Rejection of PSA liquidation in agrarian sentence enforcementRechazo de liquidación de PSA en ejecución de sentencia agraria

VOTO N° 003-F-16 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- At fifteen hours and twenty minutes on the thirteenth of January of two thousand sixteen.- PROCESO DE EJECUCIÓN DE SENTENCIA filed by AZUCARERA EL VIEJO SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED1 - - , represented by its vice-president with the powers of a generalissimo proxy without limit of sum [Nombre1], of legal age, married in first nuptials, mechanical engineer, resident of Alajuela, identity card number CED2 - - ; within the PROCESO ORDINARIO established by AZUCARERA EL VIEJO SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED1 - - , represented by [Nombre1], with the qualities previously stated; against CONSULTORÍA JURÍDICA INTERNACIONAL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED3 - - , represented by [Nombre2], of legal age, married once, attorney, resident of Guadalupe, identity card number CED4 - - , bar association number one one six four nine, in his capacity as president with the powers of a generalissimo proxy without limit of sum and in his personal capacity, and [Nombre3], of legal age, single, farmer, resident of Guanacaste, identity card number CED5 - - . FONDO NACIONAL DE FINANCIAMIENTO FORESTAL (FONAFIFO), legal entity identification number CED6 - - , represented by its executive director [Nombre4], of legal age, married once, agronomist, resident of Sabanilla, identity card number CED7 - - , is considered an interested party, and FIDEICOMISOS EMPRESARIALES FIDESA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA (FIDESA), legal entity identification number CED8 - - , represented by its vice-president with the powers of a generalissima proxy without limit of sum Lisa Bejarano Valverde, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Cartago, identity card number CED9 - - , as a coadjuvant. Acting as special judicial attorneys; for the plaintiff, the lawyer Magda González Salas, of legal age, widow, attorney and notary, resident of San José, identity card number CED10 - - , bar association number eight six two five; and for the defendant Esteban David Jaén Barrantes, the licensed attorneys Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, of legal age, single, attorney and notary, resident of San José, identity card number CED11 - two eight eight - seven three eight, bar association number one one zero zero seven, and [Nombre2], with the qualities previously indicated. Processed before the Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- The lawyer [Nombre5], in her capacity as special judicial attorney for the plaintiff-executing party, filed the present execution of judgment requesting that the following be declared: "DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS (Damages): DAÑOS (Direct Damages): Payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) foregone from the 40 hectares at a rate of $64 per Hectare. 1. Liquidated with the complaint.....¢2,662,400.00 colones. 2. Benefits after the complaint until today, December 7, 2014, 7 years and 4 months.....¢10,043,733.33. Total benefits owed.....¢12,706,133.33. PERJUICIOS (Consequential Damages): Legal interest (intereses legales) foregone on the unpaid sums from the filing of the complaint on 8/07/2007 until 12/7/2014: ¢8,192,523.71 TOTAL DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS:.....¢20,898,657.04. COSTAS (Costs): PROCESALES (Procedural Costs): Property certification.....¢2,800.00. Plaintiff and defendant legal capacity (personería).....¢5,600.00. Plans.....¢8,400.00. Expert.....¢300,000.00. Total.....¢316,800.00. COSTAS PERSONALES (Personal Costs) ON THE ECONOMIC CONTENT OF THE PROCEEDING. Fees up to the judgment.....¢3,134,798.55. Fees for the Execution of Judgment.....¢1,567,399.27. Total Personal Costs.....¢4,702,197.82.", (folio 748 to 749).- 2.- The Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia, by means of the resolution issued at ten hours nineteen minutes on December eight, two thousand fourteen (See folio 771 front and back), granted a hearing for a term of three days to the defendant-executed party, who was duly notified, and responded negatively to the present execution of judgment in the terms visible at folios 786 to 787.- 3.- Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, of the Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia, by means of judgment No. 88-S-2015, issued at fourteen hours forty-three minutes on March twenty-seven, two thousand fifteen, resolved: “POR TANTO: The present demanda de ejecución de sentencia de ordinario filed by AZUCARERA EL VIEJO S.A. against [Nombre3] is declared PARTIALLY WITH MERIT, as indicated: 1) The claim regarding the consequential damages (perjuicios) claimed by the executing party is rejected (meaning what was "foregone" from FONAFIFO and the legal interest (intereses legales) that said sum would have earned). 2) The executed party is ordered to pay SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX COLONES for PERSONAL COSTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ORDINARY PROCEEDING and for PROCEDURAL COSTS (COSTAS PROCESALES) must pay the executing party ONE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE COLONES AND THIRTY-FIVE CÉNTIMOS. The referenced amounts must be paid by the executed party as of the finality of this resolution. 3) The execution proceeding is resolved without a special award of costs (costas).", (folios 828 back to 829).- 4.- The licensed attorneys Magda González Salas and Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, in their capacities as special judicial attorneys for Azucarera el Viejo Sociedad Anónima, and for [Nombre3], respectively, filed an recurso de apelación (appeal) with express indications of the reasons on which they relied to refute the thesis of the lower court, (folios 830 to 835; and 836 to 852 respectively).- 5.- In the substantiation of the proceeding, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and no errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the ruling are observed.- Drafted by Judge ULATE CHACÓN, and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: The statement of facts held as proven, in the execution phase, is shared, as it has good support in the case file.

