Res. 01015-2012 Tribunal Agrario — Possessory titling in Los Santos Forest Reserve is possible if prior decennial possession is proven

OutcomeResultado

GrantedCon lugar

The appealed judgment approving possessory information over a primary forest property within Los Santos Forest Reserve is confirmed, as decennial possession prior to the reserve's creation was proven and no timber extraction was found.Se confirma la sentencia que aprueba la información posesoria sobre un inmueble con bosque primario ubicado en la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, al acreditarse posesión decenal anterior a la creación de la reserva y no existir extracción de madera.

SummaryResumen

The Agrarian Tribunal, by majority, confirms the approval of possessory information proceedings over a 23-hectare property with primary forest and crops located in the Los Santos Forest Reserve, created in 1975. The petitioner claimed possession dating back to 1964, based on the purchase of possession rights from a third party in 1983 and witness testimony that the property was known since 1960. The Attorney General's Office objected, arguing that public domain encumbrance was earlier (due to oak forest adjoining the Inter-American Highway) and that possession was illegitimate. The Tribunal, following its own precedent (Vote 306-F-10), analyzed the legal chronology of public domain in the area, concluding that possession could have been exercised between 1961 (Land and Colonization Law) and 1975 (creation of the reserve), provided it was prior to 1965. Since the evidence showed possession before that date and the judicial inspection found no timber extraction, the titling was confirmed. The ruling includes a dissenting opinion stating that legitimate decennial possession before the public domain encumbrance was not proven.El Tribunal Agrario, por mayoría, confirma la aprobación de diligencias de información posesoria sobre un inmueble de 23 hectáreas con bosque primario y cultivos ubicado en la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, creada en 1975. El promovente alegó una posesión que se remonta a 1964, basada en la compra de la posesión a un tercero en 1983 y en declaraciones de testigos que conocen el predio desde 1960. La Procuraduría se opuso señalando que la afectación al dominio público es anterior (por ser zona con robledales contigua a la Carretera Interamericana) y que la posesión fue ilegítima. El Tribunal, siguiendo su propia jurisprudencia (Voto 306-F-10), analizó la cronología legal del dominio público en esa área, concluyendo que fue posible ejercer posesión entre 1961 (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) y 1975 (creación de la reserva), siempre que fuera anterior a 1965. Como la prueba acreditó posesión desde antes de esa fecha y el reconocimiento judicial no evidenció extracción de madera, se confirmó la titulación. Contiene un voto salvado que considera que no se demostró posesión decenal legítima antes de la afectación demanial.

Key excerptExtracto clave

...upon the entry into force of article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, which allows titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, there was a de-afectation of the public domain, requiring proof of decennial possession prior to the law or decree that created the protected area. [...] From the foregoing, it follows that the exercise of possession on the property sought to be titled is possible according to the above analysis. [...] Based on this, no evidence is found of timber or charcoal extraction, neither in the judicial inspection nor in the soil study, as alleged by the appellant, so there is no justification for rejecting these possessory information proceedings, and the appealed decision must be confirmed in what was appealed....al entrar en vigencia el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias que permite la titulación de inmuebles con bosque ubicados dentro de áreas protegidas, se dió una desafectación al dominio público, debiéndose acreditar una posesión decenal anterior a la vigencia de la ley o decreto que creó el área protegida. [...] De lo anterior, se desprende que si es posible el ejercicio de la posesión en el inmueble pretendido a titular conforme al análisis expuesto. [...] Con base en ello, no se evidencia ningún aspecto que acredite la extracción de madera o carbón ni en el reconocimiento judicial ni en el estudio de suelo, como lo alega el recurrente, por lo que no se encuentra justificación para el rechazo de las presentes diligencias de información posesoria, debiendo confirmarse la resolución recurrida en lo que fue objeto de apelación.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"al entrar en vigencia el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias que permite la titulación de inmuebles con bosque ubicados dentro de áreas protegidas, se dió una desafectación al dominio público, debiéndose acreditar una posesión decenal anterior a la vigencia de la ley o decreto que creó el área protegida."

"upon the entry into force of article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, which allows titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, there was a de-afectation of the public domain, requiring proof of decennial possession prior to the law or decree that created the protected area."

Considerando III

"al entrar en vigencia el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias que permite la titulación de inmuebles con bosque ubicados dentro de áreas protegidas, se dió una desafectación al dominio público, debiéndose acreditar una posesión decenal anterior a la vigencia de la ley o decreto que creó el área protegida."

Considerando III

"No se comparte el Voto de mayoría al aprobar la información posesoria sobre terrenos ubicado en Reservas Forestales, por cuanto los mismos son parte del patrimonio natural del Estado y no se demostró una posesión decenal ejercida con antelación a la afectación de ese bien como demanial."

"The majority vote is not shared when approving possessory information over lands located in Forest Reserves, since these are part of the natural heritage of the State and no decennial possession exercised prior to the encumbrance of that property as public domain was demonstrated."

Voto salvado

"No se comparte el Voto de mayoría al aprobar la información posesoria sobre terrenos ubicado en Reservas Forestales, por cuanto los mismos son parte del patrimonio natural del Estado y no se demostró una posesión decenal ejercida con antelación a la afectación de ese bien como demanial."

Voto salvado

Full documentDocumento completo

**FILE NUMBER:** EXPN1- **PROCESS:** POSSESSORY INFORMATION **PETITIONER:** [Name1] **DEFENDANT:** **VOTE No. 1015-F-12** **AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.** At sixteen hours and fifty-seven minutes on the twenty-second of August, two thousand twelve.

**POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS**, promoted by [Name2], of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Gerardo de Dota, identity card CED1. Appearing in the process are the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC (PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA), represented by Susana Fallas Cubero, of legal age, attorney, resident of San José, identity card CED2, in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General, and the INSTITUTE OF AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT (INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO), legal ID CED3, represented by Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Escazú, identity card CED4. Acting as special judicial representative for the petitioner is attorney [Name3], bar card number ten thousand seven hundred twenty-eight. Processed before the Agrarian Court of Cartago.

**WHEREAS:** 1.- The petitioner files possessory information proceedings for the purpose of registering in his name at the Public Property Registry the farm described as follows: "terrain of primary forest, crops, and house, located in San Gerardo, [Address1], , province of San José, with an area of 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, with cadastral map number [Name4] to the north with [Name5] and [Name6]; to the south with [Name7]; to the east with [Name8], and to the west with street [Address2] with a frontage of [Address3] square meters (see writ on folios 18 to 19 and 99).

2.- The Institute of Agrarian Development and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic appeared in the process under the terms appearing from folio 48 and 50 to 57 respectively.

3.- Judge María Rosa Castro García of the Agrarian Court of the Agrarian Court of Cartago, by judgment No. 39-2012 of fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes on the twenty-fourth of April, two thousand twelve, resolved: "THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing and legal citations, these possessory information proceedings ARE APPROVED; a procedure that was completed in adherence to the Law of Possessory Information No. 139 of the fourteenth of July, 1941, its reforms and additions, the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law No. 6734 of the twenty-fifth of March, 1982 and its reforms. Consequently, free from encumbrances and charges, without co-owners and without prejudice to third parties with better rights, the Public Registry, Real Property Section, shall proceed to register in the name of [Name2], identity card CED5, of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Gerardo de Dota, the property described as follows: terrain of primary forest, crops, and house, located in San Gerardo, [Address1], , province of San José, with an area of 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, with cadastral map number SJ-1087843-2006. [Name4] to the north with [Name5] and [Name6]; to the south with [Name7]; to the east [Name8], and to the west with public street with a frontage of 341.71 square meters. The land was acquired by purchase. The property was valued at the sum of five million colones. The property is subject to the reservations regarding rights-of-way provided for in Articles 4 of the General Law of Public Roads and 19 subsection a) of the Law of Possessory Information, as well as to the encumbrance of the reservations of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), which prevents the extraction of forest resources, elimination or destruction of forests, and land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo). Likewise, it is decreed that the water contained in the stream and its channel are of public domain (Water Law), and the protection area must be absolutely respected (Article 33 of the Forest Law 74575). Once this resolution is final, issue the corresponding certification" (folios 94 to 99).

4.- Dr. José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Attorney (Procurador Asesor), filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons for which he refutes the thesis of the trial court (see writ on folios 100 to 112).

5.- In the substantiation of the process, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the judgment capable of causing its nullity is not noted.

Judge Rojas [Name9] writes; and, **CONSIDERING:** I.- The Agrarian Tribunal shares the provisions regarding the proven facts, as they have good support in the record.

II.- Dr. José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Attorney, filed an appeal against the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of Cartago at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes on the twenty-fourth of April, two thousand twelve, arguing that the property to be titled is located in the strip of [Address4] adjacent to the [Address5] in a sector with oak forest cover (cobertura de robledales), whose encumbrance to the public domain predates the Los Santos Forest Reserve and therefore the testimonial evidence received is insufficient to prove possession prior to the entry into force of the General Law on Vacant Lands (Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos) of 1939. Furthermore, from the land subject to these proceedings, timber and charcoal were extracted, thus failing to meet the exercise of possession required by Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).

III.- This process seeks the titling of a property located in San Gerardo de Copey, [Address6], [Address7] seventeen of the province of San José, measuring 23 hectares 8388.90 square meters, destined for forest and agriculture, according to cadastral map SJ-1087843-2006 (see folio 1). Said land is located in the Los Santos Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Los Santos), created by Executive Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975 (see folio 25). On said property, proper use of the soil has been exercised for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology, as per certification issued by the National Institute of Innovation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology, in which the property was described as having primary forest, permanent blackberry cultivation and infrastructure, and green zone, where it added as a recommendation: "Maintain the areas of primary forest and the stream protection zones, do not carry out any commercial forest exploitation activity. In the case of the blackberry cultivation sectors, it is suitable for the activity, always keep the soil with vegetative cover to prevent degradation and conserve it properly. Do not use for grazing in view of the terrain limitations, steeply undulating slope and small area" (see study on folios 2 to 5). Furthermore, as proof of possession, a document was provided through which Mr. [Name10] sold to the petitioner [Name1] a piece of land of approximately thirty manzanas, which is partly forest and partly pasture, thereby transferring his possession of more than twenty years, said transfer occurring on February 8, 1983 (see deed testimony on folio 8). According to that document, the possession sold to the titling applicant dates back more than 48 years, i.e., before 1964. For their part, witnesses [Name11], [Name12], and [Name13], who testified on January 19, 2012, stated they have known the property since 1960 and 1962, a time when Mr. [Name10] was in possession of the estate (see folios 64 to 66). Based on the foregoing, if one starts from the premise that the property was encumbered to the public domain as of the effectiveness of the decree creating the Los Santos Forest Reserve, No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975, the possession to be proven must date back to at least 1965. In this case, both the testimonial and documentary evidence refer to a period prior to 1965. However, the State representative claims that the public domain encumbrance predates that date, since it is a property that has oak trees and is located in a zone of [Address8] on both sides of the route of the [Address9], as provided by subsection a) of Article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización), repealed on November 9, 1973 by Law No. 5385 of October 30, 1973; however, he points out, two years later the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created by Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975. He even cites regulations prior to that which imposed limitations on that sector. On this topic, the Tribunal has stated: "...when Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information came into force, allowing the titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, a removal of the public domain encumbrance (desafectación al dominio público) occurred, requiring proof of ten-year possession prior to the effectiveness of the law or decree that created the protected area. That possession, evidently, must have been exercised as owner, that is, a situation which in the appellant's opinion did not occur because pursuant to Articles 6 and 62 of the General Law of Vacant Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -now repealed- the possession of that area could only have been exercised through a lease contract. Those rules provided: 'No vacant lands located in a zone ... of 2000 meters wide on each side of the route of the [Address10] may be alienated.'; and 'The Executive Branch may lease through contract and for a term of four years, extendable at the will of the parties, the strips of land referred to in Article 6 in an extension no greater than two hundred fifty hectares, if dedicated to the breeding or fattening of livestock, and no greater than one hundred twenty-five hectares, if destined for agricultural crops... '. He adds, Law No. 197 of August 29, 1945 reformed the General Law of Vacant Lands by adding the element of oak trees, declaring as a National Park the lands comprised in the zone of two thousand meters on both sides of the [Address11] of the rest of the route to be built that have oak trees. According to the cited chain of rules, possession in the character of a lease could have occurred until the repeal of the General Law of Vacant Lands, which happened on August 29, 1945. That is, after that date, one could have entered into possession of those lands in the character of owner. However, on that date, the lands comprised in the zone of [Address8] on both sides of the [Address12] of the rest of the route to be built that have oak trees were declared a National Park. The National Park category was maintained until the Land and Colonization Law came into force, in which the lands located in that sector and having oak trees were declared public domain. The foregoing means that during the period in which that area, within which the property to be titled is included, constituted a national park, given its absolute protection, no agrarian possessory acts could be exercised until the effectiveness of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961. After that date, the national park category changed, and those lands could be possessed for a ten-year period until the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created by Executive Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975" (See Vote No. 306-F-10 of eight hours forty minutes on the thirteenth of April, two thousand ten). From the above, it follows that the exercise of possession on the property intended to be titled is possible according to the analysis set forth. In addition to the foregoing, it is important to mention that according to the judicial inspection record, the property is duly delimited on its boundaries with fences of dead posts with wire strands and with lanes, partly dedicated to agriculture with blackberry cultivation, with the remainder being forest, primary forest with encino and oak species, without any type of extraction being observed; it is observed that the forest is duly protected and the area traversed by the stream is protected (see record on folios 67 to 68). Based on this, no aspect is evidenced that proves the extraction of timber or charcoal, neither in the judicial inspection nor in the soil study, as alleged by the appellant, so no justification is found for the rejection of these possessory information proceedings, and the appealed resolution must be confirmed in that which was the object of appeal.

IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Name14]

The majority vote is not shared in approving the possessory information on lands located in Forest Reserves, as they are part of the natural heritage of the State and a ten-year possession exercised prior to the encumbrance of that property as public domain was not demonstrated.- Public Domain -for the case at hand- is the set of public property goods of the State, lato sensu, encumbered to direct or indirect public use by inhabitants, and subject to a special regime of public law and, therefore, outside the scope of private law. Public domain consists of four elements: subjective, objective, normative, and teleological. The subjective element refers to the titleholder of the right -the State-; the objective element refers to or is constituted by the good or goods over which the public domain lies -in this case the property subject to litigation-; the normative element determines when a good meets the requirements set by law to be considered public domain, it is the set of norms that govern it -the list of norms to be stated below-; and the teleological element refers to the purpose pursued by including a certain good within the public domain, what public purpose is assigned to the good -in this case the protection of natural resources-. Public domain goods are subject to a special legal regime, are subject to police power, and are essentially characterized by their inalienability and imprescriptibility. By their nature, they are directed at satisfying public needs; this fact prevents the existence of tenure or possession by individuals or private persons; they are outside the commerce of private law. Our Political Constitution, in its Article 121 subsection 14), refers to Public Domain (Demanialidad), indicating which goods are susceptible to that regime of public property, even establishing in that article different degrees of public encumbrance, ranging from an intense and absolute degree of publicatio to other less intense degrees, and the rights of the administered are harmonized with the powers of the Administration. Our current Civil Code, dating from April of eighteen eighty-six, regulates the most important bases regarding public domain goods, specifically in its Articles 261 to 263. Article 262 of the cited Civil Code refers to two important characteristics of public domain goods: a- public things are outside commerce, and b- removal (desafectación) is established by stating that those goods cannot enter private commerce, as long as it is not legally provided otherwise. As can be observed, encumbrance to the public domain regime does not depend on the nature of the good, but on the will of the legislator. By vote number 447-91 of fifteen hours thirty minutes on February 21, 1991, the Constitutional Chamber states that the declaration of public domain of the good is established by law; this declaration does not constitute a limitation on property, in accordance with Article 45 of the Magna Carta, as this article refers to private property, and public domain goods are not subject to private property. The Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) is a public domain good regulated in a broad normative set in which, historically up to the present, individuals are prohibited from carrying out any type of work within properties with that characteristic, and as a consequence, denying them the right of possession, with an exception in a specific situation to be stated below. Considered as State Heritage, -in its condition of Public Domain which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability-, are the lands that constitute National Reserves having Forests. The foregoing finds its normative development in the citations set forth below: 1) The Fiscal Code of 1865, which includes a chapter referring to forests, which was repealed by the General Law of Vacant Lands Number thirteen of January 6, 1939, which incorporated practically the same provisions. For example, the first article indicated: "That the lands comprised within the limits of the Republic, which have not been acquired or registered in ownership by means of a legitimate title by individuals, are presumed vacant and belong to the State."- This law generally regulates the prohibition against possessing and registering, through possessory information proceedings, National Reserves that are Forest Heritage; in other words, they are not susceptible to appropriation by individuals.- The Land and Colonization Law Number 2825 of October 14, 1961, maintained the same orientation and has been currently in force since that date. Thus, Article 8 of that Land and Colonization Law establishes: "Except for the cases provided in this law, it is prohibited for individuals to enclose with fences, lanes, or any other means, the lands declared National Reserves, to fell forests, establish constructions and crops, or extract from them firewood, timber, vines, palms, and other products for exploitation purposes. Any act of this kind, if the legal procedures have not been previously completed and the corresponding authorization obtained, will be considered, according to the case, as usurpation of public domain or poaching, and the authorities must order the destruction and removal of the fences and prevent the use of those lands, without any compensation or claims for the value of improvements and without prejudice to other liabilities that may accrue to those who incur such faults".- Note that this article criminally sanctions anyone who enters a National Reserve to carry out any activity on those lands, therefore this cannot be considered an act of possession as their activity would be illegitimate.- Article 11 of that same Law establishes that the following belong to the State in the character of National Reserves: "a) All lands comprised between the limits of the Republic that are not registered as private property, of the Municipalities, or of the Autonomous Institutions. b-) Those not protected by ten-year possession.- c-) Those that, by special laws, have not been destined for the formation of agricultural colonies.- d-) In general, all those that, not being private property, are not occupied in public services."- For its part, Article 19 of the repealed Forest Law number 4465 of the twenty-third of November, nineteen sixty-nine, provided: "All forests and forest lands located in: "a-) Lands considered National Reserves... are encumbered to the purposes of this law." And Article 25 of this same law stated: "The possession of lands located in National Reserves and State farms referred to in Article 19 of this Law shall not cause rights of any kind, and the reivindication action of the State for the same is imprescriptible, and the General Forestry Directorate, with the legal means at its disposal, shall proceed to evict from such lands the persons occupying them totally or partially, in the case of protective zones, National Parks, Forest Reserves, and Biological Reserves".- With these norms, a double protection is granted to the forests mentioned therein: First, for their condition as a National Reserve, in which any possessory act is prohibited, and second, for constituting Forest Heritage of the State, in which no act of possession shall cause any right of any kind. This aspect is confirmed by Article 8 of the regulation to that law, which states: "The National lands comprised within the areas declared Forest Reserves are inalienable, that is, they may not leave the domain of the State, and their possession shall not cause any right of any kind in accordance with the provisions of Articles 25, 49 and 57 of the Forest Law".- Article 80 of the cited repealed Forest Law indicated: "The invasion and occupation of lands in National Parks, Forest Reserves, and Protective Zones is prohibited. This prohibition extends to National Reserves, until their classification and transfer have been determined..." Article 6 of this same law provided: "Whoever: a-) Exploits a forest of the forest heritage without the corresponding legal authorization... b-) Invades a National Park, Biological Reserve, Protective Zone, or Forest Reserve... shall be sanctioned with imprisonment of six months to two years or with a fine of fifteen to one hundred days fine. If the invasion is in National Reserves, it shall be subject to the stipulations of Article 227 of the Penal Code.-" As can be observed, possessory acts performed in a State heritage forest are illegitimate and therefore cannot confer any right of possession.- With the entry into force of Forest Law Number 7174 of June 28, 1990, this same philosophy is continued. Article 32 of the cited law establishes: "The forest heritage of the State is constituted by all forests and forest lands of the National Reserves...". Article 33 of that same law provides: "The forest lands and forests that constitute the Forest Heritage of the State detailed in the previous article shall be unattachable and inalienable; their possession by individuals shall not cause any right in their favor, and the reivindication action of the State for those lands is imprescriptible.- Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry through Possessory Information; their invasion and occupation shall be sanctioned as provided in this Law".- With the current Forest Law in force, number 7575 of February 5, 1996, its Title II regulates a single chapter referring exclusively to the Natural Heritage of the State, maintaining the same philosophy that had begun in 1865 with the Fiscal Code, so it is reiterated in this new regulation that the Natural Heritage of the State will be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, and the farms registered in the name of the Public Administration. Article 14 of the same current forest law is emphatic in indicating that the forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State are imprescriptible, unattachable, and inalienable, and their possession by individuals shall not cause any right in their favor. The Wildlife Conservation Law Number 7317 of October 21, 1972, in its Articles 3 and 4, in addition to the declaration of wild fauna and flora as public domain and of public interest, respectively, indicates that wild flora and fauna are part of the National Heritage. In this same sense, the Biodiversity Law number 7788 of April 30, 1998, in its Article 6, declares the elements of biodiversity as public domain, as does the Organic Law of the Environment in its Article 46, which establishes the State's sovereignty over biological diversity. For the foregoing reasons, it is a legal imperative to deny the right of possession to those persons who carry out any activity on lands not subject to private property and that are comprised of forests in National Reserves.- To this imperative prohibition, through Forest Law Number 7575 of 1996, which reforms Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information, an exception is established to the philosophy set forth thus far, which is that the titling of forests is made possible when what is understood as ecological possession has been developed within them. The land subject to this possessory information is Natural Heritage of the State, as it is located within the boundaries of the Los Santos Forest Reserve, as inferred from the study of the National System of Conservation Areas visible on folio 2.- It is clear that said land is Natural Heritage of the State, since before those Decrees were created, as already stated in the normative history above. When possession over a public domain good is discussed, such discussion will only be admissible when the right was acquired before the good was declared public domain. Likewise, the right of ownership in such cases may only be obtained when the holder has demonstrated ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law declaring the object as Natural Heritage of the State. As the legal chronology protecting the Natural Heritage of the State has been set forth, the law that must be taken into consideration for calculating the ten-year possession of individuals is the Land and Colonization Law number 2825 of October 14, 1961, currently in force. The Fiscal Code of 1865 and the Law of Vacant Lands of 1939 should not be considered, as they were norms that referred to the topic generically, and they are not provisions currently in force; it is not until the current Land and Colonization Law that the Property or Natural Heritage of the State is clearly defined and regulated. Subsequent laws, such as the Forest Law and others cited in this considering, are complementary to the referred Land and Colonization Law. For the specific case, the testimonial evidence gathered does not demonstrate that ten-year possession under the terms of the regulations set forth herein, as it is in this sense that this dissenting vote is recorded, to indicate the petitioner should have demonstrated ten years of possession before the Land and Colonization Law. Furthermore, although it is true that subsection 1 of Article 7 of the cited Land and Colonization Law was repealed in 1973, a rule in which the zone of two thousand meters on both sides of the route of the [Address9], where oak trees exist, was designated as a National Park and which established the restrictive regime to which said areas were subjected, thus it was without encumbrance for 2 years, but in 1975 it was encumbered again when the Los Santos protective zone was created, so the years of possession alleged by the petitioner since 1960 are not licit, as it is illegitimate possession and cannot generate any right. Note the land is primary forest, with encino and oak forest species, the same being in extinction, at a Latin American level, as this is one of the few patches of forest of that species existing in Latin America, and for this reason the encumbrance occurs. The existence of ten-year possession before the encumbrance was not demonstrated, meaning the ten years prior to the Land and Colonization Law of 1961 were not demonstrated.- therefore the possessory information should have been declared without merit, revoking the judgment under appeal.- **THEREFORE:** The appealed judgment is confirmed in that which has been the object of the appeal.

PROCESO: INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA ACTOR/A: [Nombre1] DEMANDADO/A:

VOTO N° 1015-F-12 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.- At sixteen hours and fifty-seven minutes on the twenty-second of August of two thousand twelve.- POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS (DILIGENCIAS DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA), promoted by [Nombre2], of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Gerardo de Dota, identity card CED1. Participating in the process are the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC (PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA), represented by Susana Fallas Cubero, of legal age, attorney, resident of San José, identity card CED2 -, in her capacity as deputy attorney general, and the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, legal ID CED3 - -, represented by Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Escazú, identity card CED4 - -. Acting as special judicial attorney for the petitioner is the lawyer [Nombre3] , bar card number ten thousand seven hundred twenty-eight. Processed before the Agrarian Court of Cartago.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- The petitioner files possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) for the purpose of registering in his name in the Public Property Registry the property described as follows: "terrain of primary forest, crops, and house, located in San Gerardo, [Dirección1] , , province of San José, with an area of 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, with cadastral survey map number [Nombre4] to the north with [Nombre5] and [Nombre6] ; to the south with [Nombre7] ; to the east with [Nombre8] , and to the west with public road [Dirección2] with a frontage of [Dirección3] square meters (see document at folios 18 to 19 and 99).- 2.- The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic appeared in the process in the terms set forth at folio 48 and 50 to 57 respectively.

