de Jusiticia. De igual forma, de acuerdo con el artículo 1 de la Ley 6043, la titularidad de la zona marítimo terrestre es del Estado. La representación de acuerdo con el artículo 16 del CPCA, corresponde al Abogado del Estado, por lo que debe de rechazarse la excepción de falta de legitimación activa. Por otra parte, han sido demandadas las sociedades que se vieron en su momento beneficiadas con la inscripción de la propiedad, sean Nombre142714 . y Mogador de Pesca S.A., así como la actual titular fiduciaria de la misma, Penca Point Limitada. De igual forma en cuanto al IDA (actual Insituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), pese a sus alegatos de que no existe expediente, ni acuerdo del antiguo ITCO, lo cierto es que al estar el asiento de inscripción presuntamente basado en un acuerdo del Instituto, es parte del presente proceso. Por las razones indicadas, también debe de rechazarse la excepción de falta de legitimación pasiva interpuesta. Igual suerte corre la de falta de derecho, pues al estarse acogiendo las nulidades solicitadas, le asiste al Estado el derecho para sus pretensiones.

XV: DE LOS ALEGATOS DEL IDA: De acuerdo con lo dicho anteriormente, el IDA aduce lo siguiente: rechaza totalmente haber tramitado y aprobado diligencias de información posesoria en octubre de 1971 a nombre de la sociedad La Prieta S.A., mediante resolución de las nueve horas diez minutos del trece de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y dos, basado en el artículo 24 de la Ley 4545 del 20 de marzo de 1970. Conforme ese cuerpo legal, el Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (en adelante ITCO) era competente para tramitar las informaciones posesorias y la Ley 2825, en su artículo 30 inciso 23, establecía que era la Junta Directiva la competente para ejercer las demás funciones y atribuciones que le correspondían de acuerdo con las leyes y reglamentos pertinentes. Por ello, considera, era a la Junta Directiva a la que correspondía aprobar o improbar las diligencias de información posesoria previstas en la Ley 4545 y la Junta Directiva no dictó acuerdo aprobando la información posesoria a nombre de La Prieta S.A. También indica que no existe en el listado de los casos ingresados, que llevaba el ITCO, no se encontró ningún caso a nombre de la Prieta S.A., así como tampoco una resolución emitida a nombre de la sociedad, así como que en el Archivo Notarial, no se reporta en la primera quincena del mes de agosto, en los índices del Notario Público Oscar Saborío Castro, protocolización de la resolución administrativa del ITCO, mediante la cual se aprueba información posesoria administrativa a nombre de la Prieta S.A. Por otra parte menciona que en el artículo 11 de la Ley 4545, se ponía en conocimiento del Procurador Agrario las solicitudes de información posesoria, por lo que si el ITCO hubiera atendido las diligencias mencionadas, la Procuraduría General de la República debería de tener un expediente del caso producto del traslado hecho para su conocimiento. Solicita que se declare en sentencia que el ITCO no aprobó por acuerdo de la Junta Directica el día 13 de octubre de 1972, información posesoria a nombre de La Prieta S.A., sobre un terreno sito en Playa Potrero de Santa Cruz, distrito cuarto, cantón tres de la provincia de Guanacaste, con plano catastrado número Placa27988, que se le excluya del proceso como demandada y se le exima de responsabilidad, incluyendo las costas del proceso. A este respecto, tal y como se acaba de indicar, el Tribunal considera que independientemente de las circunstancias aducidas, le corresponde legitimación pasiva, por constar en el asiento registral una supuesta actuación del ITCO. Por otra parte, de la misma prueba por ellos aportada, en cuanto al índice notarial de Oscar Saborío Castro de la primera quincena de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y tres, lo reportado es una protocolización y el nombre de la parte es Nombre142713 . La escritura indicada en el asiento de inscripción de la finca de marras es una protocolización y el nombre del entonces representante de La Prieta S.A., es precisamente Nombre142713 , por lo que se puede inferir que hay alguna correspondencia entre lo reportado al Archivo Notarial y lo presentado al Registro Público. En cuanto al resto de los alegatos, por la forma en que se resuelve y por partir de la información que consta en el Registro Público, no se hará referencia a los mismos. Finalmente, respecto de la declaratoria que se pide, en cuanto a que se declare que el ITCO no aprobó por medio de su Junta Directiva el día 13 de octubre de 1972, información posesoria a nombre de La Prieta S.A. y de que se le exima de responsabilidad, ambas tienen carácter de pretensiones, que no pueden ser resueltas si no es por medio de demanda o contrademanda, que al no haber sido interpuestas en el momento procesal oportuno, no pueden ser conocidas por este Tribunal.