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: Likewise, what is provided regarding unproven facts is shared, as being of influence in the final decision.

III.- The lower court partially rejected the execution regarding the collection of daños y perjuicios (damages), considering that they were not properly liquidated, nor proven. Furthermore, it ordered the executed party to pay 638,976 colones for personal costs (costas personales) of the principal ordinary proceeding, and, for procedural costs (costas procesales), the sum of 140,975.35 colones. Additionally, it resolved the execution without a special award of costs (costas).

IV.- Appeal of the plaintiff: The plaintiff argues that, by the final judgment of this Tribunal, No. 1047-F-2013, the payment of daños y perjuicios was imposed, consisting of what the plaintiff forewent from the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, as well as the legal interest (intereses legales) from the filing of the complaint until its effective payment, which would be liquidated in the execution of judgment. Therefore, the liquidation presented aims to define the specific amount applicable to what was declared and granted in the judgment. For this reason, it points out, it is improper to attempt to review considered claims, as the appealed judgment produces a nugatory effect against what was resolved by the tribunal. The liquidation, it points out, materializes the daños y perjuicios established, as that claim was claimed and recognized. The liquidated amounts, it argues, do not represent fictitious or unsubstantiated numbers. Based on the foregoing, it requests that the resolution be revoked and that the liquidation of the daños y perjuicios proposed be accepted, as its rejection is not appropriate.

IV.- The grievances of the plaintiff are not receivable. Article 62, subsection b) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, establishes that it is the responsibility of the interested party to present the respective liquidation, with the necessary proof. Thus, subsection c) indicates: "The defendant shall be granted a hearing regarding the liquidation, for a term of five days. It is the obligation of the executing party to provide the proof that serves as the basis for the liquidation and to offer it, where appropriate, giving all indications that may be necessary, so that the tribunal may urge its production. In special cases, the tribunal may schedule a hearing for such purposes." (the underlining is not from the original). If we observe the memorial at folios 748 to 749, presented as liquidation, what the party does is merely a breakdown of what it believes it should be indemnified for environmental services (servicios ambientales) and interest, but it does not offer specific proof in relation to such items, as it only refers to the final judgment, which although it is true it grants them, also indicates in its operative part: "...which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment." And in this case, proof was essential to determine the areas that could have been susceptible to submission to the regime of pago por servicios ambientales, the type of service, the term, and the amounts of a potential contract. However, no proof was presented, neither documentary, nor technical, and much less actuarial. Nor did the party give absolutely any necessary indication to urge the production of proof aimed at demonstrating the liquidation and, especially, the items charged. It would have been different if, in the final judgment, the number of hectares, the type of environmental service, and the amount per hectare had been established, because in that case the judgment would have established the parameters for the liquidation and execution, but the liquidation, respective proof, and quantification thereof were left for the execution phase.

V.- Appeal of the defendant: The special judicial attorney for the defendant also appealed. 1) Regarding the procedural costs (costas procesales), he considers that suitable documents and invoices are not provided to demonstrate payment, even though the folios where they are located are cited, therefore it is requested that said items be rejected. 2) Regarding the procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales), he adds, they must be determined proportionally, as this is a proceeding with multiple defendants. If the costs were imposed on one of the executed parties, he argues, a third of the liquidated claims should correspond, so the defendant should only pay 259,983.77 in personal and procedural costs. 3) He argues the impropriety of executing the judgment against a party that is not current, as it is granted in favor of Azucarera el Viejo S.A., whereas the latter assigned the entirety of the litigious rights in favor of Fideicomisos Empresariales S.A. 4) Finally, he argues, an object different from what was ordered in the judgment is being executed, as it has not been accredited that the final property includes the defendant's area.

VI.- The appellant is not correct in his grievances. 1.) The procedural costs (costas procesales) are sufficiently proven, as documents related to the property certification do appear within the case file, folios 2 and 3, the plan certifications, folios 4 to 14, the notarial legal capacities (personerías notariales), folios 33, 34 and 47, and the expert opinion, at folios 198, 206, 221 and 277, which are sufficient to be valued in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, as they were effective and necessary expenses incurred by the plaintiff to assert its rights. The argument that a stamped invoice or other formal documents must be required is dismissed. 2.) Regarding the issue of proportionality, it is a completely inadmissible argument, as one can see that the operative part of the ruling declared the claim with merit only against [Nombre3], ordering him to pay both costs, personal and procedural (folio 680). The remaining co-defendants were not ordered to pay. 3.) The third claim also makes no sense, given that in the same execution judgment, it was ordered to consider "...as an interested party and coadjuvant of the plaintiff," the company Fideicomisos Empresariales FIDESA Sociedad Anónima (folio 680), hence what is alleged is improper, as it maintains property under a trust (propiedad fideicometida). 4.) Regarding the fourth and final grievance, it is absolutely improper, given that the execution judgment contains no pronouncement whatsoever on the property that is the subject of the controversy. It is a precluded matter (see record of placement in possession at folio 822), absolutely unrelated to the judgment being executed. Although some proven facts are listed, they refer to daños y perjuicios—left to be liquidated and proven in the execution phase—but not to the material delivery of the property that is the subject of the litigation.