3.- Judge María Rosa Castro García of the Agrarian Court of the Agrarian Court of Cartago, by judgment No. 39-2012 at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes on the twenty-fourth of April of two thousand twelve, resolved: “POR TANTO: In accordance with the foregoing and legal citations, these possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) ARE APPROVED; a procedure that was fulfilled in accordance with the Law of Possessory Informations No. 139 of July fourteenth, one thousand nine hundred forty-one, its reforms and additions, the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law No. 6734 of March twenty-fifth, one thousand nine hundred eighty-two and its reforms. Consequently, free of liens and real charges, without co-owners, and without prejudice to third parties of better right, the Public Registry, Real Property Section, shall proceed to register in the name of [Nombre2] , identity card CED5, of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Gerardo de Dota, the real property described as follows: terrain of primary forest, crops, and house, located in San Gerardo, [Dirección1] , , province of San José, with an area of 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, with cadastral survey map number SJ-1087843-2006. [Nombre4] to the north with [Nombre5] and [Nombre6] ; to the south with [Nombre7] ; to the east [Nombre8] , and to the west with a public road with a frontage of 341.71 square meters. The land was acquired by purchase. The property was valued at the sum of five million colones. The property is subject to the reservations regarding rights-of-way provided for in articles 4 of the General Law of Public Roads and 19 subsection a) of the Law of Possessory Informations, as well as to the encumbrance of the reservations of the Ley Forestal, which prohibits the extraction of forest resources, the elimination or destruction of forests, and land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo). Likewise, it is decreed that the water contained in the stream and its channel are public domain (Water Law), and the protection area must be absolutely respected (article 33 of Ley Forestal 74575). Once this resolution becomes final, issue the corresponding certification" (folios 94 to 99).- 4.- Doctor José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Attorney, filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons why he refutes the thesis of the trial court (see document at folios 100 to 112).- 5. In the substantiation of the process, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the judgment capable of producing its nullity is not noted.

Drafted by Judge Rojas [Nombre9]; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- The Agrarian Tribunal shares the provisions regarding the proven facts, as they are well-supported in the case records.- II.- Doctor José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Attorney, filed an appeal against the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of Cartago at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes on the twenty-fourth of April of two thousand twelve, arguing that the real property sought to be titled is located in the strip of [Dirección4] adjacent to the [Dirección5] in a sector with oak forest cover, whose encumbrance to the public domain predates the Los Santos Forest Reserve and therefore the testimonial evidence received is insufficient to prove possession prior to the entry into force of the General Law on Vacant Lands of the year 1939. Furthermore, wood and charcoal were extracted from the land subject to these proceedings, which fails to comply with the exercise of possession required in article 7 of the Law of Possessory Informations.

III.- This process seeks the titling of a real property located in San Gerardo de Copey, [Dirección6] , [Dirección7] of the province of San José, measuring 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, intended for mountain and agriculture, according to cadastral survey map SJ-1087843-2006 (see folio 1). Said land is located in the Los Santos Forest Reserve, created by Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 5389-A of October 28, 1975 (see folio 25). On said property, the appropriate land use for the activity carried out has been exercised according to the approved methodology, as per certification issued by the National Institute of Innovation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology, in which the property was described as having primary forest, permanent blackberry cultivation, infrastructure, and a green area, where it added as a recommendation: "Maintain the primary forest zones and the protection zones for the stream; do not carry out any commercial forest exploitation activity. In the case of the blackberry cultivation sectors, it is suitable for the activity; always keep the soil with vegetative cover to avoid degradation and conserve it appropriately. Do not use for grazing in view of the terrain's limitations, strongly undulating slope, and small area" (see study at folios 2 to 5). Furthermore, as proof of possession, a document was provided through which Mr. [Nombre10] sold to the petitioner [Nombre1] a piece of land of approximately thirty manzanas, which is part mountain and part pastureland, thereby transferring his possession of over twenty years, said transfer taking place on February 8, 1983 (see deed testimony at folio 8). According to that document, the possession sold to the title applicant dates back more than 48 years, that is, before the year 1964. On their part, witnesses [Nombre11] , [Nombre12] , and [Nombre13] , who testified on January 19, 2012, stated they had known the property since 1960 and 1962, a time when the farm was in the possession of [Nombre10] (see folios 64 to 66). In accordance with the foregoing, if we start from the fact that the property was encumbered to the public domain upon the effectiveness of the decree that created the Los Santos Forest Reserve, No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975, the possession to be proven must have dated back to at least the year 1965. In this case, both the testimonial and documentary evidence refer to a time prior to the year 1965. However, the State's representative alleges that the encumbrance to the public domain predates that date, since it is a property that has oak trees and is located in a zone of [Dirección8] on both sides of the planned route of [Dirección9] , as stipulated in subsection a) of article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law, repealed on November 9, 1973, through Law No. 5385 of October 30, 1973; however, she notes, two years later the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created, by Decreto No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975. She even cites regulations prior to that which imposed limitations on that sector. On this subject, the Tribunal has stated: "...upon the entry into force of article 7 of the Law of Possessory Informations, which allows the titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, a release from the public domain occurred, requiring proof of ten-year possession prior to the effectiveness of the law or decree that created the protected area. That possession, evidently, must have been exercised as owner, that is, a situation that in the appellant's opinion did not occur because according to articles 6 and 62 of the General Law on Vacant Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -now repealed- the possession of that area could only have been exercised by means of a lease contract. Those regulations stipulated: "Vacant lands located in a zone ... of 2000 meters wide on each side of the plotted route of the [Dirección10] may not be sold."; and "The Executive Branch may lease, through a contract and for a period of four years, renewable at the will of the parties, the strips of land referred to in article 6, in an extension no greater than two hundred fifty hectares if dedicated to raising or fattening livestock, and no greater than one hundred twenty-five hectares if intended for agricultural crops..." It adds that Law No. 197 of August 29, 1945, reformed the General Law of Vacant Lands, adding the element of oak trees, declaring as a National Park the lands comprised within the zone of two thousand meters on both sides of the [Dirección11] of the rest of the layout to be built that contain oak trees. According to the cited body of law, possession under a leasehold nature could have occurred until the repeal of the General Law of Vacant Lands, which took place on August 29, 1945. That is, after that date, it was indeed possible to have entered into possession of those lands in the capacity of owner. However, on that date, the lands comprised within the zone of [Dirección8] on both sides of the [Dirección12] of the rest of the layout to be built that contain oak trees were declared a National Park. The National Park category was maintained until the Land and Colonization Law entered into force, in which the lands located in that sector that contained oak trees were declared public domain. The foregoing means that during the period in which that area, within which the property to be titled is comprised, constituted a national park, given its absolute protection, no agrarian possessory acts could have been exercised until the entry into force of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961. After that date, the national park category changed, and those lands could be possessed under ten-year (decenal) terms until the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created, by Executive Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975" (See Ruling No. 306-F-10 of eight hours forty minutes on April thirteen, two thousand ten). From the foregoing, it follows that the exercise of possession on the property intended to be titled is possible according to the analysis set forth. In addition to the above, it is important to mention that according to the judicial inspection report, the property is duly delimited along its boundaries with fences of dead posts with wire strands and with lanes, designated partly for agriculture with blackberry cultivation, with the remainder being mountain, primary forest with encino and oak tree species, without any type of extraction being observed; the forest is observed to be duly protected and the area traversed by the ravine is protected (see report on folios 67 to 68). Based on this, no aspect is evident that proves the extraction of timber or charcoal, neither in the judicial inspection nor in the soil study, as alleged by the appellant, so no justification is found for rejecting the present possessory information proceedings, and the appealed ruling must be upheld in the portion that was subject to appeal.

**IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Nombre14]** : The Majority Vote is not shared in approving the possessory information over lands located in Forest Reserves, since these are part of the natural heritage of the State and a ten-year possession exercised prior to the classification of that property as public domain was not demonstrated.- Public Domain -for the case that concerns us- is the set of assets owned publicly by the State, lato sensu, designated for the direct or indirect public use of the inhabitants, and subject to a special public law regime and, therefore, exorbitant from private law. Public domain is made up of four elements: subjective, objective, normative, and teleological. The subjective element refers to the holder of the right -The State-; the objective element refers to or is constituted by the asset or assets over which the public domain rests -in this case, the property subject to litigation-; the normative element determines when an asset meets the requirements established by law to be considered public domain, it is the set of norms that govern it -the list of norms that will be stated below-; and the teleological element, which refers to the purpose pursued when including a given asset within the public domain, what public purpose is assigned to the asset -in this case, the protection of natural resources-. Public domain assets are subject to a special legal regime, they are subject to a policing power, and are essentially characterized by their inalienability and imprescriptibility. By their nature, they are intended to satisfy public needs; this fact prevents individuals or private persons from holding tenancy or possession over them; they are outside the commerce of private law. Our Political Constitution, in its article 121, subsection 14), refers to Public Demesne, indicating which assets are susceptible to that public property regime, even establishing in that article different degrees of public classification, from an intense and absolute degree of publicatio to other less intense degrees, harmonizing the rights of the administered with the powers of the Administration. Our current Civil Code, which dates from April of eighteen eighty-six, regulates the most important bases regarding public domain assets, specifically in its articles 261 to 263. Article 262 of the cited Civil Code refers to two important characteristics of public domain assets: a- public things are outside commerce, and b- the declassification (desafectación) is established by saying that those assets cannot enter private commerce, while it is not legally disposed thus. As can be observed, classification under the public domain regime does not depend on the nature of the asset, but on the will of the legislator. Through ruling number 447-91 of fifteen hours thirty minutes on February 21, 1991, the Constitutional Chamber states that the declaration of public domain over an asset is established by law; this declaration does not constitute a limitation on property, in accordance with article 45 of the Magna Carta, since this article refers to private property, and public domain assets are not subject to private property. The Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) is a public domain asset regulated in a broad body of normative law in which, historically up to the present, private individuals are prohibited from carrying out any type of work within properties with that characteristic and, as a consequence, are denied the right of possession, with an exception made in a specific situation which will be mentioned later. The lands constituting National Reserves that have Forests are considered State Heritage (Patrimonio Estatal) -in its condition of Public Demesne which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and non-seizability-. The foregoing finds its normative development in the citations set forth below: 1) The Fiscal Code of 1865, which contains a chapter referring to forests, which was repealed by the General Law of Vacant Lands Number thirteen of January 6, 1939, which practically incorporated the same provisions. For example, the first article indicated: "That the lands comprised within the limits of the Republic, which have not been acquired or registered as property through legitimate title by individuals, are presumed vacant and belong to the State."- This law generally regulates the prohibition on possessing and registering National Reserves that are Forest Heritage through possessory information proceedings, in other words, they are not susceptible to appropriation by individuals.- The Land and Colonization Law Number 2825 of October 14, 1961, maintained the same orientation and is currently in force since that date. Thus, article 8 of that Land and Colonization Law establishes: "Except for the cases provided for in this law, it is prohibited for individuals to enclose with fences, lanes, or any other form the lands declared National Reserves, to fell forests, establish constructions and crops, or extract from them firewood, timber, vines, palms, and other products for exploitation purposes. Any act of this kind, if the legal procedures have not been previously fulfilled and the corresponding authorization obtained, shall be considered, as the case may be, as usurpation of public domain or marauding, and the authorities must order the destruction and removal of the fences and prevent the use of those lands, without entitlement to compensation or claims for the value of improvements and without prejudice to other responsibilities that may apply to those who incurred in such faults."- Note that this article criminally sanctions anyone who enters a National Reserve to carry out any activity on those lands, so this cannot be considered an act of possession since their activity would be illegitimate.- Article 11 of that same Law establishes that the following belong to the State as National Reserves: "a) All lands comprised within the limits of the Republic that are not registered as private property, or property of the Municipalities or Autonomous Institutions. b-) Those not covered by ten-year possession.- c-) Those that, by special laws, have not been destined for the formation of agricultural colonies.- d-) In general, all those that, not being private property, are not occupied for public services."- For its part, article 19 of the repealed Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) number 4465 of November twenty-third, nineteen sixty-nine, provided: "All forests and forest lands located in: 'a-) Lands considered National Reserves...' are subjected to the purposes of this law." And article 25 of this same law stated: "The possession of lands situated in the National Reserves and State farms referred to in article 19 of this Law shall not create rights of any kind, and the replevin action of the State, over the same, is imprescriptible, and the General Forestry Directorate, with the legal means at its disposal, shall proceed to evict from such lands the persons who totally or partially occupy them, in the event that they are protected zones, National Parks, Forest Reserves, and Biological Reserves."- With these norms, the forests mentioned therein are granted a double protection: First, due to their condition as a National Reserve, in which it is prohibited to carry out any possessory act, and second, for constituting Forest Heritage of the State, in which no act of possession shall create any right whatsoever. This aspect is confirmed by article 8 of the regulation to that law, which states: "The National lands comprised within the areas declared Forest Reserves are inalienable, meaning they may not leave the domain of the State, and their possession shall not create any right whatsoever in accordance with the provisions of articles 25, 49, and 57 of the Forestry Law."- Article 80 of the cited repealed Forestry Law indicated: "The invasion and occupation of lands in National Parks, Forest Reserves, and Protected Zones is prohibited. This prohibition extends to National Reserves, until their classification and transfer have been determined..." Article 6 of this same law provided: "Shall be sanctioned with imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine from fifteen to one hundred days, any person who: a-) Exploits a forest of forest heritage without the corresponding legal authorization... b-) Invades a National Park, Biological Reserve, Protected Zone, or Forest Reserve... If the invasion is in National Reserves, it shall be subject to the provisions of article 227 of the Penal Code.-" As can be observed, possessory acts carried out in a State Heritage forest are illegitimate and therefore cannot confer any possession right.- With the entry into force of the Forestry Law Number 7174 of June 28, 1990, this same philosophy is continued. Article 32 of the cited law establishes: "The forest heritage of the State is constituted by all forests and forest lands of the National Reserves...". Article 33 of that same law provides: "The forest lands and forests that constitute the Forest Heritage of the State detailed in the previous article shall be non-seizable and inalienable; their possession by individuals shall not create any right in their favor, and the replevin action of the State for those lands is imprescriptible.- Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry through Possessory Information; their invasion and occupation shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this Law."- With the current Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) in force, number 7575 of February 5, 1996, its Title II regulates a single chapter referring exclusively to the Natural Heritage of the State, maintaining the same philosophy that had begun in 1865 with the Fiscal Code, so it is reiterated in this new regulation that the Natural Heritage of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, and the farms registered in the name of the Public Administration. Article 14 of the same current forestry law is emphatic in indicating that the forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State are imprescriptible, non-seizable, and inalienable, and their possession by individuals shall not create any right in their favor. The Wildlife Conservation Law Number 7317 of October 21, 1972, in its articles 3 and 4, in addition to the declaration as being of public domain and public interest for wild fauna and flora, respectively, indicates that wild flora and fauna are part of the National Heritage. In this same sense, the Biodiversity Law number 7788 of April 30, 1998, in its article 6, declares the elements of biodiversity as public domain, as well as the Organic Environmental Law in its article 46, which establishes the sovereignty of the State over biological diversity. For the reasons set forth, it is a legal imperative to deny the right of possession to those persons who carry out any activity on lands not subject to private property and that are constituted by forests in National Reserves.- Through Forestry Law Number 7575 of 1996, which reforms article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, an exception is established to the philosophy that has been set forth so far, which makes possible the titling of forests when what is understood as ecological possession has been developed within them. The land subject to this possessory information is Natural Heritage of the State, as it is located within the limits of the Los Santos Forest Reserve, as deduced from the study of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación) visible on folio 2.- It is clear that said land is Natural Heritage of the State, since before those Decrees were created, as already set forth in the normative history supra. When possession over a public domain asset is disputed, that discussion will only be admissible when the right was acquired before the asset was declared as public domain.