XVI. DE LAS COSTAS

Por la naturaleza del proceso de lesividad, en el cual existe un acto declaratorio de derechos a favor de un administrado, en este caso La Prieta S.A., además de que tanto las sociedades Mogador de Pesca S.A. como Penca Point Limitada adquirieron de buena fe, al amparo de la publicidad registral, procede la eximente, de acuerdo con el inciso b) del artículo 193 del CPCA, de ambas costas de este proceso.En cuanto al IDA (actualmente Instituto de Desarrollo Rural), considera este Tribunal que se le debe proceder e condenar en costas, pues pese a que las conductas impugnadas son propias del Estado, su proceder en este juicio, con la no aportación del expediente administrativo o de cualquier otro documento que hubiera podido ayudar a esclarecer la situación, así como su ligereza en cuanto a denunciar aspectos que luego se vio, concordaban con la realidad de la situación, dejan ver un litigio al menos desordenado y que lejos de esclarecer la realidad de lo acontecido, más bien pudo llamar a confusión. Por lo anterior, debe procederse a condenarlo a pagar en favor del Estado, ambas costas de esta acción.

XVII. DE LA MEDIDA CAUTELAR

Por la forma en que se resuelve, una vez firme esta sentencia, procédase a dejarse sin efecto la medida cautelar acogida mediante resolución No. Placa27992 de las ocho horas del veinte de diciembre de dos mil diez, en cuanto a la anotación de la demanda al margen de la inscripción.

POR TANTO

Se rechazan las excepciones de prescripción, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y de derecho interpuestas por las sociedades Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima y Penca Point Limitada. Se declara con lugar el proceso de lesividad interpuesto por la Procuraduría General de la República en contra de las sociedades La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, cédula de persona jurídica cédula de persona jurídica CED111843, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima, cédula de persona jurídica CED111846, Penca Point Limitada, cédula de persona jurídica CED111844 y el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (actualmente Instituto de Desarrollo Rural). En consecuencia se declara lesivo para los intereses del Estado, por lo que se declara la nulidad absoluta de la inscripción de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste, actualmente matrícula de Folio Real Placa27848 , desde su asiento de inscripción, sea la secuencia cero cero uno del asiento cuatrocientos tres, del tomo dos mil ciento veinte del Partido de Guanacaste, así como los actos catastrales y registrales que de él se derivan y que se detallan a continuación: 1) el plano G-955494-91 inscrito en el Catastro Nacional del once de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y uno, el cual rectifica el área de la finca, por estar relacionado con la finca del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula de Folio Real Placa27848 y comprender terrenos de la zona marítimo terrestre, 2) el asiento 2344 del tomo 391, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro el 22 de noviembre de 1991 e inscrito el 14 de setiembre de 1992, originado por la escritura pública de 18:00 hrs. del 30 de octubre de 1991, otorgada ante el Notario Rodrigo Alberto Carazo Zeledón, donde La Prieta S.A. disminuyó la cabida propiedad del Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa27849, y la traspasó a Mogador de Pesca S.A. 3) el asiento 10616 del tomo 556, según documento presentado al Diario del Registro Público el 10 de agosto de 2005 e inscrito el 22 de agosto de 2005, referido a la escritura pública No. 55 de 18:00 horas. del 8 de agosto de 2005, otorgada ante el Notario Mauricio González Crespo, donde Mogador de Pesca S.A. traspasó en propiedad fiduciaria a Penca Point Ltda, el inmueble inscrito en el Partido de Guancaste, matrícula Placa27849. Se resuelve sin condenatoria en costas con respecto a las sociedades La Prieta Sociedad Anónima, Mogador de Pesca Sociedad Anónima y Penca Point Limitada. Se condena al Instituto de Desarrollo Rural al pago, en favor del Estado, de ambas costas de la acción.

Nombre5192 Nombre142427 José Roberto Garita Navarro Resolución 120-2013-VI