VI.- By virtue of all of the foregoing, as the appellants are not correct, it is necessary to confirm the execution judgment.

POR TANTO:

The execution judgment, issued at fourteen hours forty-three minutes on March twenty-seven, two thousand fifteen, is confirmed.

[Nombre6] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre7] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre8] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Processed before the Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia.-                                         WHEREAS:

            **1.-** Attorney [Nombre5], in her capacity as special judicial representative of the plaintiff-enforcing party, filed the present execution of sentence (ejecución de sentencia) requesting that the following be declared: *"**DAMAGES (DAÑOS) AND LOSSES (PERJUICIOS): DAMAGES:** Environmental services payments (Pago de servicios ambientales) foregone on the 40 hectares at a rate of $64 per Hectare. 1. Liquidated with the complaint.....¢2,662,400.00 colones. 2. Benefits after the complaint until today, December 7, 2014, 7 years and 4 months.....¢10,043,733.33. Total benefit owed.....**¢12,706,133.33.** **LOSSES:** Legal interest foregone on the unpaid amounts from the filing of the complaint on 08/07/2007 until 12/07/2014: ¢8,192,523.71 **TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES:.....¢20,898,657.04**. **COSTS (COSTAS): PROCEDURAL:** Property certification.....¢2,800.00. Plaintiff and defendant legal capacity certifications.....¢5,600.00. Plans.....¢8,400.00. Expert.....¢300,000.00. Total.....**¢316,800.00. PERSONAL COSTS ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE PROCEEDING.** Fees up to the judgment.....¢3,134,798.55. Fees for the Execution of Sentence.....¢1,567,399.27. Total Personal Costs.....**¢4,702,197.82.**"*, (folio 748 to 749).-              **2.-** The Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, by resolution issued at ten hours and nineteen minutes on December eight, two thousand fourteen (See folio 771 front and back), granted a hearing for a period of three days to the defendant-executed party, who was duly notified, and responded negatively to the present execution of sentence (ejecución de sentencia) in the terms visible at folios 786 to 787.-              **3.-** Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, of the Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, by means of judgment No. 88-S-2015, issued at fourteen hours and forty-three minutes on March twenty-seven, two thousand fifteen, resolved: *“**THEREFORE**: The present enforcement of judgment (ejecución de sentencia) claim from the ordinary proceeding filed by **AZUCARERA EL VIEJO S.A.** against **[Nombre3]** is declared **PARTIALLY WITH MERIT**, as follows: **1)** The claim related to the losses (perjuicios) sought by the enforcing party (understood as the amounts "foregone" from FONAFIFO and the legal interest that such sum would have earned) is rejected. **2)** The executed party is ordered to pay **SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX COLONES** for **PERSONAL COSTS OF THE MAIN ORDINARY PROCEEDING**, and for **PROCEDURAL COSTS**, it must pay the enforcing party **ONE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE COLONES AND THIRTY-FIVE CÉNTIMOS**. The aforementioned amounts must be paid by the executed party as of the finality of this resolution. **3)** The execution proceeding is resolved without a special award of costs.”*, (folios 828 back to 829).-              **4.-** Attorneys Magda González Salas and Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, in their capacities as special judicial representatives of Azucarera el Viejo Sociedad Anónima, and of [Nombre3], filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) with express indications of the reasons upon which they relied to refute the thesis of the trial court, (folios 830 to 835; and 836 to 852 respectively).-              **5.-** In the processing of the proceeding, the legal requirements have been observed, and no errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the ruling are observed.- Drafted by Judge **ULATE CHACÓN, and,** **WHEREAS**:

**I.**- PROVEN FACTS: The statement of facts held as proven, in the execution phase, is shared, as it has good support in the case file.

**II.**- UNPROVEN FACTS: Likewise, what is ordered regarding unproven facts is shared, as they are influential in the final decision.

**III**.- The lower court judge partially rejected the execution regarding the collection of damages and losses, considering that they were neither properly liquidated nor proven. Furthermore, she sentenced the executed party to pay 638,976 colones for personal costs of the main ordinary proceeding, and, for procedural costs, the sum of 140,975.35 colones. Additionally, she resolved the execution without a special award of costs.