Likewise, the property right in such cases may only be obtained when the holder has demonstrated a ten-year possession (posesión decenal), exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law that declares the object as Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). As the legal chronology that protects the Natural Heritage of the State has already been set forth, the law that must be taken into consideration for calculating the ten-year possession of private individuals is the Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) number 2825 of October 14, 1961, the regulation currently in force. The Tax Code of 1865 and the Law of Uncultivated Lands of 1939 should not be considered, as they were norms that referred to the topic in a generic manner, and they are not provisions currently in force; it is not until the current Land and Colonization Law that the State Property or Natural Heritage comes to be clearly defined and regulated. The later laws such as the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and others that have been cited in this recital (considerando) are complementary to the aforementioned Land and Colonization Law. In the specific case, the testimonial evidence collected does not demonstrate that ten-year possession under the terms of the regulations set forth herein, since it is in this sense that this dissenting vote is recorded, to indicate that the petitioner should have demonstrated ten years of possession prior to the Land and Colonization Law. Furthermore, while it is true that subsection 1 of Article 7 of the cited Land and Colonization Law was repealed in 1973, a norm in which the two-thousand-meter zone on both sides of the [Dirección9] route, where oak trees exist, was designated as a National Park and which established the restrictive regime to which said areas were subjected, for which reason it remained unaffected for 2 years, but in 1975 it became affected again when the Los Santos protected zone (zona protectora) was created, therefore the years of possession alleged by the petitioner since 1960 are not lawful, as it is an illegitimate possession and cannot generate any right. It should be noted that the land is primary forest, with encino and oak grove species, themselves in danger of extinction at the Latin American level, since this is one of the few forest patches of that species that exists in Latin America and for that reason the designation (afectación) was made. The existence of a ten-year possession prior to the designation was not demonstrated, meaning the ten years prior to the Land and Colonization Law of 1961 were not demonstrated.- and thus the possessory information proceeding should have been declared without merit, revoking the judgment under appeal.-

THEREFORE:

The appealed judgment is confirmed in that which has been the subject of appeal.

!+  3HUDODVN2AK61[Name15]  [Name9] - DECISIONAL JUDGE    2&-82:4   ,'                      (')!8$*7(:3             9RFMXRZT47LG61                                                                                                                                           HGIAXDJWHZS61            [Name16]   -                                                                                                                         [Name14]           <span JUDGE/DECISION-MAKER [Nombre14] - JUDGE/DECISION-MAKER **II.-** Doctor José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Attorney (Procurador Asesor), filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) against the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of Cartago (Juzgado Agrario de Cartago) at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes on the twenty-fourth of April of two thousand twelve, alleging that the property intended to be titled is located in the two-kilometer strip adjacent to the Inter-American Highway (Carretera Interamericana) in a sector with oak forest cover (cobertura de robledales), whose affectation to the public domain predates the Los Santos Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Los Santos), and therefore the witness testimony received is insufficient to prove possession prior to the entry into force of the General Law on Vacant Lands (Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos) of 1939.

Furthermore, timber and charcoal were extracted from the land subject to these proceedings, and therefore the exercise of possession required by Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) is not fulfilled.

III.- This proceeding seeks to title a property located in San Gerardo de Copey, [Dirección1], [Dirección2] of the province of San José, measuring 23 hectares, 8388.90 square meters, destined for mountain and agriculture, according to cadastral map SJ-1087843-2006 (see folio 1). This land is located within the Reserva Forestal Los Santos, created by Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 5389-A of October 28, 1975 (see folio 25). On said property, the conforming land use (uso conforme del suelo) has been exercised for the activity carried out, according to the approved methodology, as per certification issued by the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria, in which the property was described as having primary forest, permanent blackberry cultivation, and infrastructure and green zone, where it added as a recommendation: "Maintain the primary forest zones and the protection zones for the stream, do not carry out any commercial forest exploitation activity. In the case of the blackberry cultivation sectors, it is suitable for the activity, always keep the soil with plant cover to avoid degradation and conserve it adequately. Do not use for grazing given the limitations of the land, steeply undulating slope and small area" (see study on folios 2 to 5). Additionally, as proof of possession, a document was provided through which Mr. [Nombre1] sold to the petitioner [Nombre2] a land of approximately thirty manzanas, which is part mountain and part pasture, thereby transferring his possession of more than twenty years, said transfer being on February 8, 1983 (see notarial testimony on folio 8). According to that document, the possession that was sold to the title applicant dates back more than 48 years, that is, before the year 1964. For their part, the witnesses [Nombre3], [Nombre4], and [Nombre5], who testified on January 19, 2012, stated they knew the property since 1960 and 1962, a time when [Nombre1] was in possession of the estate (see folios 64 to 66). Based on the foregoing, if it is assumed that the property was affected to public domain as of the effective date of the decree that created the Reserva Forestal Los Santos, Nº 5389-A of October 28, 1975, the possession to be proven had to date back at least to the year 1965. In this case, both the witness and documentary evidence allude to a time prior to the year 1965. However, the State's representative alleges that the affectation to public domain is prior to that date, because it is a property that has oak trees and is located in an area of [Dirección3] on both sides of the route of the [Dirección4], as was provided for in subsection a) of Article 7 of the Law of Lands and Colonization (Ley de Tierras y Colonización), repealed on November 9, 1973, through Ley Nº 5385 of October 30, 1973; however, she points out, two years later the Reserva Forestal Los Santos was created through Decreto Nº 5389-A of October 28, 1975. She even cites regulations prior to that which imposed limitations on that sector. On this matter, the Tribunal has stated: "...when Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information, which allows the titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, came into force, a de-affectation from public domain occurred, and possession must be proven for a ten-year period prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created the protected area. That possession, evidently, must have been exercised as owner, that is, a situation which, in the appellant's opinion, did not occur because, in accordance with Articles 6 and 62 of the General Law on Vacant Lands (Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos) Nº 13 of January 10, 1939 —already repealed— the possession of that area could only have been exercised through a lease contract. Those rules provided: 'Vacant lands located in a zone ... 2000 meters wide on each side of the roadway of the [Dirección5] may not be alienated.'; and 'The Executive Branch may lease, through a contract and for a term of four years, extendable at the will of the parties, the strips of land referred to in Article 6, in an area not exceeding two hundred fifty hectares, if dedicated to the breeding or fattening of cattle, and not exceeding one hundred twenty-five hectares, if destined for agricultural crops...'." She adds, Ley Nº 197 of August 29, 1945, reformed the General Law on Vacant Lands adding the element of oak trees, declaring the lands comprised in the two-thousand-meter zone on both sides of the [Dirección6] of the rest of the route yet to be built that have oak trees as a National Park. According to the cited set of rules, possession under a lease could have occurred until the repeal of the General Law on Vacant Lands, which occurred on August 29, 1945. That is, after that date, it was possible to enter into possession of those lands as owner. Now then, on that date, the lands comprised in the two-thousand-meter zone on both sides of the [Dirección7] of the rest of the route yet to be built that have oak trees were declared a National Park. The National Park category remained until the Law of Lands and Colonization came into force, in which lands located in that sector and having oak trees were declared to be of public domain. The foregoing means that during the period in which that area, within which the property to be titled is located, constituted a national park, given its absolute protection, no agrarian possessory acts could be exercised until the effective date of the Law of Lands and Colonization Nº 2825 of October 14, 1961. After that date, the national park category changed, and those lands could be possessed for a ten-year period until the Reserva Forestal Los Santos was created, through Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 5389-A of October 28, 1975" (See Voto Nº 306-F-10 of eight hours forty minutes of April thirteenth, two thousand ten). From the above, it follows that the exercise of possession on the property sought to be titled is possible according to the analysis set forth. Coupled with the foregoing, it is important to mention that according to the judicial inspection record, the property is properly delimited along its boundaries with fences of dead posts with wire strands and with tracks, partially destined for agriculture with blackberry cultivation, with the remainder being mountain, primary forest with encino and oak species, without any type of extraction being observed; the forest appears to be duly protected and the area crossed by the stream is protected (see record on folios 67 to 68).

Based on that, no aspect is evidenced that proves the extraction of wood or charcoal, neither in the judicial inspection nor in the soil study, as alleged by the appellant, and therefore no justification is found for the rejection of the present possessory information proceedings, and the appealed decision must be confirmed in what was the subject of the appeal." **IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Nombre1]**: I do not share the majority vote that approves the possessory information (información posesoria) over lands located in Forest Reserves, because they are part of the State's natural heritage and a ten-year possession exercised prior to the affectation of that property as public domain was not demonstrated. Public Domain -for the case at hand- is the set of assets that are public property of the State, lato sensu, affected to the direct or indirect public use of the inhabitants, and subject to a special regime of public law and, therefore, exorbitant from private law. The public domain consists of four elements: subjective, objective, normative, and teleological. The subjective element refers to the owner of the right -the State-; the objective element refers to or is constituted by the asset or assets over which the public domain rests -in this case, the property subject to litigation-; the normative element determines when an asset meets the requirements established by law to be considered public domain, it is the set of norms that govern it -a list of norms that will be stated below-; and the teleological element refers to the purpose pursued when including a specific asset within the public domain, what public purpose is assigned to the asset -in this case, the protection of natural resources-. Assets of public domain are subject to a special legal regime, they are subject to a police power, and are essentially characterized by their inalienability and imprescriptibility. By their nature, they are intended to satisfy public needs; this fact prevents tenancy or possession by individuals or private persons, they are outside the commerce of private law. Our Political Constitution, in its article 121, subsection 14), refers to Public Ownership (Demanialidad) by indicating which assets are susceptible to that public property regime, even establishing different degrees of public affectation in that article, ranging from an intense and absolute degree of publicatio to other less intense degrees, harmonizing the rights of the governed with the powers of the Administration. Our current Civil Code, dating from April of eighteen eighty-six, regulates the most important foundations regarding assets of public domain, specifically in its articles 261 through 263. Article 262 of the cited Civil Code refers to two important characteristics of public domain assets: a- public things are outside commerce, and b- the desafectación (declassification) is established by stating that those assets cannot enter private commerce, as long as it is not legally ordered otherwise. As can be observed, the affectation to the public domain regime does not depend on the nature of the asset, but on the will of the legislator. By means of vote number 447-91 at fifteen hours thirty minutes on February 21, 1991, the Constitutional Chamber states that the declaration of public domain of the asset is established by law; this declaration does not constitute a limitation on property, in accordance with article 45 of the Magna Carta, since this article refers to private property, and public domain assets are not subject to private property. The State's Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) is a Demanial asset regulated in a broad normative set in which, historically up to the present, private individuals are prohibited from carrying out any type of work within properties with that characteristic and, as a consequence, are denied the right of possession, with an exception made in a specific situation that will be stated below. The lands that constitute National Reserves that have Forests are considered State Heritage, in their condition as Public Demanial (Demanio Público) which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unseizability. The foregoing finds its normative development in the citations set forth below: 1) The Fiscal Code of 1865, which contains a chapter referring to forests, which was repealed by the Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos Number thirteen of January 6, 1939, which practically incorporated the same provisions. For example, the first article indicated: "That the lands comprised within the limits of the Republic, that have not been acquired or registered in property by individuals through legitimate title, are presumed to be vacant lands (baldíos) and belong to the State."- This law generally regulates the prohibition against possessing and registering, through the procedure of possessory informations (informaciones posesorias), National Reserves that are Forest Heritage; in other words, they are not susceptible to appropriation by individuals.- The Ley de Tierras y Colonización Number 2825 of October 14, 1961, maintained the same orientation and has been in effect from that date to the present. Thus, article 8 of that Ley de Tierras y Colonización establishes: "Except for the cases provided for in this law, it is prohibited for individuals to enclose with fences, tracks, or any other form the lands declared National Reserves, to cut down forests, establish constructions and crops, or extract firewood, timber, vines, palm, and other products for exploitation purposes. Any act of that nature, if the legal formalities have not been previously completed and the corresponding authorization obtained, will be considered, as the case may be, as usurpation of public domain or marauding, with the authorities being required to order the destruction and removal of the fences and prevent the use of those lands, without any right to compensation or claims for the value of improvements and without prejudice to other liabilities that may apply to those who incur such offenses."- Note that this article criminally sanctions anyone who enters a National Reserve to carry out any activity on those lands, which means that this cannot be considered an act of possession because their activity would be illegitimate.- Article 11 of that same Law establishes that the following belong to the State as National Reserves: "a) All lands comprised within the limits of the Republic that are not registered as private property, property of the Municipalities, or of the Autonomous Institutions.