**IV.**- <span style="text-decoration:underline">Appeal by the plaintiff</span>: The plaintiff argues that, by final judgment of this Tribunal, No. 1047-F-2013, the payment of damages and losses consisting of what the claimant forewent from the National Forest Financing Fund (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal) was imposed, as well as the legal interest from the filing of the complaint until its effective payment, which would be liquidated in the execution of sentence. Therefore, the presented liquidation aims to define the specific and applicable amount for what was declared and granted in the judgment. For this reason, it points out, it is improper to attempt to review already considered points, as the appealed judgment produces a nugatory effect against what was resolved by the tribunal. The liquidation, it points out, materializes the established damages and losses, since that point was claimed and recognized. The liquidated amounts, it argues, do not represent fictitious or uncaused numbers. Based on the foregoing, it requests that the resolution be revoked and the liquidation of the proposed damages and losses be accepted, as their rejection is not appropriate.

**IV.**- <span style="text-decoration:underline">The grievances of the plaintiff are not admissible</span>. Article 62 subsection b) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establishes that it is the responsibility of the interested party to present the respective liquidation, with the necessary evidence. Thus, subsection c) indicates: "The losing party shall be granted a hearing on the liquidation, for a term of five days. *It is the obligation of the enforcing party to provide the evidence that serves as the basis for the liquidation and to offer it, as applicable, giving all necessary indications, so that the court may order its production. In special cases, the court may schedule a hearing appearance for such purposes*". (the underline is not from the original). If we observe the brief at folios 748 to 749, presented as the liquidation, the only thing the party does is provide a breakdown of what it believes it should be compensated for environmental services and interest, but it does not offer specific evidence in relation to such items, as it only refers to the final judgment, which, although it is true that it grants them, also indicates in its operative part: "...*which shall be liquidated in the execution of sentence*". And in this case, the evidence was essential to determine the areas that could have been eligible for submission to the environmental services payment (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) regime, the type of service, the term, and the amounts of a potential contract. However, no evidence was presented, neither documentary, nor technical, nor actuarial. Nor did the party give absolutely any necessary indication to request the production of evidence aimed at demonstrating the liquidation and, especially, the items being charged. It would have been different if the final judgment had established the number of hectares, the type of environmental service, and the amount per hectare, because in that case the judgment would have established the parameters for the liquidation and the execution, but the liquidation, the respective evidence, and its quantification were left for the execution phase.

**V.**- <span style="text-decoration:underline">Appeal by the defendant</span>: The special judicial representative of the defendant also appealed. 1) Regarding procedural costs, he considers that suitable documents and invoices were not provided to demonstrate payment, even though the folios where they are located are cited, therefore requesting that said items be rejected. 2) Regarding procedural and personal costs, he adds, they must be determined proportionally, as it is a proceeding with multiple defendants. If the costs were imposed on one of the executed parties, he argues, a third of the liquidated amounts should correspond, so the defendant would only be responsible for paying 259,983.77 in personal and procedural costs. 3) He argues the impropriety of executing the judgment against a party that is not current, since it was granted in favor of Azucarera el Viejo S.A., given that the latter assigned all the litigious rights in favor of Fideicomisos Empresariales S.A. 4) Finally, he argues that an object different from what was ordered in the judgment is being executed, since it has not been accredited that the final farm includes the defendant's area.

**VI.**- The appellant is not correct in his grievances. 1.) The procedural costs are sufficiently demonstrated, as the documents related to the property certification, folios 2 and 3, the plan certifications, folios 4 to 14, the notarial certifications of legal capacity, folios 33, 34 and 47, and the expert report, at folios 198, 206, 221 and 277, are indeed found within the file, which are sufficient to be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, as they were effective and necessary expenses incurred by the plaintiff to enforce their rights. The argument that a stamped invoice or other formal documents should be required is dismissed. 2.) Regarding the issue of proportionality, it is a totally inadmissible argument, because the operative part of the ruling declared the complaint with merit only against [Nombre3], sentencing him to pay both costs, personal and procedural (folio 680). The other co-defendants were not sentenced. 3.) The third claim also makes no sense, given that in the same execution judgment, it was ordered that the company Fideicomisos Empresariales FIDESA Sociedad Anónima be held "...as an interested and coadjuvant party to the plaintiff" (folio 680), hence what is alleged is improper, as the latter maintains a property in trust (fideicometida). 4.) Regarding the fourth and final grievance, it is absolutely improper, given that the execution judgment contains no pronouncement whatsoever on the property that is the object of the controversy. This is a precluded issue (see record of placing in possession at folio 822), absolutely unrelated to the judgment being executed.

Although some proven facts are listed, they refer to the damages and losses —left to be liquidated and demonstrated in the execution phase— but not to the material delivery of the property in dispute.

**VI.**- By virtue of all the foregoing, since the appellants are not correct, the confirmation of the execution judgment is required.

**POR TANTO:** The execution judgment, of fourteen hours forty-three minutes on the twenty-seventh of March two thousand fifteen, is confirmed.

Total Costas personales.....¢4,702,197.82.", (folios 748 to 749).- 2.- The Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, by resolution at ten hours nineteen minutes on December eight, two thousand fourteen (See folio 771 front and back), granted a hearing period of three days to the defendant-enforcement debtor, who was duly notified, and responded negatively to this enforcement of judgment as set forth in folios 786 to 787.- 3.- Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, of the Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, through judgment No. 88-S-2015, at fourteen hours forty-three minutes on March twenty-seven, two thousand fifteen, resolved: "POR TANTO: Se declara PARCIALMENTE CON LUGAR the present complaint for enforcement of ordinary judgment filed by AZUCARERA EL VIEJO S.A. against [Nombre3] , as follows: 1) The claim for damages sought by the enforcement creditor is rejected (understood as amounts "not received" from FONAFIFO and the legal interest that such sum would have earned). 2) The enforcement debtor is ordered to pay SEISCIENTOS TREINTA Y OCHO MIL NOVECIENTOS SETENTA Y SEIS COLONES for COSTAS PERSONALES DEL ORDINARIO PRINCIPAL and for COSTAS PROCESALES he must pay the enforcement creditor CIENTO CUARENTA MIL NOVECIENTOS SETENTA Y CINCO COLONES CON TREINTA Y CINCO CÉNTIMOS. The referenced amounts must be paid by the enforcement debtor once this resolution becomes final. 3) The enforcement process is resolved without a special award of costs.", (folios 828 back to 829).- 4.- Attorneys Magda González Salas and Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, in their capacity as special judicial representatives of Azucarera el Viejo Sociedad Anónima and of [Nombre3] , respectively, filed an appeal with express indications of the reasons upon which they relied to refute the lower court's thesis, (folios 830 to 835; and 836 to 852 respectively).- 5.- In the processing of the case, the legal requirements have been observed, and no errors or omissions capable of causing the nullity of the ruling are apparent.- Judge ULATE CHACÓN writes, and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: The statement of facts taken as proven, in the enforcement phase, is shared, as it has good support in the record.

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: Similarly, what is ordered regarding unproven facts is shared, as they are of influence in the final decision.

III.- The trial court partially rejected the enforcement regarding the collection of damages, considering that they were not duly liquidated nor proven. Furthermore, it ordered the enforcement debtor to pay 638,976 colones for costas personales of the main ordinary proceeding, and, for costas procesales, the sum of 140,975.35 colones. Additionally, it resolved the enforcement without a special award of costs.

IV.- Appeal of the plaintiff: The plaintiff argues that, by the final judgment of this Court, No. 1047-F-2013, the payment of damages was imposed, consisting of what the plaintiff stopped receiving from the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, as well as legal interest from the filing of the complaint until its effective payment, which were to be liquidated in enforcement of judgment. Therefore, the liquidation presented seeks to define the specific amount applicable to what was declared and granted in the judgment. For this reason, it is inappropriate to attempt to review considered aspects, since the appealed judgment produces a nugatory effect against what was resolved by the court. The liquidation, they point out, materializes the established damages, as that aspect was claimed and recognized. The liquidated amounts, they argue, do not represent fictitious or uncaused figures. For the foregoing, they request that the resolution be revoked and the liquidation of the proposed damages be accepted, as its rejection is not appropriate.

IV.- The grievances of the plaintiff are not accepted. Article 62, subsection b) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establishes that it is up to the interested party to present the respective liquidation, with the necessary evidence. Thus, subsection c) indicates: "The defeated party shall be granted a hearing on the liquidation, for a period of five days. It is the obligation of the enforcement creditor to provide the evidence that serves as the basis for the liquidation and to offer it, where appropriate, giving all necessary indications, so that the court may facilitate its production. In special cases, the court may schedule a hearing for such purposes". (the underlining is not from the original). If we observe the brief at folios 748 to 749, presented as a liquidation, the only thing the party does is a breakdown of what they believe they should be indemnified for environmental services (servicios ambientales) and interest, but they do not offer specific proof in relation to such items, as they solely refer to the final judgment, which, although it is true grants them, also indicates in its operative part: "...which shall be liquidated in enforcement of judgment". And in this case, proof was essential to determine the areas that could have been susceptible to submission to the payment for environmental services (pago por servicios ambientales) regime, the type of service, the term, and the amounts of a potential contract. However, no proof was presented, neither documentary, nor technical, much less actuarial. Nor did the party give any absolutely necessary indication to facilitate the production of proof aimed at demonstrating the liquidation and, especially, the amounts charged. It would have been different if, in the final judgment, the number of hectares, the type of environmental service, and the amount per hectare had been established, because in that case the judgment would have established the parameters of the liquidation and execution, but the liquidation and the respective proof, as well as its quantification, were left for the enforcement phase.