b-) Those not covered by the ten-year possession (posesión decenal).- c-) Those that, by special laws, have not been designated for the formation of agricultural colonies.- d-) In general, all those that, not being private property (propiedad particular), are not occupied in public services."- For its part, Article 19 of the repealed Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) number 4465 of November twenty-third, nineteen sixty-nine, provided: "All forests and forest lands (terrenos forestales) located in: 'a-) Lands considered National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales)...' are affected for the purposes of this law." And Article 25 of this same law indicated: "The possession (posesión) of lands located in the National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales) and State farms referred to in Article 19 of this Law, shall not create rights of any kind and the State's action for recovery (acción reinvidicatoria) for the same is imprescriptible, and the Dirección General Forestal with the legal means at its disposal, shall proceed to evict from such lands the persons who occupy them totally or partially, in the case of protective zones (zonas protectoras), National Parks (Parques Nacionales), Forest Reserves (Reservas Forestales), and Biological Reserves (Reservas Biológicas)."- With these norms, a double protection is granted to the forests mentioned therein: First, because of their condition as a National Reserve (Reserva Nacional), in which it is prohibited to carry out any possessory act and second, because they constitute State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) in which no act of possession (posesión) shall create a right of any kind. This aspect is confirmed by Article 8 of the regulation to that law which states: "The National lands comprised within the areas declared Forest Reserves (Reservas Forestales) are inalienable, that is, they may not leave the State's domain, and their possession (posesión) shall not create any right of any kind in accordance with the provisions of articles 25, 49 and 57 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal)."- Article 80 of the cited repealed Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) indicated: "The invasion and occupation of lands in National Parks (Parques Nacionales), Forest Reserves (Reservas Forestales) and Protective Zones (Zonas Protectoras) is prohibited. This prohibition extends to National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales), until their classification and transfer have been determined..." Article 6 of this same law provided: "A person shall be sanctioned with imprisonment of six months to two years or with a fine of fifteen to one hundred days, who: a-) Exploits a forest of the forest heritage (patrimonio forestal) without the corresponding legal authorization... b-) Invades a National Park (Parque Nacional), Biological Reserve (Reserva Biológica), Protective Zone (Zona Protectora) or Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal)... If the invasion is in National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales), it shall be subject to the stipulations of article 227 of the Penal Code.-" As can be observed, possessory acts carried out in a State heritage forest (bosque patrimonio Estatal) are illegitimate and therefore cannot confer any right of possession (posesión).- With the entry into force of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) Number 7174 of June 28, 1990, this same philosophy is continued. Article 32 of the cited law establishes: "The State's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado) is constituted by all the forests and forest lands (terrenos forestales) of the National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales)...". Article 33 of that same law provides: "The forest lands (terrenos forestales) and forests that constitute the State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) detailed in the previous article, shall be unattachable (inembargables) and inalienable (inalineables), their possession (posesión) by private individuals shall not create any right in their favor and the State's action for recovery (acción reinvidicatoria) for those lands is imprescriptible.- Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry (Registro Público) by means of Possessory Information (Información Posesoria), their invasion and occupation shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this Law."- With the current Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) in force, number 7575 of February 5, 1996, in its Title II it regulates a single chapter referring exclusively to the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), maintaining the same philosophy that had been initiated since 1865 with the Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal), so it is reiterated in this new regulation that the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands (terrenos forestales) of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, and the farms registered in the name of the Public Administration. Article 14 of the same current forestry law is emphatic in indicating that the forest lands (terrenos forestales) and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State (patrimonio natural del Estado) are imprescriptible (imprescriptibles), unattachable (inembargables) and inalienable (inalienables) and their possession (posesión) by private individuals shall not create any right in their favor. The Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) Number 7317 of October 21, 1972, in its articles 3 and 4, in addition to the declaration as public domain and public interest, of wild fauna and flora respectively, indicates that wild flora and fauna are part of the National Heritage (Patrimonio Nacional). In this same sense, the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) number 7788 of April 30, 1998 in its article 6 declares the elements of biodiversity as public domain, as well as the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) in its article 46 which establishes the State's sovereignty over biological diversity. Based on the foregoing, it is a legal imperative to deny the right of possession (posesión) to those persons who carry out any activity on lands not subject to private property (propiedad privada) and that are constituted by forests in National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales).- To that imperative prohibition, through Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) Number 7575 of 1996, which reforms Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), an exception is established to the philosophy that has been presented up to now, which is that it makes possible the titling of forests when what is understood as ecological possession (posesión ecológica) has been developed within them. The land object of this possessory information (información posesoria) is Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), since it is located within the limits of the Los Santos Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Los Santos), as can be deduced from the study of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación) visible on folio 2.- It is clear that said land is Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), from before those Decrees were created as already explained in the normative history above. When possession (posesión) over a public domain asset (bien demanial) is discussed, such discussion shall only be appropriate when the right was acquired before the asset was declared as public domain. Likewise, the right of property (derecho de propiedad) in such cases may only be obtained when the holder has demonstrated ten-year possession (posesión decenal), exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law declaring the object as Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). As the legal chronology protecting the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) has already been explained, the law that must be taken into consideration for calculating the ten-year possession (posesión decenal) of private individuals is the Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) number 2825 of October 14, 1961, a regulation currently in force. The Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal) of 1865 and the Vacant Lands Law (Ley de Terrenos Baldíos) of 1939 must not be considered, as they were norms that referred to the topic in a generic form, besides not being provisions currently in force; it is not until the current Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) that the Property or Natural Heritage of the State (Propiedad o Patrimonio Natural del Estado) comes to be clearly defined and regulated. The subsequent laws such as the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and others that have been cited in this recital (considerando), are complementary to the referred Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización). In the specific case, the testimonial evidence gathered does not demonstrate that ten-year possession (posesión decenal) in the terms of the regulations set forth herein, since it is in this sense that this dissenting vote (voto salvado) is recorded, to indicate the petitioner should have demonstrated ten years of possession (posesión) before the Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización). Furthermore, while it is true that subsection 1 of Article 7 of the cited Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) was repealed in 1973, a norm in which the two-thousand-meter zone on both sides of the route of the [Dirección1], where oaks exist, was designated as a National Park (Parque Nacional) and which established the restrictive regime to which said areas were subjected, therefore it was disaffected (desafectada) for 2 years, but in 1975 it became affected again when the Los Santos protective zone (zona protectora) was created, so the years of possession (posesión) claimed by the petitioner since 1960 are not licit, as it is an illegitimate possession (posesión ilegítima) and cannot generate any right. Note that the land is primary forest, with species of encino and robledales, which are in extinction at the Latin American level, since this is one of the few patches of forest of that species that exists in Latin America and for that reason the affectation occurs. The existence of a ten-year possession (posesión decenal) before the affectation was not demonstrated, meaning the ten years prior to the Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización) of 1961 were not demonstrated.- therefore, the possessory information (información posesoria) should have been declared without merit, revoking the ruling that came on appeal." 3.- Judge María Rosa Castro García of the Agrarian Court of Cartago, by judgment No. 39-2012 at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes of April twenty-four, two thousand twelve, resolved: "THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing and citations of law, the present possessory information proceedings are APPROVED; a procedure that was carried out in accordance with the Possessory Information Law No. 139 of July fourteen, 1941, its reforms and additions, Agrarian Jurisdiction Law No. 6734 of March twenty-five, 1982 and its reforms. Consequently, free of liens and real encumbrances, without co-owners and without prejudice to third parties with better rights, let the Public Registry, Real Property Section, proceed to register in the name of [Name2], identity card CED5, of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Gerardo de Dota, the property described as follows: primary forest land (terreno de bosque primario), crops and house, located in San Gerardo, [Address1], province of San José, with an area of 23 hectares 8,388.90 square meters, with cadastral map number SJ-1087843-2006. [Name4] to the north with [Name5] and [Name6]; to the south with [Name7]; to the east [Name8], and to the west with a public road with a frontage of 341.71 square meters. The land was acquired by purchase. The property was valued at the sum of five million colones. The property is subject to the reservations regarding rights of way provided for in articles 4 of the General Public Roads Law and 19 subsection a) of the Possessory Information Law, as well as to the encumbrance of the reservations of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), which prohibits the extraction of forest resources, elimination or destruction of forests, and land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo). Likewise, it is decreed that the water contained in the stream and its channel is in the public domain (Water Law), and the protection area must be respected absolutely (article 33 of the Forest Law 7575). Once this resolution is final, issue the corresponding certification" (folios 94 to 99).- 4.- Doctor José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Prosecutor, filed an appeal with an express indication of the reasons why he refutes the thesis of the trial court (see document at folios 100 to 112).- 5. In the substantiation of the process, the legal requirements have been observed, and no errors or omissions capable of producing its nullity are noted in the ruling.

Drafted by Judge Rojas [Name9]; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- The Agrarian Tribunal agrees with what was ordered regarding the proven facts, as they have good support in the record.- II.- Doctor José Barahona Vargas, in his capacity as Advisory Prosecutor, filed an appeal against the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of Cartago at fifteen hours twenty-nine minutes of April twenty-four, two thousand twelve, arguing that the property sought to be titled is located in the strip of [Address4] adjacent to the [Address5] in a sector with oak forest cover (cobertura de robledales), whose encumbrance to the public domain predates the Los Santos Forest Reserve and therefore the testimonial evidence received is insufficient to prove possession prior to the entry into force of the General Law on Public Lands of 1939. Furthermore, on the land subject to these proceedings, timber and charcoal were extracted, which, therefore, does not comply with the exercise of possession required in article 7 of the Possessory Information Law.