V.- Appeal of the defendant: The special judicial representative of the defendant also appealed. 1) Regarding the costas procesales, he considers that suitable documents and invoices to demonstrate payment are not provided, even though the folios where they are found are cited, so it is requested that said amounts be rejected. 2) Regarding the costas procesales and personales, he adds, they must be determined proportionally, as it is a process with multiple defendants. If the costs were imposed on one of the enforcement debtors, he argues, one-third of the liquidated amounts should correspond, so the defendant would only be responsible for paying 259,983.77 in costas personales and procesales. 3) He argues the impropriety of enforcing the judgment against a party that is not the current one, since it is granted in favor of Azucarera el Viejo S.A., given that the latter assigned all of its litigious rights in favor of Fideicomisos Empresariales S.A. 4) Finally, he argues, an object different from what was ordered in the judgment is being enforced, as it has not been proven that the final farm includes the defendant's area.

VI.- The appellant is not correct in his grievances. 1.) The costas procesales are sufficiently demonstrated, as the documents related to the property certification, folios 2 and 3, the plan certifications, folios 4 to 14, the notarial personerías, folios 33, 34 and 47, and the expert opinion, at folios 198, 206, 221 and 277, are indeed in the record, which are sufficient to be valued in accordance with Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, since they were effective and necessary expenses incurred by the plaintiff to assert their rights. The argument that a stamped invoice or formal documents of another nature must be required is dismissed. 2.) Regarding the issue of proportionality, it is a totally inadmissible argument, for see that the operative part of the ruling declared the complaint with merit only against [Nombre3] , ordering the latter to pay both costs, both personales and procesales (folio 680). The remaining co-defendants were not ordered to pay. 3.) The third claim also makes no sense, given that in the same enforcement judgment, it was ordered to have "...as an interested and coadjuvant party of the plaintiff", the company Fideicomisos Empresariales FIDESA Sociedad Anónima (folio 680), hence what is alleged is improper, as the latter holds a property in trust (propiedad fideicometida). 4.) Regarding the fourth and final grievance, it is absolutely improper, given that the enforcement judgment contains no pronouncement whatsoever on the property that is the subject of the controversy. This is a precluded issue (see record of delivery of possession at folio 822), absolutely alien to the judgment being enforced. Although some proven facts are listed, they are referred to the damages - left to be liquidated and demonstrated in the enforcement phase -, and not to the material delivery of the property subject to the litigation.

VI.- By virtue of all the foregoing, as the appellants are not correct, the enforcement judgment must be confirmed.

POR TANTO:

The enforcement judgment of fourteen hours forty-three minutes on March twenty-seven, two thousand fifteen, is confirmed.