III.- This process seeks the titling of a property located in San Gerardo de Copey, [Address6], [Address7] seventeen of the province of San José, with a measurement of 23 hectares 8388.90 square meters, destined for mountain and agriculture, according to cadastral map SJ-1087843-2006 (see folio 1). Said land is located in the Los Santos Forest Reserve, created by Executive Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975 (see folio 25). On said property, the conforming use of the soil has been exercised for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology, according to a certification issued by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology Innovation and Transfer, in which the property was described with primary forest (bosque primario), permanent blackberry cultivation and infrastructure and green zone, where it added as a recommendation: "Maintain the primary forest areas and the stream protection areas, do not carry out any commercial forestry exploitation activity. In the case of the blackberry cultivation sectors, it is suitable for the activity, always keep the soil with vegetation cover to avoid degradation and conserve it adequately. Do not use for grazing in view of the limitations of the land, strongly undulating slope and small area" (see study at folios 2 to 5). In addition, as proof of possession, a document was provided whereby Mr. [Name10] sold to the petitioner [Name1] a land of approximately thirty manzanas, which is part mountain and part pasture, thereby transferring his possession of more than twenty years, said transfer being on February 8, 1983 (see deed testimony at folio 8). According to that document, the possession that was sold to the title applicant dates back more than 48 years, that is, before 1964. For their part, witnesses [Name11], [Name12] and [Name13], who declared on January 19, 2012, stated they knew the property since 1960 and 1962, a time when the farm was in the possession of [Name10] (see folios 64 to 66). According to the foregoing, if we assume that the property was encumbered to the public domain from the effective date of the decree that created the Los Santos Forest Reserve, No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975, the possession to be proven had to date back at least to 1965. In this case, both the testimonial and documentary evidence allude to a time prior to 1965. However, the State's representative claims that the encumbrance to the public domain is prior to that date, since it is a property that has oak trees and is located in an area of [Address8] on both sides of the route of the [Address9], as provided for in subsection a) of article 7 of the Land and Colonization Law, repealed on November 9, 1973 by Law No. 5385 of October 30, 1973; however, she points out, two years later the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created, by Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975. She even cites regulations prior to that which imposed limitations on that sector. On this topic, the Tribunal has stated: "...upon the entry into force of article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, which allows the titling of properties with forest located within protected areas, a de-encumbrance from the public domain occurred, requiring proof of a ten-year possession prior to the enforcement of the law or decree that created the protected area. That possession, evidently, must have been exercised in the capacity of owner, that is, a situation which, in the appellant's opinion, did not occur because, pursuant to articles 6 and 62 of the General Law on Public Lands No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -now repealed- the possession of that area could only have been exercised through a lease contract. Those norms provided: 'Public lands located in a zone ... of 2000 meters wide on each side of the route of the [Address10] may not be sold.'; and 'The Executive Branch may lease through contract and for a term of four years, extendable at the will of the parties, the strips of land referred to in article 6 in an extension of no more than two hundred fifty hectares, if they are dedicated to the raising or fattening of livestock, and no more than one hundred twenty-five hectares, if they are destined for agricultural crops...'. It adds, Law No. 197 of August 29, 1945 reformed the General Law on Public Lands, adding the element of oak trees, declaring as a National Park the lands comprised within the two-thousand-meter zone on both sides of the [Address11] of the rest of the route to be built that have oak trees. According to the cited norms, possession in the nature of a lease could have occurred until the repeal of the General Law on Public Lands, which happened on August 29, 1945. That is, after that date, it was possible to enter into possession of those lands in the capacity of owner. Now, on that date, the lands comprised in the zone of [Address8] on both sides of the [Address12] of the rest of the route to be built that have oak trees were declared a National Park. The National Park category was maintained until the Land and Colonization Law came into force, in which the lands located in that sector and having oak trees were declared as public domain. The foregoing means that during the period in which that area, within which the property to be titled is included, constituted a national park, given its absolute protection, agrarian possessory acts could not have been exercised until the enforcement of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961. After that date, the national park category changed, making it possible to possess those lands in a ten-year period until the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created, by Executive Decree No. 5389-A of October 28, 1975" (See Vote No. 306-F-10 of eight hours forty minutes of April thirteen, two thousand ten). From the foregoing, it follows that the exercise of possession on the property intended to be titled is possible according to the analysis set forth. In addition to the above, it is important to mention that according to the judicial inspection record, the property is duly delimited on its boundaries with fences of dead posts with wire strands and with lanes, destined partly to agriculture with blackberry cultivation, with the remainder being mountain, primary forest with encino and oak tree species, without appreciating any type of extraction; it is appreciated that the forest is duly protected and the area crossed by the stream is protected (see record at folios 67 to 68). Based on this, no aspect is evidenced that proves the extraction of timber or charcoal, neither in the judicial inspection nor in the soil study, as alleged by the appellant, so no justification is found for the rejection of the present possessory information proceedings, and the appealed resolution must be confirmed in what was the subject of the appeal.

IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Name14]

I do not agree with the Majority Vote in approving the possessory information on lands located in Forest Reserves, since they are part of the natural heritage of the State and a ten-year possession exercised prior to the encumbrance of that property as public domain (demanial) was not demonstrated.- The Public Domain -for the case at hand- is the set of public property assets of the State, lato sensu, encumbered to the direct or indirect public use of the inhabitants, and subject to a special public law regime and, therefore, exorbitant from private law. The public domain is made up of four elements: subjective, objective, normative, and teleological. The subjective element refers to the holder of the right -The State-; the objective element refers to or is constituted by the asset or assets upon which the public domain falls -for this case, the property subject to litigation-; the normative element determines when an asset meets the requirements set by law to be considered public domain, it is the set of norms that govern it -a list of norms that will be stated below-; and the teleological element refers to the purpose pursued by including a certain asset within the public domain, what public purpose is assigned to the asset -in this case, the protection of natural resources-. Public domain assets are subject to a special legal regime, they are subject to a police power, and are essentially characterized by their inalienability and imprescriptibility. By their nature, they are aimed at satisfying public needs; this fact prevents individuals or private persons from having tenure or possession over them; they are outside the commerce of private law. Our Political Constitution in its article 121 subsection 14) refers to Demaniality, indicating which assets are susceptible to that public property regime, even establishing in that article different degrees of public encumbrance, ranging from an intense and absolute degree of publicatio to other less intense degrees, harmonizing the rights of the administered with the powers of the Administration. Our current Civil Code, dating back to the month of April eighteen eighty-six, regulates the most important bases regarding public domain assets, specifically in its articles 261 to 263.

Article 262 of the aforementioned Civil Code refers to two important characteristics of public domain assets: a- public things are outside of commerce, and b- the removal of the public domain designation (desafectación) is established by stating that those assets cannot enter private commerce, as long as it is not legally provided otherwise. As can be observed, the designation to the public domain regime does not depend on the nature of the asset, but on the will of the legislator. Through vote number 447-91 of fifteen hours thirty minutes of February 21, 1991, the Constitutional Chamber states that the declaration of public domain of the asset is established by law, this declaration does not constitute a limitation on property, in accordance with article 45 of the Magna Carta, because this article refers to private property, and public domain assets are not subject to private property. The State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) is a demanial asset regulated in a broad set of regulations in which historically up to the present it is prohibited for individuals to carry out any type of work within properties with that characteristic and as a consequence denying them the right of possession, with an exception made in a specific situation that will be discussed later. Considered as State Heritage, -in its condition as Public Demanio which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability (inembargabilidad)-, are the lands that constitute National Reserves that have Forests. The foregoing finds its regulatory development in the citations set forth below: 1) The Fiscal Code of 1865 which contemplates a chapter referring to forests, which was repealed by the General Law of Vacant Lands Number thirteen of January 6, 1939, which incorporated practically the same provisions. For example, the first article indicated: "That the lands within the limits of the Republic, that have not been acquired or registered as property through legitimate title by individuals, are presumed vacant and belong to the State."- This law generally regulates the prohibition to possess and register through the process of possessory informations (informaciones posesorias) the National Reserves that are Forest Heritage, in other words they are not susceptible to appropriation by individuals.- The Land and Colonization Law Number 2825 of October 14, 1961, maintained the same orientation and is currently in force since that date. Thus, article 8 of that Land and Colonization Law establishes: "Except for the cases provided for in this law, it is prohibited for individuals to enclose with fences, lanes, or any other form the lands declared National Reserves, to fell forests, establish constructions and crops or extract firewood, timber, vines, palm, and other products for exploitation purposes. Any act of this kind, if the legal procedures have not been previously completed and the corresponding authorization obtained, will be considered, as the case may be, as usurpation of public domain or trespassing, and the authorities must order the destruction and removal of the fences and prevent the use of those lands, without place for compensation or claims for the value of the improvements and without prejudice to other responsibilities that may apply to those who incurred in such faults."- Note that this article criminally sanctions anyone who enters a National Reserve to carry out any activity on those lands, so this cannot be considered an act of possession because their activity would be illegitimate.- Article 11 of the same Law establishes that they belong to the State in the character of National Reserves: "a) All the lands within the limits of the Republic that are not registered as private property, or property of the Municipalities or Autonomous Institutions. b-) Those not covered by decennial possession (posesión decenal).- c-) Those that, by special laws, have not been destined for the formation of agricultural colonies.- d-) In general all those that, not being private property, are not occupied in public services."- For its part, article 19 of the repealed Forest Law number 4465 of November twenty-three, nineteen sixty-nine, provided: "All forests and forest lands located in: "a-) The lands considered National Reserves... are designated for the purposes of this law." And article 25 of this same law stated: "The possession of lands located in the National Reserves and State farms referred to in article 19 of this Law shall not cause rights of any kind and the State's action for recovery (acción reinvidicatoria) for the same is imprescriptible, and the General Forestry Directorate with the legal means at its disposal shall proceed to evict from such lands the persons who occupy them totally or partially, in the case of protective zones, National Parks, Forest Reserves, and Biological Reserves."- With these norms, the forests mentioned therein are granted a double protection: First, due to their condition as National Reserves, in which it is prohibited to carry out any possessory act, and second, because they constitute State Forest Heritage, in which no act of possession shall cause any right of any kind. This aspect is confirmed by article 8 of the regulation to that law which says: "The National lands comprised within the areas declared Forest Reserves are inalienable, that is, they may not leave the domain of the State, and their possession shall not cause any right of any kind in accordance with the provisions of articles 25, 49 and 57 of the Forest Law."- Article 80 of the aforementioned repealed Forest Law stated: "The invasion and occupation of lands in National Parks, Forest Reserves and Protective Zones is prohibited. This prohibition extends to the National Reserves, until their classification and transfer has been determined..." Article 6 of this same law provided: "Any person who: a-) Exploits a forest of forest heritage without the corresponding legal authorization... b-) Invades a National Park, Biological Reserve, Protective Zone or Forest Reserve... shall be sanctioned with imprisonment of six months to two years or with a fine of fifteen to one hundred days. If the invasion is in National Reserves, it will be subject to what is stipulated in article 227 of the Penal Code.-" As can be observed, possessory acts carried out in a State heritage forest turn out to be illegitimate and therefore cannot confer any right of possession.- With the entry into force of the Forest Law Number 7174 of June 28, 1990, this same philosophy continues. Article 32 of said law establishes: "The state forest heritage is constituted by all the forests and forest lands of the National Reserves...". Article 33 of that same law provides: "The forest lands and forests that constitute the State Forest Heritage detailed in the previous article shall be unattachable (inembargables) and inalienable, their possession by individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the State's action for recovery for those lands is imprescriptible.- Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry through Possessory Information, their invasion and occupation shall be sanctioned according to the provisions of this Law."- With the current Forest Law in force, number 7575 of February 5, 1996, in its Title II it regulates a single chapter referring exclusively to the State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), being the same philosophy that had begun since 1865 with the Fiscal Code, so it is reiterated in this new regulation that the State Natural Heritage shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, and the farms registered in the name of the Public Administration. Article 14 of the same current forest law is emphatic in indicating that the forest lands and forests that constitute the state natural heritage are imprescriptible, unattachable and inalienable and their possession by individuals shall not cause any right whatsoever in their favor. The Wildlife Conservation Law Number 7317 of October 21, 1972, in its articles 3 and 4, in addition to the declaration of wild fauna and flora respectively as public domain and public interest, indicates that wild flora and fauna is part of the National Heritage. In this same sense, the Biodiversity Law number 7788 of April 30, 1998, in its article 6, declares the elements of biodiversity as public domain, as well as the Organic Law of the Environment in its article 46 which establishes the sovereignty of the State over biological diversity. For the foregoing reasons, it is a legal imperative to deny the right of possession to those persons who carry out any activity on lands not subject to private property and that are constituted by forests in National Reserves.- To that imperative prohibition, through Forest Law Number 7575 of 1996, which reforms article 7 of the Law of Possessory Informations, an exception is established to the philosophy that has been set forth until now, and it is that the titling of forests is made possible when within them what is understood as ecological possession (posesión ecológica) has been developed. The land subject to this possessory information is State Natural Heritage, because it is located within the limits of the Los Santos Forest Reserve, as deduced from the study of the National System of Conservation Areas visible on folio 2.- It is clear that said land is State Natural Heritage, from before those Decrees were created, as already set forth in the above regulatory history. When possession of a demanial asset is discussed, that discussion will only be possible when the right was acquired before the asset was declared public domain. Likewise, the right of property in such cases may only be obtained when the holder has demonstrated a decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the date of entry into force of the law that declares the object as State Natural Heritage. As the legal chronology that protects the State Natural Heritage has already been set forth, the law that must be taken into consideration to compute the decennial possession of individuals is the Land and Colonization Law number 2825 of October 14, 1961, a regulation currently in force. The Fiscal Code of 1865 and the Vacant Lands Law of 1939 should not be considered, since they were norms that referred to the topic in a generic manner, and they are also not provisions currently in force; it is not until the current Land and Colonization Law that the Property or Natural Heritage of the State comes to be clearly defined and regulated. The later laws such as the Forest Law and others that have been cited in this recital (considerando) are complementary to the referred Land and Colonization Law. For the specific case, the testimonial evidence gathered does not demonstrate that decennial possession under the terms of the regulations set forth herein, since it is in this sense that this dissenting vote (voto salvado) is recorded, to indicate that the petitioner should have demonstrated ten years of possession before the Land and Colonization Law. Furthermore, even though it is true that subsection 1 of article 7 of the cited Land and Colonization Law was repealed in 1973, a norm that established the zone two thousand meters on both sides of the route of the [Dirección9] as a National Park, where there are oaks, and which established the restrictive regime to which said areas were subjected, therefore it was without public domain designation (desafectada) for 2 years, but in 1975 it became designated again when the Los Santos protective zone was created, then the years of possession alleged by the petitioner since 1960 are not lawful, as it is an illegitimate possession and cannot generate any right. Note the land is primary forest, with species of encino and oak forests, the same being in extinction at the Latin American level, because this is one of the few patches of forest of that species that exists in Latin America and for that reason the designation was made. The existence of a decennial possession before the designation was not demonstrated, that is, the ten years prior to the Land and Colonization Law of 1961 were not demonstrated.- so the possessory information should have been declared without merit, revoking the judgment under appeal.-

THEREFORE:

The appealed judgment is confirmed in what has been the object of the appeal.