VOTO N° 003-F-16 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las quince horas y veinte minutos del trece de enero de dos mil dieciséis.- PROCESO DE EJECUCIÓN DE SENTENCIA interpuesto por AZUCARERA EL VIEJO SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula de persona jurídica número CED1 - - , representada por su vicepresidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma [Nombre1] , mayor, casado en primeras nupcias, ingeniero mecánico, vecino de Alajuela, cédula de identidad número CED2 - - ; dentro del PROCESO ORDINARIO establecido por AZUCARERA EL VIEJO SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula de persona jurídica número CED1 - - , representada por [Nombre1] , de calidades anteriormente dichas; contra CONSULTORÍA JURÍDICA INTERNACIONAL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula de persona jurídica número CED3 - - , representada por [Nombre2] , mayor, casado una vez, abogado, vecino de Guadalupe, cédula de identidad número CED4 - - , colegiado número uno uno seis cuatro nueve, en su condición de presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma y en su carácter personal, y [Nombre3] , mayor, soltero, agricultor, vecino de Guanacaste, cédula de identidad número CED5 - - . Se tiene como parte interesada a FONDO NACIONAL DE FINANCIAMIENTO FORESTAL (FONAFIFO), cédula de persona jurídica número CED6 - - , representada por su director ejecutivo [Nombre4] , mayor, casado una vez, ingeniero agrónomo, vecino de Sabanilla, cédula de identidad número CED7 - - , y como coadyuvante a FIDEICOMISOS EMPRESARIALES FIDESA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA (FIDESA), cédula de persona jurídica número CED8 - - , representada por su vicepresidenta con facultades de apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma Lisa Bejarano Valverde, mayor, soltera, abogada, vecina de Cartago, cédula de identidad número CED9 - - . Actúan como apoderados especiales judiciales; de la parte actora, la letrada Magda González Salas, mayor, viuda, abogada y notaria, vecina de San José, cédula de identidad número CED10 - - , colegiada número ocho seis dos cinco; y del accionado Esteban David Jaén Barrantes, los licenciados Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, mayor, soltero, abogado y notario, vecino de San José, cédula de identidad número CED11 - dos ocho ocho - siete tres ocho, colegiado número uno uno cero cero siete, y [Nombre2] , de calidades anteriormente indicadas. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- La letrada [Nombre5] , en su condición de apoderada especial judicial de la parte actora-ejecutante, interpuso la presente ejecución de sentencia solicitando que se declare lo siguiente: "DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: DAÑOS: Pago de servicios ambientales dejados de percibir de las 40 hectáreas a razón de $64 por Hectárea. 1. Liquidado con la demanda.....¢2.662.400,00 colones. 2. Beneficios después de la demanda hasta el día de hoy 7 de Diciembre del 2014, 7 años y 4 meses.....¢10.043.733,33. Total beneficio adeudados.....¢12.706.133,33. PERJUICIOS: Intereses legales dejados de percibir por las sumas no pagadas desde la presentación de la demanda 7/08/2007 hasta el 7/12/2014: ¢8.192.523,71 TOTAL DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS:.....¢20,898,657,04. COSTAS: PROCESALES: Certificación de propiedad.....¢2,800,00. Personería actora y demandada.....¢5,600,00. Planos.....¢8,400,00. Perito.....¢300,000,00. Total.....¢316,800,00. COSTAS PERSONALES SOBRE EL CONTENIDO ECONÓMICO DEL PROCESO. Honorarios hasta la sentencia.....¢3,134,798,55. Honorarios de la Ejecución de Sentencia.....¢1,567,399,27. Total Costas personales.....¢4,702,197,82.", (folio 748 al 749).- 2.- El Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia, mediante la resolución de las diez horas diecinueve minutos del ocho de diciembre del dos mil catorce (Ver folio 771 frente y vuelto), confirió audiencia por el plazo de tres días a la parte demandada-ejecutada, quién fue debidamente notificada, y contestando de forma negativa la presente ejecución de sentencia en los términos visibles a folios 786 al 787.- 3.- La jueza Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, del Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Guanacaste, Liberia, mediante la sentencia Nº 88-S-2015, de las catorce horas cuarenta y tres minutos del veintisiete de marzo del dos mil quince, resolvió: “POR TANTO: Se declara PARCIALMENTE CON LUGAR la presente demanda de ejecución de sentencia de ordinario interpuesta por AZUCARERA EL VIEJO S.A. contra [Nombre3] , en la forma que se indica: 1) Se rechaza lo relativo al extremo de perjuicios reclamados por la ejecutante (entiéndase lo "dejado de recibir" del FONAFIFO y los intereses legales que dicha suma devengase). 2) Se condena al ejecutado al pago de SEISCIENTOS TREINTA Y OCHO MIL NOVECIENTOS SETENTA Y SEIS COLONES por COSTAS PERSONALES DEL ORDINARIO PRINCIPAL y por las COSTAS PROCESALES deberá cancelar a la ejecutante CIENTO CUARENTA MIL NOVECIENTOS SETENTA Y CINCO COLONES CON TREINTA Y CINCO CÉNTIMOS. Los montos referidos deberán ser cancelados por la parte ejecutada a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución. 3) Se resuelve el proceso de ejecución sin especial condenatoria en costas. ", (folios 828 vuelto al 829).- 4.- Los licenciados Magda González Salas y Ángel Roberto Reyes Castillo, en sus condiciones de apoderados especiales judiciales de Azucarera el Viejo Sociedad Anónima, y de [Nombre3] , interpusieron recurso de apelación con indicaciones expresas de las razones en que se apoyó para refutar la tesis del juzgado de instancia, (folios 830 al 835; y 836 al 852 respectivamente).- 5.- En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, y no se observa la existencia de errores u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo.- Redacta el juez ULATE CHACÓN, y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: Se comparte la relación de hechos tenidos por demostrados, en fase de ejecución, al tener buen sustento en los autos.

II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: De igual modo, se comparte lo dispuesto en cuanto a hechos indemostrados, por ser de influencia en la decisión final.

III.- La a-quo rechazó parcialmente la ejecución en cuanto al cobro de daños y perjuicios, al considerar que no fueron liquidados debidamente, ni probados. Además, condenó al ejecutado al pago de 638.976 colones por costas personales del ordinario principal, y, por costas procesales, la suma de 140.975,35 colones. Además, resolvió la ejecución sin especial condena en costas.

IV.- Apelación de la parte actora: Aduce la actora, que por sentencia firme de este Tribunal, No. 1047-F-2013, se impuso el pago de los daños y perjuicios consistentes en lo que dejó de recibir el accionante del Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, así como los intereses legales desde la presentación de la demanda hasta su efectivo pago, los cuales se liquidarían en ejecución de sentencia. Por ello la liquidación presentada pretende definir el monto específico y aplicable a lo declarado y concedido en sentencia. Por ello, señala, es improcedente pretender revisar extremos considerados, siendo que la sentencia apelada produce efecto nugatorio contra lo resuelto por el tribunal. La liquidación, señala, materializa los daños y perjuicios establecidos, pues ese extremo fue reclamado y reconocido. Las cantidades liquidadas, aduce, no representan números ficticios o incausados. Por lo expuesto pide se revoque la resolución y se acoja la liquidación de los daños y perjuicios planteados, pues no resulta procedente su rechazo.

IV.- Los agravios de la parte actora no son de recibo. El artículo 62 inciso b) de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, establece que corresponde a la parte interesada presentar la liquidación respectiva, con la prueba necesaria. Así el inciso c) indica: "De la liquidación se correrá audiencia la vencido, por el término de cinco días. Es obligación del ejecutante aportar la prueba que sirva de fundamento a la liquidación y ofrecerla, en su caso, dando todas las indicaciones que fueren necesarias, a fin de que el tribunal pueda instar a su evacuación. En casos especiales, el tribunal podrá hacer señalamiento de comparecencia para tales efectos".(o subrayado no es del original). Si observamos el memorial de folios 748 a 749, presentado como liquidación, lo único que hace la parte es un desglose de lo que cree se le debe indemnizar por servicios ambientales e intereses, pero no ofrece prueba específica en relación con tales rubros, pues únicamente se refiere a la sentencia firme, que si bien es cierto los concede, también indica en su parte dispositiva: "...los cuales se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia". Y en este caso, la prueba era esencial para determinar las áreas que pudieron ser susceptibles de sometimiento al régimen de pago por servicios ambientales, el tipo de servicio, el plazo y los montos de un eventual contrato. Sin embargo, no se presentó ninguna prueba, ni documental, ni técnica, y menos actuarial. Tampoco dio la parte absolutamente ninguna indicación necesaria, para instar la evacuación de prueba orientada a demostrar la liquidación y, especialmente, los rubros cobrados. Distinto hubiera sido, si en la sentencia firme, se hubiese establecido el número de hectáreas, el tipo de servicio ambiental, y el monto por hectárea, pues en ese caso la sentencia si habría establecido los parámetros de la liquidación y la ejecución, pero se dejó para la fase de ejecución la liquidación y la prueba respectiva, así como su cuantificación.

V.- Recurso de la parte demandada: El apoderado especial judicial del demandado también apeló. 1) En cuanto a las costas procesales, considera que no se aportan documentos y facturas idóneas para demostrar el pago, aún cuando se citan los folios donde se encuentran, por lo que se pide rechazar dichos rubros. 2) En cuanto a las costas procesales y personales, agrega, deben de determinarse proporcionalmente, al ser un proceso con múltiples demandados. Si las costas se impusieron a uno de los ejecutados, aduce, debe corresponder una tercera parte de los extremos liquidados, por lo que al demandado le correspondería pagar únicamente 259.983,77 de costas personales y procesales. 3) Aduce la improcedencia de ejecutar la sentencia contra una parte que no es actual, pues se concede a favor de Azucarera el Viejo S.A., siendo que ésta cedió la totalidad de los derechos litigiosos a favor de Fideicomisos Empresariales S.A. 4) Finalmente, aduce, se ejecuta un objeto distinto a lo ordenado en sentencia, pues no se ha acreditado que la finca final incluya el área del demandado.

VI.- No lleva razón el recurrente en sus agravios. 1.) Las costas procesales están suficientemente demostradas, pues sí constan dentro del expediente los documentos relacionados con la certificación de propiedad, folios 2 y 3, las certificaciones de planos, folios 4 a 14, las personerías notariales, folios 33, 34 y 47, y el dictamen pericial, a folios 198, 206, 221 y 277, los cuales son suficientes para ser valorados conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, pues fueron gastos efectivos y necesarios en los cuales incurrió la parte actora para hacer valer sus derechos. Se desestima el argumento en el sentido de que debe exigirse una factura timbrada o documentos formales de otra naturaleza. 2.) En cuanto al tema de la proporcionalidad, es un argumento totalmente inadmisible, pues véase que la parte dispositiva del fallo, declaró con lugar la demanda únicamente contra [Nombre3] , condenando a éste al pago de ambas costas, tanto personales como procesales (folio 680). No se condenó a los restantes codemandados. 3.) El tercer reclamo tampoco tiene sentido, toda vez que en la misma sentencia de ejecución, se dispuso tener "...como parte interesada y coadyuvante de la actora", a la empresa Fideicomisos Empresariales FIDESA Sociedad Anónima (folio 680), de ahí que sea improcedente lo alegado, pues ésta mantiene una propiedad fideicometida 4.) En cuanto al cuarto y último agravio, el mismo es absolutamente improcedente, toda vez que la sentencia de ejecución, no contiene pronunciamiento alguno sobre el bien objeto de la controversia. Se trata de un tema precluido (ver acta de puesta en posesión a folio 822), absolutamente ajeno a la sentencia que se está ejecutando. Si bien figuran algunos hechos probados, los mismos están referidos a los daños y perjuicios -dejados para liquidarlos y demostrarlos en fase de ejecución-, pero no a la entrega material del bien objeto del litigio.

VI.- En virtud de todo lo expuesto, no llevando razón los recurrentes, se impone confirmar la sentencia de ejecución.

POR TANTO:

Se confirma la sentencia de ejecución, de las catorce horas cuarenta y tres minutos del veintisiete de marzo del dos mil quince.

[Nombre6] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre7] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre8] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A