[Nombre15] [Nombre9] - DECISION-MAKING JUDGE (JUEZ/A DECISOR/A) 2&-82:4 ,' (')!8$*7(:3 9RFMXRZT47LG61 HGIAXDJWHZS61 [Nombre16] - [Nombre14] JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre14] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

VOTO N° 1015-F-12 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las dieciséis horas y cincuenta y siete minutos del veintidós de agosto de dos mil doce.- DILIGENCIAS DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA, promovida por [Nombre2] , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, vecino de San Gerardo de Dota, cédula de identidad CED1 . Intervienen en el proceso la PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por Susana Fallas Cubero, mayor, abogada, vecina de San José, cédula de identidad CED2 - -, en su condición de procuradora adjunta y el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED3 - - - , representado por Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, mayor, divorciada, abogada, vecina de Escazú, cédula de identidad CED4 - - . Actúa como apoderado especial judicial del promovente, la letrada [Nombre3] , carné diez mil setecientos veintiocho. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrariode Cartago.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- El promovente interpone diligencias de información posesoria con el fin que se inscriba a su nombre en el Registro Público de la Propiedad la finca que se describe de la siguiente forma: "terreno de bosque primario, cultivos y casa, sito en San Gerardo, [Dirección1] , , provincia de San José, con un área de 23 hectáreas 8.388.90 metros cuadrados, con plano catastrado número [Nombre4] al norte con [Nombre5] y [Nombre6] ; al sur con [Nombre7] ; al este con [Nombre8] , y al oeste con calle [Dirección2] con frente de [Dirección3] metros cuadrados (ver escrito a folios 18 a 19 y 99).- 2.- El Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario y la Procuraduría General de la República y se apersonaron al proceso en los términos que corren de folio 48 y 50 a 57 respectivamente.

3.- La jueza María Rosa Castro García del Juzgado Agrario del Juzgado Agrario de Cartago, mediante sentencia Nº 39-2012 de las quince horas veintinueve minutos del veinticuatro de abril de dos mil doce, resolvió: “POR TANTO: De acuerdo a lo expuesto y citas de ley SE APRUEBAN las presentes diligencias de información posesoria; trámite que se cumplió apegado a la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias Nº 139 del catorce de julio de 1941, sus reformas y adiciones, Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria Nº 6734 del veinticinco de marzo de 1982 y sus reformas. En consecuencia, libre de gravámenes y cargas reales, sin condueños y sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derechos, proceda el Registro Público, Sección Propiedad Inmueble, a inscribir a nombre de [Nombre2] , cédula de identidad CED5 , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, vecino de San Gerardo de Dota, el inmueble que se describe así: terreno de bosque primario, cultivos y casa, sito en San Gerardo, [Dirección1] , , provincia de San José, con un área de 23 hectáreas 8.388.90 metros cuadrados, con plano catastrado número SJ-1087843-2006. [Nombre4] al norte con [Nombre5] y [Nombre6] ; al sur con [Nombre7] ; al este [Nombre8] , y al oeste con calle pública con frente de 341,71 metros cuadrados. El terreno se adquirió por compra. Se estimó el inmueble en la suma de un cinco millones de colones. Queda afecto el inmueble a las reservas en cuanto a derechos de vía que disponen los artículos 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y 19 inciso a) de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, así como a la afectación de las reservas de la Ley Forestal, que impide la extracción de recurso forestal, eliminación o destrucción de bosques y cambio de uso de suelo. Asimismo se decreta que el agua que contiene la quebrada y el cauce de la misma es de dominio público (Ley de Aguas), y el área de protección debe respetarse de forma absoluta (artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal 74575). Firme esta resolución, expídase la certificación correspondiente" (folios 94 a 99).- 4.- El Doctor José Barahona Vargas, en su condición de Procuradora Asesor, formuló recurso de apelación con indicación expresa de las razones por las cuales refuta la tesis del Juzgado de instancia (ver escrito a folios 100 a 112).- 5. En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, y no se notan la existencia de errores u omisiones en el fallo capaces de producir su nulidad.

Redacta la jueza Rojas [Nombre9]; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- El Tribunal Agrario comparte lo dispuesto en relación con los hechos probados, por tener buen sustento en los autos.- II.- El Doctor José Barahona Vargas en su condición de Procurador Asesor interpuso recurso de apelación contra la resolución dictada por el Juzgado Agrario de Cartago a las quince horas veintinueve minutos del veinticuatro de abril del dos mil doce, aduciendo que el inmueble que se pretende titular está ubicado en la franja de [Dirección4] contigua a la [Dirección5] en un sector con cobertura de robledales, cuya afectación al dominio público es previa a la Reserva Forestal Los Santos y por ello la prueba testimonial recibida es insuficiente para acreditar la posesión previa a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos del año 1939. Además, en el terreno objeto de estas diligencias se extrajo madera y carbón, con lo cual, no se cumple con el ejercicio de la posesión exigida en el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias.

III.- Con este proceso se pretende la titulación de un inmueble ubicado en San Gerardo de Copey, [Dirección6] , [Dirección7] diecisiete de la provincia de San José, con una medida de 23 hectáreas 8388.90 metros cuadrados, destinado a montaña y agricultura, según el plano catastrado SJ-1087843-2006 (ver folio 1). Dicho terreno se localiza en la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, creada por Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 5389-A del 28 de octubre de 1975 (ver folio 25). En dicho bien se ha ejercido el uso conforme del suelo para la actividad que se realiza de acuerdo a la metodología aprobada, según certificación emitida por el Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria, en el cual, se describió el inmueble con bosque primario, cultivo permanente de mora e infraestructura y zona verde en donde agregó como recomendación: "Mantener las zonas de bosque primario y las zonas de protección a la quebrada, no realizar ninguna actividad de explotación forestal comercial. En caso de los sectores de cultivo de mora es adecuado para la actividad, mantener siempre el suelo con cobertura vegetal para evitar la degradación y conservarlo adecuadamente. No utilizar en pastoreo en vista de las limitaciones del terreno, pendiente fuertemente ondulada y área pequeña" (ver estudio a folios 2 al 5). Además, como prueba de la posesión se aportó un documento mediante el cual el señor [Nombre10] vendió al promovente [Nombre1] un terreno de aproximadamente treinta manzanas, el cual es parte de montaña y parte de potrero traspasando con ello su posesión de más de veinte años, siendo dicho traspaso en fecha 08 de febrero de 1983 (ver testimonio de escritura a folio 8). De acuerdo a ese documento, la posesión que se vendió al titulante se remonta a más de 48 años, es decir, antes del año 1964. Por su parte, los testigos [Nombre11] , [Nombre12] y [Nombre13] , quienes declararon el 19 de enero del 2012, dijeron conocer el inmueble desde 1960 y 1962, época en que estaba en posesión del fundo [Nombre10] (ver folios 64 al 66). De acuerdo a lo expuesto, si se parte de que el inmueble fue afectado al dominio público a partir de la vigencia del decreto que creó la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, Nº 5389-A del 28 de octubre de 1975, la posesión a acreditar debió remontarse al menos al año 1965. En este caso, tanto la testimonial como la documental hacen alusión a una época anterior al año 1965. No obstante, la representante del Estado alega que la afectación al dominio público es anterior a esa fecha, puesto que se trata de un inmueble que tiene robles y que se localiza en una zona de [Dirección8] a ambos lados del trazado de la [Dirección9] , tal y como lo disponía el inciso a) del artículo 7º de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, derogado el 9 de noviembre de 1973 mediante Ley Nº 5385 de 30 de octubre de 1973, sin embargo, señala, dos años después se creó la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, mediante Decreto Nº 5389-A del 28 de octubre de 1975. Inclusive, cita normativa anterior a esa que imponía limitaciones a ese sector. Sobre este tema, el Tribunal ha expuesto: "...al entrar en vigencia el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias que permite la titulación de inmuebles con bosque ubicados dentro de áreas protegidas, se dió una desafectación al dominio público, debiéndose acreditar una posesión decenal anterior a la vigencia de la ley o decreto que creó el área protegida. Esa posesión, evidentemente, debió ser ejercida a título de dueño, es decir, situación que en criterio del recurrente no se dio debido a que conforme a los artículos 6 y 62 de la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos Nº 13 de 10 de enero de 1939 -ya derogada- la posesión de esa área pudo haberse ejercido sólo por medio de un contrato de arrendamiento. Esas normas disponían: "No podrán enajenarse baldíos situados en una zona ...de 2000 metros de ancho a cada lado del cazado de la [Dirección10] ."; y "El Poder Ejecutivo podrá dar en arrendamiento mediante contrato y por un plazo de cuatro años, prorrogable a voluntad de las partes, las fajas de terreno de que se habla en el artículo 6º en una extensión no mayor de doscientos cincuenta hectáreas, si se dedican a la cría o engorde de ganado, y no mayor de ciento veinticinco hectáreas, sí se destinan a cultivos agrícolas... ". Agrega, la Ley Nº 197 de 29 de agosto de 1945 reformó la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos adicionando el elemento de los robles, declarando Parque Nacional los terrenos comprendidos en la zona de dos mil metros a ambos lados de la [Dirección11] del resto del trazado por construir que tengan robles. De acuerdo a la relación de normas citada, la posesión en carácter de arrendamiento pudo haberse dado hasta la derogatoria de la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos, lo cual aconteció el 29 de agosto de 1945. Es decir, después de esa fecha, sí se pudo haber entrado a poseer esos terrenos en el carácter de dueño. Ahora bien, en esa fecha se declaró Parque Nacional a los terrenos comprendidos en la zona de [Dirección8] a ambos lados de la [Dirección12] del resto del trazado por construir que tengan robles. La categoría de Parque Nacional se mantuvo hasta que entró en vigencia la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, en la que se declaró a los terrenos ubicados en ese sector y que tuvieran robles, como de dominio público. Lo anterior significa que durante el período durante el cual esa área, dentro de la que está comprendido el inmueble a titular, constituyó parque nacional, dada su protección absoluta, no pudieron ejercerse actos posesorios agrarios hasta la vigencia de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización Nº 2825 de 14 de octubre de 1961. Después de esa fecha, la categoría de parque nacional varió, pudiendo poseerse esos terrenos en forma decenal hasta que se creó la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, mediante Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 5389-A del 28 de octubre de 1975" (Ver Voto Nº 306-F-10 de las ocho horas cuarenta minutos del trece de abril del dos mil diez). De lo anterior, se desprende que si es posible el ejercicio de la posesión en el inmueble pretendido a titular conforme al análisis expuesto. Aunado a lo anterior, es importante mencionar que según acta de reconocimiento judicial el inmueble se encuentra debidamente delimitado en sus colindancias con cercas de postes muertos con hilos de alambre y con carriles, destinado en parte a agricultura con cultivo de mora con el resto de montaña, bosque primario con especies de encino y robles, sin apreciarse exista ningún tipo de extracción; se aprecia el bosque se encuentra debidamente protegido y el área que atraviesa la quebrada se encuentra protegida (ver acta a folios 67 al 68). Con base en ello, no se evidencia ningún aspecto que acredite la extracción de madera o carbón ni en el reconocimiento judicial ni en el estudio de suelo, como lo alega el recurrente, por lo que no se encuentra justificación para el rechazo de las presentes diligencias de información posesoria, debiendo confirmarse la resolución recurrida en lo que fue objeto de apelación.

IV. VOTO SALVADO DE LA JUEZA [Nombre14]

No se comparte el Voto de mayoría al aprobar la información posesoria sobre terrenos ubicado en Reservas Forestales, por cuanto los mismos son parte del patrimonio natural del Estado y no se demostró una posesión decenal ejercida con antelación a la afectación de ese bien como demanial.- El Dominio Público -para el caso que nos interesa- es el conjunto de bienes propiedad pública del Estado, lato sensu, afectados al uso público directo o indirecto, de los habitantes, y sometido a un régimen especial de derecho público y, por tanto, exorbitante del derecho privado. El dominio público se encuentra conformado por cuatro elementos: subjetivo, objetivo, normativo y teleológico. El elemento subjetivo se refiere al titular del derecho -El Estado-; el elemento objetivo se refiere o se constituye por el bien o los bienes sobre los cuales recae el dominio público -para este caso el inmueble objeto de litigio-; el elemento normativo determina cuando un bien reúne los requisitos señalados por ley para considerarlo dominial, es el conjunto de normas que lo rigen -elenco de normas que en adelante se dirán-; y el elemento teleológico que se refiere a la finalidad que se persigue al incluir determinado bien dentro del dominio público, qué finalidad pública es asignada al bien -en este caso la protección de los recursos naturales-. Los bienes de dominio público están sometidos a un régimen jurídico especial, se encuentran sujetos a un poder de policía, y se caracterizan esencialmente por su inalienabilidad e imprescriptibilidad. Por su naturaleza están dirigidos a satisfacer necesidades públicas, este hecho impide que sobre ellos exista tenencia o posesión por parte de particulares o personas privadas, están fuera del comercio del derecho privado. Nuestra Constitución Política en su artículo 121 inciso 14) hace referencia a la Demanialidad indicándo qué bienes son susceptibles de ese régimen de propiedad pública, incluso estableciéndose en ese artículo diferentes grados de afectación pública dándose un grado de publicatio intenso y absoluto hasta otros grados menos intenso y se armonizan los derechos de los administrados con las potestades de la Administración. Nuestro Código Civil vigente que data desde el mes de abril de mil ochocientos ochenta y seis, regula las bases más importantes en materia de bienes de dominio público, concretamente en sus artículos 261 al 263. El artículo 262 del citado Código Civil, hace referencia a dos características importantes de los bienes de dominio público: a- las cosas públicas están fuera del comercio, y b- se establece la desafectación al decir que esos bienes no pueden entrar en el comercio privado, mientras legalmente no se disponga así. Como puede observarse la afectación al régimen de dominio público no depende de la naturaleza del bien, sino de la voluntad del legislador. Mediante voto número 447-91 de las quince horas treinta minutos del 21 de febrero de 1991 la Sala Constitucional manifiesta que la declaración de dominio público del bien se establece por ley, esta declaración no constituye una limitación a la propiedad, de acuerdo con el artículo 45 de la Carta Magna, pues éste artículo se refiere a propiedad privada, y los bienes de dominio público no están sujetos a propiedad privada. El Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, es un bien Demanial regulado en un amplio conjunto normativo en el que históricamente hasta la actualidad se prohíbe a los particulares realizar cualquier tipo de labor dentro de los inmuebles con esa característica y como consecuencia negándoles el derecho de posesión, haciéndose una salvedad en una situación específica que más adelante se dirá. Se considera como Patrimonio Estatal, -en su condición de Demanio Público que implica los principios de imprescriptibilidad, inalienabilidad, e inembargabilidad-, los terrenos que constituyen Reservas Nacionales que tengan Bosques. Lo anterior encuentra su desarrollo normativo en las citas que a continuación se exponen: 1) El Código Fiscal de 1865 el cual contempla un capítulo referido a los bosques, el cual fue derogado por la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos Número trece del 6 de enero de 1939 la cual incorporaba prácticamente las mismas disposiciones. Por ejemplo el artículo primero indicaba: "Que los terrenos comprendidos en los límites de la República, que no hayan sido adquiridos o inscritos en propiedad mediante título legítimo por particulares, se presumen baldíos y pertenecen al Estado."- Esta ley en general regula la prohibición para poseer e inscribir mediante el trámite de informaciones posesorias las Reservas Nacionales que sean Patrimonio Forestal, en otras palabras no son susceptibles de apropiación por parte de particulares.- La Ley de Tierras y Colonización Número 2825 del 14 de octubre de 1961 mantuvo la misma orientación y se encuentra vigente en la actualidad desde aquella fecha. Así el artículo 8 de esa Ley de Tierras y Colonización establece: "Exceptuado los casos previstos en esta ley es prohibido a los particulares encerrar con cercas, carriles, o cualquier otra forma los terrenos declarados Reservas Nacionales, derribar montes, establecer construcciones y cultivos o extraer de ellos leña, madera, bejuco, palma, y otros productos con fines de explotación. Todo acto de ese genero, si de previo no se han llenado los trámites legales y obtenido la autorización correspondiente será considerado, según el caso como usurpación de dominio público o merodeo, debiendo las autoridades ordenar la destrucción y remoción de las cercas e impedir el uso de esas tierras, sin lugar a inmdenización ni a reclamos por el valor de las mejoras y sin perjuicio de otras responsabilidades que pudieran caber a quienes incurrieren en tales faltas".- Nótese que este artículo sanciona penalmente a aquel que se introdujere a una reserva Nacional para realizar cualquier actividad en esas tierras, por lo que no se le pueda considerar a ésta acto de posesión pues su actividad sería ilegítima.- El artículo 11 de esa misma Ley, establece que pertenecen al Estado en caracter de Reservas Nacionales: "a) Todos los terrenos comprendidos entre los límites de la República que no esten inscritos como propiedad particular, de las Municipalidades o de las Instituciones Autonómas. b-) Los que no esten amparados por la posesión decenal.- c-) Los que por leyes especiales, no hayan sido destinados a la formación de colonias agrícolas.- d-) En general todo los que, no siendo de propiedad particular, no estén ocupados en servicios públicos."- Por su parte el artículo 19 de la Ley Forestal derogada número 4465 del veintitrés de noviembre de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve dispuso: "Quedan afectados a los fines de la presente ley todos los bosques y terrenos forestales ubicados en: "a-) Las tierras consideradas Reservas Nacionales..." Y el artículo 25 de esta misma ley señalaba: "La posesión de los terrenos situados en las Reservas Nacionales y fincas del Estado a que se refiere el artículo 19 de esta Ley, no causará derechos de ninguna especie y la acción reinvidicatoria del Estado, por los mismos, es imprescriptible, y la Dirección General Forestal con los medios legales a su disposición, procederá a desalojar de tales terrenos a las personas que los ocupan total o parcialmente, en el caso de que se trate de zonas protectoras, Parques Nacionales, Reservas Forestales, y Reservas Biologícas".- Con estas normas se otorga a los bosques allí mencionados una doble tutela: Primero por su condición de Reserva Nacional, en las que es prohibido realizar cualquier acto posesorio y segundo por constituir Patrimonio Forestal del Estado en el que ningún acto de posesión causará derecho de ninguna especie. Este aspecto se ve confirmado con el artículo 8 del reglamento a esa ley que dice: "Los terrenos Nacionales comprendidos dentro de las áreas declaradas Reservas Forestales son inalineables, es decir no podrán salir del dominio del Estado, y su posesión no causará derecho de ninguna especie de conformidad con lo dispuesto por los artículos 25, 49 y 57 de la Ley Forestal".- El artículo 80 de la citada Ley Forestal derogada indicaba: "Queda prohibido la invasión y ocupación de terrenos en los Parques Nacionales, Reservas Forestales y Zonas Protectoras. Esta prohibición se extiende hasta las Reservas Nacionales, hasta tanto no se haya determinado su clasificación y transferencia..." El artículo 6 de esta misma ley disponía: "Será sancionado con prisión de seis meses a dos años o con multa de quince a cien días, la persona que: a-) Explote un bosque de patrimonio forestal sin autorización legal correspondiente... b-) Invada un Parque Nacional, Reserva Biologica, Zona Protectora o Reserva Forestal...Si la invasión es en Reservas Nacionales, estará sujeta a lo estipulado en el artículo 227 del Código Penal.-" Como puede observarse los actos posesorios realizados en un bosque patrimonio Estatal resultan ser ilegítimos por lo que no pueden conferir ningún derecho de posesión.- Con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley Forestal Número 7174 del 28 de junio de 1990, se continúa con esta misma filosofía. En el artículo 32 de la citada ley establece: "El patrimonio forestal del Estado esta constituído por todos los bosques y terrenos forestales de las Reservas Nacionales...". El artículo 33 de esa misma ley dispone: "Los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado detallados en el artículo anterior, serán inembargables e inalineables, su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor y la acción reinvidicatoria del Estado por esos terrenos es imprescriptible.- En consecuencia, no son susceptibles de inscripción en el Registro Público mediante Información Posesoria, su invasión y ocupación será sancionados conforme lo dispuesto en esta Ley".- Con la actual Ley Forestal vigente número 7575 del 5 de febrero de 1996, en su título II regula un capítulo único referido exclusivamente al Patrimonio Natural del Estado, siendo la misma filosofía que se había iniciado desde 1865 con el Código Fiscal, por lo que se reitera en esta nueva normativa que el Patrimonio Natural del Estado estará constituído por los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, de las áreas declaradas inalienables, y las fincas inscritas a nombre de la Administración Pública. El artículo 14 de la misma ley forestal vigente es enfática en indicar que los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el patrimonio natural del Estado son imprescriptibles, inembargables e inalienables y su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor. La Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre Número 7317 del 21 de octubre de 1972, en sus artículos 3 y 4, además de la declaratoria como de dominio público e interés público, a la fauna y flora silvestre respectivamente, se indica que la flora y fauna silvestre es parte del Patrimonio Nacional. En este mismo sentido la Ley de Biodiversidad número 7788 del 30 de abril de 1998 en su artículo 6 declara los elementos de la biodiversidad como de dominio público, así como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente en su artículo 46 que establece la soberanía del Estado sobre la diversidad biológica. Por lo expuesto resulta un imperativo legal negar el derecho de posesión a aquellas personas que realizaran cualquier actividad en terrenos no sometidos a propiedad privada y que estén constituídos por bosques en reservas Nacionales.- A esa prohibición imperativa mediante la Ley Forestal Número 7575 del año 1996, que reforma el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, establece una salvedad a la filosofía que hasta ahora se ha expuesto, y es que se posibilita la titulación de bosques cuando dentro de los mismos se haya desarrollado lo que se entiende como posesión ecológica. El terreno objeto de esta información posesoria, es Patrimonio Natural del Estado, pues está ubicado dentro los límites de la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, según se desprende del estudio de del Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación visible a folio 2.- Es es claro dicho terreno es Patrimonio Natural del Estado, desde antes de que se crearan esos Decretos como ya se expuso en el historial normativo supra. Cuando se discute la posesión sobre un bien demanial, sólo cabrá esa discusión cuando se haya adquirido el derecho antes de que se haya declarado el bien como de dominio público. Así mismo, el derecho de propiedad en tales casos sólo podrá obtenerse cuando el titular haya demostrado una posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley que declara el objeto como Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Como ya se ha expuesto la cronología legal que tutela el Patrimonio Natural del Estado, la ley que debe tomarse en consideración para realizar el cómputo de la posesión decenal de los particulares, es la Ley de Tierras y Colonización número 2825 del 14 de octubre de 1961, normativa actualmente vigente. No debe considerarse el Código Fiscal de 1865 y la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos de 1939, pues fueron normas que hacían referencia al tópico en forma genérica, además que no son disposiciones vigentes en la actualidad, no es sino hasta con la actual Ley de Tierras y Colonización que se viene a definir y regular en forma clara la Propiedad o Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Las leyes posteriores como Ley Forestal y otras que se han citado en este considerando, son complementarias a la referida Ley de Tierras y Colonización. Para el caso concreto, de la prueba testimonial recabada no se demuestra esa posesión decenal en los términos de la normativa aquí expuesta, pues en este sentido es que se consigna este voto salvado, para indicar el promovente debió demostrar diez años de posesión antes de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización. Además, si bien es cierto, el inciso 1 del artículo 7 de la citada Ley de Tierras y Colonización, fue derogado en 1973, norma en la que se disponía como Parque Nacional la zona de dos mil metros a ambos lados del trazado de la [Dirección9] , en donde existan robles y que estableció el régimen restrictivo a que quedaron sujetas dichas áreas, por lo que dura 2 años desafectada, pero en 1975 se vuelve afectar cuando se crea la zona protectora Los Santos, entonces los años de posesión que se aduce por parte del promovente desde 1960 no son lícitos, pues es una posesión ilegítima y no puede generar derecho alguno. Nótese el terreno es bosque primario, con especies de encino y robledales, mismos en extinción, a nivel latinoamericano, pues ese es una de las pocas manchas de bosque de esa especie que existe en latinoamérica y por tal motivo es que se da la afectación. No se demostró la existencia de una posesión decenal antes de la afectación, sea no se demostró los diez años anteriores a Ley de Tierras y Colonización de 1961.- por lo que debió declararse sin lugar la información posesoria revocando el fallo venido en apelación.-

POR TANTO:

Se confirma la sentencia recurrida en lo que ha sido objeto de apelación.

(5 $/$6. !+ [Nombre15] [Nombre9] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A 2&-82:4 ,' (')!8$*7(:3 9RFMXRZT47LG61 HGIAXDJWHZS61 [Nombre16] - [Nombre14] JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre14] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

Possessory titling in Los Santos Forest Reserve is possible if prior decennial possession is provenTitulación posesoria en Reserva Forestal Los Santos es posible si se acredita posesión decenal previa

IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Name14]

IV. DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE [Name14]

IV. VOTO SALVADO DE LA JUEZA [Nombre14]

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp