Denial of necessary passive joinder for lack of current interestRechazo de litis consorcio pasivo necesario por falta de interés actual

ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero) No. 04-2019-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN QUINTA. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, at eleven forty-five in the morning on January fifteenth, two thousand nineteen.

Objection of necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario), filed by the representative of the State, within the ordinary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento), brought by Nombre113656, in her capacity as executor of the ESTATE OF Nombre113657, represented by RICARDO ZELEDÓN ZELEDÓN, attorney ID number CED8633, in his capacity as special judicial representative (folios 188, 2298 of the judicial file); against the STATE, whose representative is the Procuradora appearing in the process, SUSANA FALLAS CUBERO, identity card number CED11322 (folio 307 of the judicial file); the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), whose Special Judicial Representative is NATANAEL BARRANTES AZOFEIFA, attorney ID number 19857 (folio 2338 of the judicial file); and the SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC), represented by KAROL ROJAS CALDERÓN, attorney ID number 13249, in her capacity as Special Judicial Representative (see brief of May 9, 2016, in the filings folder of the virtual file).

RESULTANDO

1.- On November 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the definitive text of the complaint, so that in judgment—and in accordance with what was resolved in the preliminary hearings held on November 26, 2015, and May 6, 2016—the following be declared: "... l) The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, today Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it is a REPEALING agreement of Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, Placa3796 OCULTADO, AND NEVER NOTIFIED, BY THE STATE AND THE IDA, IN PERSONAL FORM NOR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE of the plaintiffs PROCESSED IN THE OSA REGIONAL OFFICE to remove the foundation of Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of the Board of Directors of November 14, 2005. 2) The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it nullified the RECOGNIZED RIGHTS OF USUCAPIÓN of the plaintiffs, which occurred before the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was constituted, recognized by Executive Decrees No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 where it was ordered to EXPROPRIATE the private farms or those acquired by usucapión within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), and the amending Decree of 8494-A corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where the EXPROPRIATION of the aforementioned farms is stipulated again (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978) and Decree No. 10.088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of the Osa was ordered (sic) (Supplement No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), and the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber under No. 97-256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977, where 'the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 8494-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings.' 3) The Agreement of the Board of Directors No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it was issued as a REPEALING AND HIDDEN administrative act, not notified to any of the plaintiffs in this and the other processes, TO NOT DELIVER THE DEEDS TO Nombre113656, NOR TO THE OTHER CLAIMANTS, since the STATE's intention was to render nugatory the rights of the peasants, sheltered under the procedure established by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo in its Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, without resolving on its basis the procedures initiated through it in the OSA Regional Office, or by its existence declaring the claim inadmissible or considering the administrative channel exhausted. The Office only returned parts of some documents from the files, hiding the real legal cause of the Article whose nullity is requested. And any documentation subsequent to the return of the documents originating from the OSA Regional Office would likewise be null, whether inside or outside that reconstructed file for the service of the defendants in this trial, particularly if they are intended to reduce or eliminate the recognition of the parties' rights. 4) The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, by Agreement of its Board of Directors, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, RECOGNIZED the condemnation of the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977, where 'the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings,' creating an administrative procedure for the usucapients to be able to recognize their possessions, including those of their transferors, in accordance with their own sworn statement, a procedure in which Nombre113656 participated, with the recognition of her usucapión prior to the Constitution of the Golfo Dulce Reserve, and her years of possession. 5) The administrative procedure created in 2005 by the Agreement of the Board of Directors No. Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05 of the same 2005, Nombre113656 joined with the INITIATION of its processing in the same year 2005. The IDA recognized her a personal possession for a period of 25 years as of 2005 (Briefs OS0-820-05 and OSO-822-05, both of December 9, 2005), in accordance with the cadastral map (plano catastrado) No. P-687965-2001 of plot No. 111, sector 7, with an area of 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters. 6) The Agreement of the Board of Directors, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-02, of November 14, 2005, is VALID because it recognized in favor of Nombre113656 her years of possession, plus that of her transferors, consequently her rights of usucapión were established before the constitution of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve. 7) To nullify the summary administrative process for the delivery of deeds in the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, as well as the RIGHTS RECOGNIZED to Nombre113656, as indicated by the Procuraduría General de la República, the Board of Directors of the IDA decided NEVER TO FINISH THE PROCESSING OF THE INITIATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. 8) The Board of Directors of the IDA never took any agreement nor initiated the appointment of a directing body for the process to bring a LESIVIDAD PROCESS before the Courts of the Contencioso Administrativo against it, keeping HIDDEN the NULL ADMINISTRATIVE ACT of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, never notified to the plaintiffs nor indicated in any resolution of the administrative procedure initiated and not finished in the Regional Office of Osa. 9) The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural MUST DELIVER TO Nombre113656 and to the ESTATE OF Nombre113658, THE DEEDS, as a usucapient not subject to any limitation as PERFECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, because it was acquired by usucapión against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forestry limitations or those of the regulations of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, because it is an exclusively civil or agrarian property with an independent and different discipline, given that the usucapión operated against the EXPROPRIATED COMPANY, OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES. The lands over which it must deliver perfect property, recognizing it in the deed, are described as follows: Plot No. 111 of sector 7, located in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district, Osa Canton, Puntarenas, bordering: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660, measures 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral map of the Registro Nacional number P-687965-2001. (Brief OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005). 10) The STATE is to be CONDEMNED, principally, for its LIABILITY for all the DAMAGES AND LOSSES CAUSED TO Nombre113656 and Nombre113658 in life, FOR MATERIAL DAMAGE, for the consequences of practically keeping them imprisoned with the prohibition of the use and exercise of their rights since 1979. Said prohibition includes the impossibility of carrying out any type of forestry, agricultural, commercial, or industrial activity, among them agrarian acts to plant or at least produce even for the subsistence of their family, as well as commercial, industrial activities, no matter how small like a pulpería, pharmacy, preventing the plaintiffs from even being able to extract fallen timber because the Forestry Administration did not authorize it, preferring to let it rot rather than authorize the legitimate possessors to extract it. This item will be calculated in execution of judgment in a sum not less than TWO MILLION COLONES PER YEAR, from 1978 until the date of payment of the condemnatory judgment. 11) Condemn, in the same manner as it has been requested to CONDEMN the three defendant parties, to the payment for damages and losses also caused by the impossibility of receiving FORESTRY INCENTIVES, or benefits from maintaining and caring for the forests whose payment is verified by FONAFIFO annually to all owners or with authorization from the IDA in recent years (but without my application ever being accepted by the Regional Office of Osa) having to pay such losses from the time that type of incentive was constituted until the moment of the cancellation of the payment of the compensation. All these damages and losses will be liquidated in EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT, and in said EXECUTION said losses at the rate fixed in the FONAFIFO tables for payment per hectare per year, in the hectares of the farm of Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113658. 12) Condemn, in the same manner as it has been requested to CONDEMN the three defendant parties, to the payment of MORAL DAMAGE, for the great suffering subjected to by all types of injustices from the part of the defendants, mainly THE STATE, and subsidiarily the IDA or INDER and SINAC, I request they be condemned JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY or proportionally in accordance with the years of their intervention for all the MORAL DAMAGE caused, keeping them in conditions of expropriation FOR MORE THAN 41 YEARS, meanwhile they were prohibited from ALL types of activities on the farm (agricultural, industrial, commercial, or forestry). The MORAL DAMAGE whose condemnation is requested was because they were forced to live in the thickest parts of the mountains of Costa Rica, suffered for more than 50 years, waiting Nombre113656 and Nombre113658, today her estate, her family of small children, for fair payment for the farms, while they paid with annual illnesses of the children, in an environment of very high mortality rate, lack of electrical power, lack of roads and land movement forcing them to leave those places by boat, without telephone communication for any emergency, lack of the possibility of being able to study in Schools or High Schools, the children besieged by the dangers of the mountain with single men, many sexual predators causing great harm to the girls (with pregnancies at 12 years of age), and equally many violent and quarrelsome men, even hidden criminals, because the children had to be taken out of the mountains to anywhere even if they were of a young age like 10 years, scattering the family, in sum paying with poverty and hunger for the conservation of the forests, where the environmental Public Administration did not allow them absolutely any hunting which is how one subsists in the mountains in any part of the world, also unable to extract fallen timber, preferring that it rot, working for other employers Nombre113661 and Nombre113658, and their children, to obtain future work as laborers, since from the farm only a few products were obtained without being able to cover the minimum food expenses, or fallen branches for fire. 13) I request that the parties be condemned, in the manner indicated, to pay for this concept (of MORAL DAMAGE and MATERIAL DAMAGE) to each of the plaintiffs the sum of FIFTY MILLION COLONES. SUBSIDIARILY. In the event that the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural is not condemned to CLAIM No. 9, consisting of DELIVERING TO Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113658, THE DEEDS, AS USUCAPIENTS AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, as perfect private property, because it was acquired by usucapión against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forestry limitations or those of the regulations of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, I request that the following BE DECLARED: I. THE STATE is to be condemned, subsidiarily INDER and SINAC, to PAY Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113662, adding the possession of their transferors, in execution of judgment, the value of the farm not expropriated since 1978 due to its fault and UNDER ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY to breach by all possible means the Executive Decrees No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 where it was ordered to EXPROPRIATE the private farms or those acquired by usucapión within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), the amending Decree of 8494-A corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where the EXPROPRIATION of the aforementioned farms is stipulated again (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978), Decree No. 10.088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of the Osa was ordered (Supplement No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 97-256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977, where 'the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings over the lands for which the IDA recognized them as possessors for more than 40 years as of 2005, and which are described as follows: Plot No. 111 of sector 7, located in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district, Osa Canton, Puntarenas, bordering: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660, measures 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral map of the Registro Nacional number P-687965-2001. (Brief OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005). 2. THE STATE, INDER, and SINAC are to be condemned to pay Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113658, in execution of judgment, through the respective appraisal, the farm valued at a price no less than ¢10 MILLION per hectare (TEN MILLION COLONES PER HECTARE) which was the market price determined when the proceedings of this trial were initiated. COMMON CLAIM TO BOTH. Regardless of whether the STATE, INDER, and SINAC are condemned under the principal complaint with claim No. 9, or the subsidiary claim for compensation as if it were an expropriation, both costs of this action shall be paid to Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113658..." (folios 2384 to 2390 of the judicial file; 2449 to 2453, 2835 to 2840 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this ruling).

2.- The representative of the State requested the suspension of the trial scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the integration of the necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesaria) with Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, who appeared as plaintiff in the process processed under file number 15-008151-1027-CA, in which he sought the delivery of a property title for the real estate described in the cadastral map P-829518-2002, with which there are small overlaps with the farm of the cadastral map number P-687965-2001—according to the registry study provided—over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a right of property originated in an alleged ten-year possession (images 2019 to 2922 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling).

3.- That by order of 13:45 hours on October 4, 2018, a hearing was granted to the plaintiff and the remaining defendants (INDER and SINAC), regarding the request for suspension of the trial scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the integration of the necessary passive joinder of parties, raised by the representative of the State (images 2930 and 2931 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling).

4.- The representatives of INDER and SINAC responded positively to the hearing, as they consider that Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, must be integrated as a necessary passive joinder of parties (images 2935 to 2940, 2961 to 2963 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling).

5.- The representative of the plaintiffs and of Nombre113660 responded negatively to the hearing granted, since among other reasons, he indicates that the process processed in file 15-008151-1027-CA was terminated, given that Section Eight of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda accepted the request for withdrawal (desistimiento) filed by the plaintiff Nombre113660, therefore, he maintains that the latter does not have a right to claim and thus has no interest in participating in this ordinary proceeding (images 2949 to 2959 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling).

CONSIDERANDO.

I.- THE NECESSARY PASSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES (LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIO).- In general terms, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that this figure seeks to guarantee the participation and defense in the process of all subjects whose substantive legal sphere will be affected by the final resolution of the matter, whether because the claim must be brought by a group of subjects, holders of the subjective interest whose protection or recognition is claimed (necessary active joinder of parties or litis consorcio activo necesario) or, because it must inevitably be directed against them (necessary passive joinder of parties or litis consorcio pasivo necesario) (Ruling number 156-F-TC-2008, of 8:45 hours on November 7, citing rulings number 29-F-TC-2008 of 14:15 hours on May 8, 2008, 30-F-TC-2008 of 14:20 on May 8, 2008, and no. 63-A-TC-2008 of 9:45 hours on June 11, 2008).

II.- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is fundamental to determine whether or not the integration of the requested joinder of parties (litis) proceeds, to verify if the relationship brought to the process is of such a nature that it does not allow its division to resolve the underlying conflict. This analysis is made based on the claims outlined by the plaintiffs in their definitive complaint and claims brief (folios 2340 to 2383, 2384 to 2390 of the judicial file). In that sense and in general terms, the object of this process consists of determining if the plaintiffs have a right of possession over the real estate described in the cadastral map number P-687965-2001—which forms part of the farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—and that, if it is appropriate, a property title be granted to them over said land. Now, the representative of the State provided a 'Study to determine if there is an overlap between the cadastral maps P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2001', carried out by the Subproceso de Conciliación Registral Catastral of the Registro Inmobiliario of the Registro Nacional, on May 25, 2018, in which it is concluded—in what is relevant—that "...The cadastral maps P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2011 have not generated a property title (...) Both maps present boundary lines (derroteros) with linear closure errors and area tolerance errors. There is a partial overlap, which was obtained as a product of the assembly of the cadastral maps. For this, the respective localization and location of both were taken into account..." (images 2912 to 2922 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling); conclusions also reached by both the Head of Information and Land Registry of INDER, in official letter number IRT-0847-2018 of October 9, 2018, and the Department of Information and Regulation of the Territory of SINAC, by official letter number SINAC-SE-IRT-229 of October 9, 2018 (images 2939, 2940, 2962, and 2963 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that at this procedural moment and for the reasons that will be set forth below, there is no interest in integrating Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, as a necessary passive joinder of parties, who as plaintiff in the ordinary proceeding processed in file 15-008151-1027-CA, sought the delivery of a property title for the real estate described in the cadastral map P-829518-2002, with which there are small overlaps regarding the farm of the cadastral map number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a right of property by ten-year possession. That is because, although it is true that Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, filed an ordinary proceeding processed in file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, and whose object also consisted—in general terms—in establishing whether or not he had a right of possession over the real estate described in the cadastral map number P-829518-2002—which forms part of the farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—and that, had it been appropriate, a property title be granted to him over said land; it is also true, that by judgment-order number 67-2018-VIII issued by Section Eight of this Tribunal at 16:00 hours on July 24, 2018, supplemented by ruling 67-2018-BIS/VIII of 10:48 hours on October 18, 2018 (see associated documents folder of virtual file 15-008151-1027-CA), it was ordered to accept "... the request for withdrawal (desistimiento) of the process established by the plaintiff Nombre113660. Consequently, the process is terminated and its archiving is ordered once this ruling becomes final (...) Order No. 67-2018-VIII of this Tribunal, of sixteen hours on July twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, is supplemented, solely insofar as the plaintiff is condemned to pay both costs of this action and the interest they generate from when they are fixed until their effective payment, amounts that will be determined in the execution of judgment phase, in all other respects it remains unchanged...". In addition to the foregoing, Nombre113660 himself, through a brief filed by the representative of the plaintiffs, in order to respond to the hearing granted for him to refer to the request for integration of the joinder of parties raised by Procuradora Fallas Cubero and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC, stated—in what is relevant—that: "...I consider myself notified of the action filed by the Procuraduría (...) it seems absurd to me that the Procuraduría intends to bring me as a defendant in this process because (...) I do not have any right to claim, and in my economic conditions I will never be able to resort to a lawyer to sustain what I state at this moment. I expressly waive being brought to this process. I absolutely lack interest in this discussion, as it is alien and absurd to me (...) I request that it be assessed that I have no condition as a joinder of parties member (litisconsorte), that I be exempted from assuming a role that does not belong to me, and that instead causes me harm..." (images 2957 to 2959 of the virtual file, as of the date of issuance of this ruling; the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, this collegiate body considers that the objection of lack of integration of the necessary passive joinder of parties must be rejected for lack of current interest, given that Nombre113660 himself not only states that he has no right to claim over the real estate described in the cadastral map P-829518-2002—which forms part of the farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—and which, according to the registry studies presented, overlaps in small areas with the farm of the cadastral map number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a right of property by ten-year possession; but also, that he has no interest in the object of this ordinary proceeding, so much so, that he withdrew from the cause in which he claimed to have a real right over the farm described in the cadastral map P-829518-2002, processed under file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, a request that was accepted by Section Eight of this Tribunal, terminating it with an award of costs against the plaintiff and ordering its archiving. For all the foregoing, the objection of necessary passive joinder of parties filed by the State and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC is rejected for lack of current interest. All parties are warned, that once they are notified of this ruling, they must indicate within a period of three business days whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment-order—and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Tribunal de Apelaciones—the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions, given the request of the representative of the State, aimed at suspending the oral and public trial hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019.

POR TANTO

The objection of necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) filed by the State and seconded by the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural and the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación is rejected for lack of current interest. All parties are warned, that once they are notified of this ruling, they must indicate within a period of three business days whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment-order—and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Tribunal de Apelaciones—the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions, given the request of the representative of the State, aimed at suspending the oral and public trial hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019. Notify.- Marianella Álvarez Molina Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro Sergio Mena García ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero) Nombre113663, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Email ...01 Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Directorate144 (Old Motorola Building) **EXPEDIENTE: 15-006161-1027-CA** **ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO** **ACTORA: Nombre113656 AND ANOTHER** **DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN AND THE STATE (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero)** **No. 04-2019-V** **ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION COURT. FIFTH SECTION. Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Goicoechea, at eleven forty-five hours on the fifteenth of January of two thousand nineteen.** Preliminary objection of necessary joinder of passive co-litigants (*litis consorcio pasivo necesario*), filed by the representative of the State, within the declaratory proceeding (*proceso de conocimiento*), brought by **Nombre113656**, in her capacity as executor of the **ESTATE OF Nombre113657**, represented by **RICARDO ZELEDÓN ZELEDÓN**, attorney ID card CED8633, in his capacity as special judicial representative *(folios 188, 2298 of the judicial file)*; against the **STATE**, whose representative is the Procuradora appearing in the proceeding, **SUSANA FALLAS CUBERO**, identity card number CED11322 *(folio 307 of the judicial file)*; the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER)**, whose Special Judicial Representative is **NATANAEL BARRANTES AZOFEIFA**, attorney ID card 19857 *(folio 2338 of the judicial file)*; and the **SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC)**, represented by **KAROL ROJAS CALDERÓN**, attorney ID card 13249, in her capacity as Special Judicial Representative *(see brief dated May 09, 2016, in the filings folder of the virtual file)*.

**RESULTANDO** **1.-** On November 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the definitive text of the complaint, so that in judgment -and in accordance with what was resolved in the preliminary hearings held on November 26, 2015, and May 06, 2016- the following be declared: *"... **1)** The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because as a DEROGATORY agreement of Article XXXIX of session No 44-05, of November 14, Placa3796 HIDDEN, AND NEVER NOTIFIED, BY THE STATE AND THE IDA, IN PERSONAL FORM NOR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE of the actors PROCESSED IN THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF OSA to nullify Article XXXIX of session No 44-05, of the Board of Directors of November 14, 2005.* **2)** *The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it nullified the RECOGNIZED RIGHTS OF USUCAPIÓN of the actors, occurring before the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was constituted, recognized by Executive Decrees No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 where it was ordered to EXPROPRIATE the private or usucapted farms within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), and the reforming Decree of 8494-A corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where the EXPROPRIATION of the aforementioned farms is again stipulated (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978) and Decree No. 10,088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of Osa was ordered (sic) (Alcance No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), and the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber under No. 97-256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977 where "the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 8494-A, 9388-A and 10,142 to initiate expropriation proceedings".* **3)** *The Board of Directors Agreement No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it was issued as a DEROGATORY AND HIDDEN administrative act, not notified to any of the actors in this and the other proceedings, IN ORDER NOT TO DELIVER THE DEEDS TO Nombre113656, NOR TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS, since the STATE's intention was to render nugatory the rights of the farmers, covered by the procedure established by the Board of Directors of the Institute of Development in its Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, without resolving based on it the proceedings initiated through it in the Regional Office of OSA, or by its existence declare the petition inadmissible or deem the administrative route exhausted. The Office only returned parts of some documents from the files, hiding the real legal cause of the Article whose nullity is requested. And equally null would be any documentation subsequent to the return of the documents from the Regional Office of OSA, within or outside that reconstructed file for the service of the defendants in this trial, particularly if they are intended to reduce or eliminate the recognition of the parties' rights.* **4)** *The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, by Agreement of its Board of Directors, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, RECOGNIZED the condemnation of the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977 where "the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10,142 to initiate expropriation proceedings", creating for the usucaptors an administrative procedure to be able to recognize their possessions added to those of their transferors, in accordance with their own sworn statement, a procedure in which Nombre113656 participated, with the recognition of her usucapión prior to the Constitution of the Golfo Dulce Reserve, and her years of possession.* **5)** *The administrative procedure created in 2005 by the Board of Directors Agreement No. Article XXXIX of session No 44-05 of the same 2005, Nombre113656 joined with the INITIATION of its processing in the same 2005. The IDA recognized her a personal possession for a period of 25 years as of 2005 (Memorials OS0-820-05 and OSO- 822-05, both of December 9, 2005), according to cadastral map No. P-687965-2001 of parcel No. 111, sector 7, with a measurement of 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters.* **6)** *The Board of Directors Agreement, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-02, of November 14, 2005 is VALID because it recognized in favor of Nombre113656 her years of possession, added to that of her transferors, consequently her usucapión rights were enshrined before the constitution of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve.* **7)** *To nullify the summary administrative process for the delivery of deeds in the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, as well as the RIGHTS RECOGNIZED to Nombre113656, because the Procuraduría General de la República pointed it out, the Board of Directors of the IDA ordered NEVER TO FINISH THE PROCESSING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE INITIATED.* **8)** *The Board of Directors of the IDA never adopted any agreement nor initiated the appointment of a directing body for the process to file before the Administrative Litigation Courts a LESIVITY PROCEEDING against it, keeping HIDDEN the NULL ADMINISTRATIVE ACT of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, never notified to the actors nor indicated in any resolution of the administrative process initiated and not finished in the Regional Office of Osa.* **9)** *The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural MUST DELIVER TO Nombre113656 and to the ESTATE Nombre113658, THE DEEDS, as usucaptor not subject to any limitation as PERFECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, because it was usucapted against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forestry limitations nor those of the regulations of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, because it is an exclusively civil or agrarian property with an independent and different discipline, given that the usucapión operated against the EXPROPRIATED COMPANY, OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES. The lands on which perfect property must be delivered by recognizing it in the deed are described as follows: Parcel No. 111 of sector 7, located in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district. Osa Canton, Puntarenas, bordering: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660, measures 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral map of the National Registry number P-687965-2001.* **(Memorial OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005). 10)** *The STATE be CONDEMNED, principally, for its RESPONSIBILITY for all the DAMAGES AND LOSSES CAUSED TO Nombre113656 and to Nombre113658 in life, FOR MATERIAL DAMAGE, due to the consequences of practically keeping them imprisoned with the prohibition of the use and exercise of their rights since 1979. Said prohibition includes the impossibility of carrying out any type of forestry, agrarian, commercial or industrial activity, among them agrarian acts to plant or at least produce even for the subsistence of their family, as well as commercial, industrial activities, no matter how small such as a small grocery store (pulpería), pharmacy, preventing the actors from even being able to remove fallen wood because the Forestry Administration did not authorize it, preferring to let it rot rather than authorize the legitimate possessors to extract it. This item will be calculated in execution of judgment in a sum not less than TWO MILLION COLONES PER YEAR, from 1978 until the date of payment of the condemnatory judgment.* **11)** *They be condemned, in the same manner as has been requested to CONDEMN the three defendant parties, to the payment of the damages and losses also caused by the impossibility of receiving the FORESTRY INCENTIVES, or benefits of maintaining and caring for the forests whose payment FONAFIFO verifies annually to all owners or with IDA authorization in recent years (but without my application to the Regional Office of Osa ever being admitted) said losses must be paid from the time this type of incentive was constituted until the moment of the cancellation of the payment of the compensation. All these damages and losses will be liquidated in EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT, and in said EXECUTION said losses at the rate established in the FONAFIFO tables for payment per hectare per year, on the hectares of the farm of Nombre113656 and the ESTATE OF Nombre113658.* **12)** *They be condemned, in the same manner as has been requested to CONDEMN the three defendant parties, to the payment of MORAL DAMAGE, for the great suffering subjected to all types of injustices by the defendants mainly THE STATE, and subsidiarily the IDA or INDER and SINAC I request they be condemned in a JOINT AND SEVERAL or proportional manner in accordance with the years of their intervention for all the MORAL DAMAGE caused, keeping them in conditions of expropriation FOR MORE THAN 41 YEARS, meanwhile they were prohibited from ALL types of activities on the farm (agricultural, industrial, commercial or forestry)* The MORAL DAMAGE whose condemnation is sought was because they were forced to live in the thickest part of the mountains of Costa Rica, suffering for more than 50 years, waiting for Nombre113656 and Nombre113658, today his succession, his family of small children, for a fair payment for the farms, while they paid with annual illnesses of the children, in an environment of extremely high mortality rate, lack of electric power, lack of roads and land transportation forcing them to leave those places by boat, without telephone communication for any emergency, lack of the possibility of being able to study in Schools or High Schools, the children besieged by the dangers of the mountain with lone men, many sexual predators causing great harm to the girls (with pregnancies at 12 years of age), and likewise many violent and quarrelsome people, even hidden criminals, because the children had to be taken out of the mountains to wherever even if they were of a young age like 10 years, scattering the family, in sum paying for the conservation of the forests with poverty and hunger, where the environmental Public Administration did not allow them at all the hunting that is how one subsists in the mountains of any part of the world, also prevented from extracting fallen timber, preferring that it rot, using with other patterns Nombre113661 and Nombre113658, and their children, to obtain a future job as peons, since from the farm only a few products were obtained without being able to cover the minimum expenses for food, or fallen branches for fire. 13) I ask that the parties be condemned, in the manner as indicated, to pay for this concept (of MORAL DAMAGE and MATERIAL DAMAGE) to each one of the plaintiffs the sum of FIFTY MILLION COLONES. SUBSIDIARILY. In the event that the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural is not condemned to CLAIM No. 9, consisting of DELIVERING to Nombre113656 and to the SUCCESSION Nombre113658, THE DEEDS, AS USUCAPIENTS AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, as perfect private property, because it was acquired by usucapion against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forestry limitations nor those of the Law of Lands and Colonization regulations, I ask that the FOLLOWING BE DECLARED:

1. THE STATE is condemned, subsidiarily the INDER and SINAC, to PAY to Nombre113656 and to the SUCCESSION Nombre113662, adding the possession of their transferors, in execution of judgment, the value of the farm not expropriated since 1978 through their fault and UNDER THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY for failing by all possible means to comply with Executive Decrees No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 where it was ordered to EXPROPRIATE the private or usucapted farms within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), the amending Decree corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where the EXPROPRIATION of the previously mentioned farms is again stipulated (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978), Decree No. 10.088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of the Osa was ordered (Alcance No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), the judgment of the Sala Constitucional No. 97-256 of 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977 where "the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings on the lands to which the IDA recognized them as possessors for more than 40 years as of 2005, and which are described thus: Plot No. 111 of sector 7, located in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district, Osa Canton, Puntarenas, boundaries: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660, measures 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral plan of the Registro Nacional number P-687965-2001. (Memorial OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005). 2. THE STATE, the INDER, and SINAC be condemned to pay Nombre113656 and the SUCCESSION Nombre113658, in execution of judgment, through the respective appraisal, the farm valued at a price of no less than ¢10 MILLION per hectare (TEN MILLION COLONES PER HECTARE) which was the market price determined when the proceedings of this lawsuit were initiated. CLAIM COMMON TO BOTH.

Regardless of whether the STATE, INDER, and SINAC are found liable for the main claim with petition No. 9, or the subsidiary claim for compensation as if it were an expropriation, costs of this action must be paid to Nombre113656 and the SUCESIÓN Nombre113658...\" (folios 2384 to 2390 of the judicial case file; 2449 to 2453, 2835 to 2840 of the virtual case file as of the date of issuance of this resolution).

**2.-** The State's representative requested the suspension of the trial scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the joinder of the necessary passive litis consortium (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) with Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, who appeared as the plaintiff in the process processed under case file number 15-008151-1027-CA, in which he sought the delivery of a property title over the property described in cadastral map P-829518-2002, which has minor overlaps with the property of cadastral map number P-687965-2001 *—according to the registry study provided—* over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right originating from an alleged ten-year possession (decenal possession) *(images 2019 to 2922 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution)*.

**3.-** That by order issued at 13:45 hours on October 4, 2018, the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants (INDER and SINAC) were given a hearing regarding the request for the suspension of the trial scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the joinder of the necessary passive litis consortium, filed by the State's representative *(images 2930 and 2931 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution)*.

**4.-** The representatives of INDER and SINAC responded affirmatively to the hearing, as they believe that Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, must be joined as a necessary passive litis consortium *(images 2935 to 2940, 2961 to 2963 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution).* **5.-** The legal representative of the plaintiffs and of Nombre113660 responded negatively to the hearing granted, because among other reasons, he indicates that the process processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA was terminated, given that the Eighth Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda accepted the motion to withdraw (desistimiento) filed by the plaintiff Nombre113660, so he argues that the latter does not have a right to claim and, therefore, has no interest in participating in this declaratory proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) *(images 2949 to 2959 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution).* **CONSIDERANDO.** **Io.- THE NECESSARY PASSIVE LITIS CONSORTIUM (LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIO).**- Generally speaking, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that this figure seeks to guarantee the participation and defense in the process of all subjects whose substantial legal sphere will be affected by the final resolution of the matter, either because the claim must be filed by a group of subjects, holders of the subjective interest whose protection or recognition is sought (necessary active litis consortium (litis consorcio activo necesario)) or, **because it must inevitably be directed against them** (necessary passive litis consortium (litis consorcio pasivo necesario)) (Resolution number 156-F-TC-2008, of 8:45 a.m. on November 7, citing resolutions numbers 29-F-TC-2008 of 2:15 p.m. on May 8, 2008, 30-F-TC-2008 of 2:20 p.m. on May 8, 2008, and no. 63-A-TC-2008 of 9:45 a.m. on June 11, 2008).

**IIo.- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.-** In accordance with the foregoing, it is fundamental to determine whether the requested litis joinder is appropriate, by verifying whether the relationship brought to the process is of such nature that it does not allow its division to resolve the substantive conflict. This analysis is made based on the claims outlined by the plaintiffs in their definitive statement of claim and claims *(folios 2340 to 2383, 2384 to 2390 of the judicial case file)*. In that sense and in general terms, the object of this process is to determine whether the plaintiffs have a possession right over the property described in cadastral map number P-687965-2001 *—which forms part of property number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—*, and that if appropriate, a property title over said land be granted to them. However, the State's representative provided a *"Study to determine if there is an overlap between cadastral maps P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2001",* conducted by the Sub-Process of Registry Cadastral Conciliation (Sub Proceso de Conciliación Registral Catastral) of the Real Estate Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) of the National Registry, on May 25, 2018, in which it is concluded *—in relevant part—* that *"...Cadastral maps P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2011 have not generated a property title (...) Both maps present bearings with linear closure and area tolerance errors. There is a partial overlap, which was obtained as a product of the assembly of the cadastral maps. For this, the respective location and placement of both were taken into account..."* *(images 2912 to 2922 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution);* conclusions also reached by both the Head of Information and Land Registry of INDER, in official letter number IRT-0847-2018 of October 9, 2018, and the Department of Information and Territory Regularization (Departamento de Información y Regularización del Territorio) of SINAC, by official letter number SINAC-SE-IRT-229 of October 9, 2018 *(images 2939, 2940, 2962 and 2963 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution).* Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court considers that **at this procedural stage and for the reasons that will be set forth below,** it **lacks interest in joining as necessary passive litis consortium** **Nombre113660**, identity card number CED89904, who as the plaintiff in the declaratory proceeding processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA, sought the delivery of a property title over the property described in cadastral map P-829518-2002, which has minor overlaps with the property of cadastral map number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right by ten-year possession. This is because, although it is true that Nombre113660, identity card number CED89904, filed a declaratory proceeding that was processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, and whose object also consisted *—in general terms—* of establishing whether or not he had a possession right over the property described in cadastral map number P-829518-2002 *—which forms part of property number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—*, and that if it had been appropriate, a property title over said land be granted to him; it is also true that by judgment-order (auto sentencia) number 67-2018-VIII issued by the Eighth Section of this Court at 16:00 hours on July 24, 2018, supplemented by resolution 67-2018-BIS/VIII at 10:48 hours on October 18, 2018 *(see associated documents folder of virtual case file 15-008151-1027-CA)*, it was ordered to accept *"... the motion to withdraw from the process filed by the plaintiff Nombre113660. Consequently, the process is terminated and its archiving is ordered once this resolution is final (...)* *The order No. 67-2018-VIII of this Court, of sixteen hundred hours on July twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, is supplemented, only in that the plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of this action and the interest that these generate from the time they are fixed and until their effective payment, amounts that will be determined in the judgment enforcement phase; in all other respects, it remains unaltered...".* In addition to the above, **Nombre113660 himself,** through a brief submitted by the plaintiffs' legal representative, in order to respond to the hearing granted for him to address the request for litis joinder filed by Procuradora Fallas Cubero and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC, stated *—in relevant part—* that: *"...I am notified of the request filed by the Procuraduría (...) it seems absurd to me that the Procuraduría intends to bring me as a defendant in this process because (...)* ***I do not have any right to claim, and in my economic conditions I will never be able to resort to a lawyer to sustain what I state at this moment.** * ***I expressly waive being brought into this process as I completely lack interest in this discussion, as it is alien and absurd to me*** *(...) I ask that it be valued that I have no condition of litisconsorte, that I be exempted from assuming a role that does not belong to me, and rather causes me harm..." (images 2957 to 2959 of the virtual case file, as of the date of issuance of this resolution; the highlighting is not from the original).* Consequently, this collegiate body considers that **the defense (excepción) of failure to join the necessary passive litis consortium must be rejected due to lack of current interest**, given that Nombre113660 himself, not only states that **he does not have any right to claim** over the property described in cadastral map P-829518-2002 *—which forms part of property number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural—* and that according to the registry studies presented overlaps in small areas with the property of cadastral map number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right by ten-year possession; but also, that **he has no interest in the object of this declaratory proceeding**, **so much so, that he withdrew from the cause in which he alleged having a right in rem (derecho real) over the property described in cadastral map P-829518-2002,** which was processed under case file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, a request that was accepted by the Eighth Section of this Court, terminating it with an award of costs against the plaintiff and ordering its archiving. For all the foregoing reasons, the defense of necessary passive litis consortium filed by the State and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC is rejected due to lack of current interest. **All parties are warned (Se previene a todas las partes)** that once this resolution is notified to them, **they must indicate within three business days** whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment-order *—and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Court of Appeals—*, the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions in the case, given the request of the State's representative, aimed at suspending the oral and public trial hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019.

**POR TANTO** The defense of necessary passive litis consortium (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) filed by the State and seconded by the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural and the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación is rejected, for lack of current interest. All parties are warned (Se previene a todas las partes) that once this resolution is notified to them, they must indicate within three business days whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment-order (auto sentencia) *—and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Court of Appeals—*, the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions in the case, given the request of the State's representative, aimed at suspending the oral and public trial hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019. **Notifíquese.-** **Marianella Álvarez Molina** **Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro** **Sergio Mena García** **EXPEDIENTE: 15-006161-1027-CA** **ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO** **ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA** **DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero)** | **Documento firmado por:** | | Nombre113663 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | SERGIO MENA GARCÍA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ILEANA SÁNCHEZ NAVARRO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | Goicoechea, at eleven hours forty-five minutes on the fifteenth of January of two thousand nineteen.

Exception of necessary passive joinder of parties, filed by the representative of the State, within the ordinary proceeding, brought by **Nombre113656** , in his capacity as executor of the **SUCESIÓN DE Nombre113657** , represented by **RICARDO ZELEDÓN ZELEDÓN,** attorney ID card CED8633, in his capacity as special judicial representative *(folios 188, 2298 of the judicial file)*; against the **STATE**, whose representative is the Procuradora appearing in the proceeding, **SUSANA FALLAS CUBERO**, identity card number CED11322 *(folio 307 of the judicial file)*; the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER)**, whose Special Judicial Representative is **NATANAEL BARRANTES AZOFEIFA,** attorney ID card 19857 *(folio 2338 of the judicial file)*; and the **SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC)**, represented by **KAROL ROJAS CALDERÓN,** attorney ID card 13249 **,** in her capacity as Special Judicial Representative *(see brief of May 9, 2016, in the filings folder of the virtual file).* **RESULTANDO** **1.-** On November 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the definitive text of the complaint, so that in judgment—and in accordance with what was resolved in the preliminary hearings held on November 26, 2015 and May 6, 2016—the following be declared: *"...* ***l)*** *The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because as a REPEALING agreement of Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14 of Placa3796 OCULTADO, IT WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY THE STATE AND THE IDA, NEITHER PERSONALLY NOR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE of the plaintiffs PROCESSED IN THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF OSA to render groundless Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of the Board of Directors of November 14, 2005.* ***2)*** *The Administrative Act of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it left without effect the RECOGNIZED RIGHTS OF USUCAPTION of the plaintiffs, which had accrued before the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was constituted, recognized by Executive Decrees No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 wherein it was ordered TO EXPROPRIATE the private or usucapted farms within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), and the amending Decree of 8494-A corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where the EXPROPRIATION of the aforementioned farms is stipulated again (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978) and Decree No. 10.088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of the Osa (sic) was ordered (Alcance No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), and the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber under No. 97-256 of 11 hours 3 minutes on May 2, 1977 where 'the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 8494-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings'.* ***3)*** *The Board of Directors Agreement No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, IS NULL because it was issued as a REPEALING AND HIDDEN administrative act, not notified to any of the plaintiffs in this and the other proceedings, IN ORDER NOT TO GIVE THE DEEDS TO Nombre113656 NOR TO THE OTHER PETITIONERS, since the intention of the STATE was to render nugatory the rights of the peasants, who had availed themselves of the procedure established by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo in its Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, without resolving on its basis the proceedings initiated through it in the Regional Office of OSA, or by its existence declare the petition without merit or deem the administrative remedy exhausted. The Office only returned them parts of some documents from the files, hiding the real legal cause of the Article whose nullity is requested. And equally null would be any documentation subsequent to the return of the documents coming from the Regional Office of OSA, inside or outside of that file reconstructed for the service of the defendants in this lawsuit, particularly if they are to reduce or eliminate the recognition of the parties' rights.* ***4)*** *The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, by Agreement of its Board of Directors, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05, of November 14, 2005, RECOGNIZED the sentence of Constitutional Chamber Judgment No. 256 of 11 hours 3 minutes on May 2, 1977 where 'the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, was condemned to comply with Executive Decrees 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate the expropriation proceedings', creating for the usucaptors an administrative procedure to be able to recognize their possessory interests, added to those of their transferors, in accordance with their own sworn declaration, a procedure in which Nombre113656 participated, with the recognition of his usucaption prior to the Constitution of the Golfo Dulce Reserve, and his years of possession.* ***5)*** *The administrative procedure created in 2005 by the Board of Directors Agreement No. Article XXXIX of session No. 44-05 of that same 2005, Nombre113656 joined with the BEGINNING of its processing in that same 2005. The IDA recognized him a personal possession for a period of 25 years up to 2005 (Briefs OS0-820-05 and OSO-822-05, both of December 9, 2005), according to cadastral map No. P-687965-2001 of parcel No. 111, sector 7, with a measurement of 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters.**6)*** *The Board of Directors Agreement, Article XXXIX of session No. 44-02, of November 14, 2005 is VALID because it recognized in favor of Nombre113656 his years of possession, added to that of his transferors, consequently his rights of usucaption were enshrined before the constitution of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve.**7)*** *To leave without effect the summary administrative process for the granting of deeds in the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, as well as the RIGHTS RECOGNIZED to Nombre113656 , because the Procuraduría General de la República had pointed it out, the Board of Directors of the IDA ordered NEVER TO FINISH THE PROCESSING OF THE INITIATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.**8)*** *The Board of Directors of the IDA never adopted any agreement nor initiated the appointment of a governing body of the process to file before the Contentious-Administrative Courts a LESIVITY PROCEEDING against it, keeping HIDDEN the NULL ADMINISTRATIVE ACT of the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, No. 35 of session 040-2007, of November 10, 2007, never notified to the plaintiffs nor indicated in any resolution of the administrative procedure initiated and not finished in the Regional Office of Osa.**9) **The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural MUST GIVE TO Nombre113656 and to the SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 , THE DEEDS, as a usucaptor not subject to any limitation as PERFECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, because it was usucapted against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forest limitations or those of the regulations of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, because it is an exclusively civil or agrarian property with an independent and different discipline, given that the usucaption operated against the EXPROPRIATED COMPANY, OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES. The lands over which it must deliver perfect property, recognizing it in the deed, are described as follows: Parcel No. 111 of sector 7, situated in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district, Osa Canton, Puntarenas, bordering: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660 , measuring 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral map of the National Registry number P-687965-2001.* ***(Brief OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005). 10)*** *That the STATE be CONDEMNED, principally, for its LIABILITY for all the DAMAGES AND LOSSES CAUSED to Nombre113656 and to Nombre113658 in life, FOR MATERIAL DAMAGE, to the consequences of having them practically incarcerated with the prohibition of the use and exercise of their rights since 1979. Said prohibition comprises the impossibility of carrying out any type of forest, agrarian, commercial or industrial activity, among them agrarian acts to sow or at least produce even for the subsistence of their family, as well as commercial, industrial activities, no matter how small such as a small grocery store, pharmacy, preventing the plaintiffs even from being able to remove fallen timber because the Forest Administration did not authorize it, preferring to let it rot than to authorize the legitimate possessors to extract it. This item shall be calculated in enforcement of judgment in a sum not less than TWO MILLION COLONES PER YEAR, from 1978 until the date of payment of the condemnatory judgment.**11)*** *That the three defendant parties be condemned, in the same manner as has been requested, to the payment for the damages and losses also caused by the impossibility of receiving the FOREST INCENTIVES, or benefits of maintaining and caring for the forests whose payment FONAFIFO verifies annually to all owners or with authorization from the IDA in recent years (but without my application ever having been admitted to the Regional Office of Osa) having to pay such losses from the time this type of incentive was established until the moment the payment of the compensation is made. All these damages and losses shall be liquidated in ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, and in said ENFORCEMENT said losses at the rate fixed in the FONAFIFO tables for payment per hectare per year, on the hectares of the farm of Nombre113656 and the SUCESIÓN DE Nombre113658 .**12)*** *That the three defendant parties be condemned, in the same manner as has been requested, to the payment of MORAL DAMAGE, for the great suffering subjected to through all types of injustices by the defendants mainly the STATE, and subsidiarily the IDA or INDER and SINAC I request that they be condemned JOINTLY or proportionally according to the years of their intervention for all the MORAL DAMAGE caused, keeping them under conditions of expropriation FOR MORE THAN 41 YEARS, while they were prohibited from ALL types of activities on the farm (agricultural, industrial, commercial or forest).* The MORAL DAMAGE for which a finding of liability is requested was because they were forced to live in the thickest of the mountains of Costa Rica, suffered for more than 50 years, awaiting, Nombre113656 and Nombre113658, today his succession, his family of small children, for a fair payment for the farms, while they paid with annual illnesses of the children, in an environment of extremely high mortality rate, lack of electric power, lack of roads and land transportation forcing them to leave those places by boat, without telephone communication for any emergency, lack of the possibility of being able to study in Schools or High Schools, the children besieged by the dangers of the mountain with lone men, many sexual deviants causing great harm to the girls (with pregnancies at 12 years of age), and likewise many violent and quarrelsome individuals, even hidden criminals, because the children had to be removed from the mountains to anywhere even if they were of a young age like 10 years, scattering the family, in sum paying for the conservation of the forests with poverty and hunger, where the environmental Public Administration absolutely forbade them hunting, which is how one subsists in the mountains anywhere in the world, also prevented from removing fallen timber, preferring it to rot, using other employers, Nombre113661 and Nombre113658, and their children, to obtain future work as laborers, since only a few products were obtained from the farm, which could not cover the minimum food expenses, or fallen branches for the fire. 13) I request that the parties be ordered, in the manner indicated, to pay for this concept (of MORAL DAMAGE and MATERIAL DAMAGE) to each one of the plaintiffs the sum of FIFTY MILLION COLONES. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. In the event that the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural is not ordered to PRETENSION No. 9, consisting of DELIVERING to Nombre113656 and to the SUCESIÓN Nombre113658, THE DEEDS, AS ADVERSE POSSESSORS AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION of the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, as perfect private property, because it was acquired by adverse possession against the properties of the company OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, without forest limitations nor those of the regulations of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, I request that THE FOLLOWING BE DECLARED:

l. THE STATE is ordered, alternatively the INDER and SINAC, to PAY to Nombre113656 and to the SUCESIÓN Nombre113662, adding the possession of their transferors, in execution of judgment, the value of the farm not expropriated since 1978 due to their fault and UNDER THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY by failing by all possible means to comply with Decretos Ejecutivos No. 8494-A of April 28, 1978, Articles 9, 10, 11 where it was ordered TO EXPROPRIATE the private or adversely possessed farms within the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce (La Gaceta No. 104 of June 1, 1978), the amending Decreto corresponding to No. 9388-A of November 30, 1978, Article 2, where it is stipulated again the EXPROPRIATION of the farms previously referred to (La Gaceta No. 239 of December 15, 1978), Decreto No. 10.088-G-H where the expropriation of the lands of the Osa was ordered (Alcance No. 6 to La Gaceta No. 102 of June 1, 1979), the judgment of the Sala Constitucional No. 97-256 at 11 hours 3 minutes of May 2, 1977 where "the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía was ordered, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, to comply with Decretos Ejecutivos 84-94-A, 9388-A and 10.142 to initiate expropriation proceedings on the lands for which the IDA recognized them as possessors for more than 40 years as of 2005, and which are described thus: Parcela No. 111 of sector 7, located in Rancho Quemado, Sierpe district. Cantón Osa, Puntarenas, bordering: NORTH: Quebrada Chiquerón, SOUTH: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; EAST: Nombre113659 and Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría and WEST: Nombre113660, measuring 83 hectares 7,523.67 square meters, according to cadastral plan of the Registro Nacional number P-687965-2001. (Memorial OS0-820-05 of December 9, 2005).

2. THE STATE, the INDER and SINAC are ordered to pay Nombre113656 and the SUCESIÓN Nombre113658, in execution of judgment, by means of the respective appraisal, the farm valued at a price of no less than ¢10 MILLION per hectare (TEN MILLION COLONES PER HECTARE) which was the market price determined when the proceedings of this lawsuit were initiated.

COMMON PRETENSION TO BOTH.

Independently, whether the STATE, INDER, and SINAC are ordered on the main claim with Petition No. 9, or the subsidiary claim for compensation as if it were an expropriation, Nombre113656 and the SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 must be paid, both court costs of this action..." (folios 2384 to 2390 of the judicial case file; 2449 to 2453, 2835 to 2840 of the virtual case file as of the date this decision was issued).

2.- The State's representative requested the suspension of the hearing scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the joinder of the necessary passive litisconsortium (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) with Nombre113660 , identity card number CED89904, who appeared as plaintiff in the proceeding processed under case file number 15-008151-1027-CA, in which he sought the delivery of a property title over the real estate described in cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) P-829518-2002, with which there are small overlaps with the farm of cadastral survey plan number P-687965-2001 —according to the registry study provided— over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right originating from an alleged ten-year possession (posesión decenal) (images 2019 to 2922 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued).

3.- That by order issued at 1:45 p.m. on October 4, 2018, the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants (INDER and SINAC) were given a hearing on the request for suspension of the hearing scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019, and the joinder of the necessary passive litisconsortium, raised by the State's representative (images 2930 and 2931 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued).

4.- The representatives of INDER and SINAC responded affirmatively to the hearing, as they consider that Nombre113660 , identity card number CED89904, must be joined as a necessary passive litisconsortium (images 2935 to 2940, 2961 to 2963 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued).

5.- The legal representative of the plaintiffs and of Nombre113660 , responded negatively to the hearing granted, because, among other reasons, he indicates that the proceeding processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA was terminated, given that the Eighth Section of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Appeals Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) granted the request for dismissal (desistimiento) filed by the plaintiff Nombre113660 , so he maintains that the latter has no right to claim and, therefore, has no interest in participating in this declaratory proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) (images 2949 to 2959 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued).

CONSIDERANDO.

Io.- THE NECESSARY PASSIVE LITISCONSORTIUM.- In general terms, the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that this figure seeks to guarantee the participation and defense in the proceeding of all subjects whose substantial legal sphere will be affected by the final resolution of the matter, either because the claim must be filed by a group of subjects, holders of the subjective interest whose protection or recognition is being claimed (necessary active litisconsortium, litis consorcio activo necesario) or, because it must inevitably be directed against them (necessary passive litisconsortium) (Resolution number 156-F-TC-2008, of 8:45 a.m. on November 7, citing resolutions numbers 29-F-TC-2008 of 2:15 p.m. on May 8, 2008, 30-F-TC-2008 of 2:20 p.m. on May 8, 2008, and no. 63-A-TC-2008 of 9:45 a.m. on June 11, 2008).

IIo.- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is essential to determine whether or not the requested litisconsortium joinder (integración de la litis) is appropriate, to verify if the relationship brought to the proceeding is of such a nature that it does not allow its division to resolve the substantive conflict. This analysis is made based on the claims outlined by the plaintiffs in their definitive complaint and claims brief (written) (folios 2340 to 2383, 2384 to 2390 of the judicial case file). In that sense and in general terms, the object of this proceeding consists of determining whether the plaintiffs have a right of possession over the real estate described in cadastral survey plan number P-687965-2001 —which forms part of farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Institute of Rural Development (INDER)—, and that if appropriate, a property title be granted to them over said land. Now, the State's representative provided a "Study to determine if there is an overlap between cadastral survey plans P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2001," carried out by the Sub-Process of Cadastral Registry Conciliation of the Real Estate Registry of the National Registry, on May 25, 2018, in which it is concluded —in what is relevant— that "...Cadastral survey plans P-0829518-2002 and P-0687965-2011 have not generated a property title (...) Both plans present boundaries (derroteros) with linear closure errors and area tolerance errors. There is a partial overlap, which was obtained as a product of the assembly of the cadastral survey plans. For this, the respective localization and location of both were taken into account..." (images 2912 to 2922 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued); conclusions also reached by both the Head of Information and Land Registry of INDER, in official communication number IRT-0847-2018 of October 9, 2018, and the Department of Information and Regularization of Territory of SINAC, by official communication number SINAC-SE-IRT-229 of October 9, 2018 (images 2939, 2940, 2962 and 2963 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court considers that at this procedural moment and for the reasons that will be set forth below, it lacks interest in joining Nombre113660 , identity card number CED89904, as a necessary passive litisconsortium, who as plaintiff in the declaratory proceeding processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA, sought the delivery of a property title over the real estate described in cadastral survey plan P-829518-2002, with which there are small overlaps regarding the farm of cadastral survey plan number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right by ten-year possession. This is because, although it is true Nombre113660 , identity card number CED89904, filed a declaratory proceeding that was processed in case file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, and whose object also consisted —in general terms— of establishing whether or not he had a right of possession over the real estate described in cadastral survey plan number P-829518-2002 —which forms part of farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Institute of Rural Development—, and that had it been appropriate, a property title would be granted to him over said land; it is also true, that by judgment order (auto sentencia) number 67-2018-VIII issued by the Eighth Section of this Court at 4:00 p.m. on July 24, 2018, supplemented by resolution 67-2018-BIS/VIII at 10:48 a.m. on October 18, 2018 (see associated documents folder of virtual case file 15-008151-1027-CA), it was ordered to grant "... the request for dismissal of the proceeding (desistimiento) filed by the plaintiff Nombre113660 . Consequently, the proceeding is terminated and its archiving is ordered once this resolution becomes final (...) Judgment order No. 67-2018-VIII of this Court, of four o'clock in the afternoon on July twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, is supplemented, solely insofar as the plaintiff is ordered to pay both court costs of this action and the interest they generate from when they are determined until their effective payment, amounts that will be determined in the judgment execution phase; in all other respects, it remains unchanged...". Added to the foregoing, Nombre113660 himself, through a brief submitted by the plaintiffs' legal representative, in order to respond to the hearing granted for him to address the litisconsortium joinder request raised by State Attorney Fallas Cubero and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC, stated —in what is relevant— that: "...I consider myself notified of the motion filed by the State Attorney's Office (...) it seems absurd to me that the State Attorney's Office intends to bring me in as a defendant in this proceeding because (...) I have no right to claim, and in my economic conditions I will never be able to resort to a lawyer to sustain what I state at this moment. I expressly waive being brought into this proceeding. I absolutely lack interest in this discussion, as it is foreign and absurd to me (...) I request that it be valued that I have no condition as a litisconsort (litisconsorte), that I be exempted from assuming a role that does not belong to me, and rather causes me harm..." (images 2957 to 2959 of the virtual case file, as of the date this decision was issued; the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, this collegiate body considers that the exception (excepción) of lack of joinder of the necessary passive litisconsortium must be rejected due to lack of current interest, given that Nombre113660 himself, not only states that he has no right to claim over the real estate described in cadastral survey plan P-829518-2002 —which forms part of farm number 6-39334-000 whose owner is the Institute of Rural Development— and that according to the registry studies presented overlaps in small areas with the farm of cadastral survey plan number P-687965-2001, over which the plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have a property right by ten-year possession; but also, that he has no interest in the object of this declaratory proceeding, so much so, that he dismissed (desistió de) the cause in which he alleged having a real right over the farm described in cadastral survey plan P-829518-2002, which was processed under case file 15-008151-1027-CA against the State, INDER, and SINAC, a request that was granted by the Eighth Section of this Court, terminating it with an order for court costs against the plaintiff and ordering its archiving. For all the foregoing reasons, the exception of necessary passive litisconsortium filed by the State and seconded by the representatives of INDER and SINAC is rejected for lack of current interest. All parties are forewarned (se previene), that once they are notified of this resolution, they must indicate within a period of three business days whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment order —and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelaciones)—, the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions, given the State's representative's request, aimed at suspending the public oral hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019.

POR TANTO

The exception of necessary passive litisconsortium filed by the State and seconded by the Institute of Rural Development and the National System of Conservation Areas is rejected, due to lack of current interest. All parties are forewarned, that once they are notified of this resolution, they must indicate within a period of three business days whether or not they will file an appeal against this judgment order —and if affirmative, they must provide a copy with the received stamp of the Appeals Court—, the foregoing in order to take the necessary precautions, given the State's representative's request, aimed at suspending the public oral hearing, scheduled for February 11 and 12, 2019. Notifíquese.- Marianella Álvarez Molina Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro Sergio Mena García ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero) | Documento firmado por: | | Nombre113663 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | SERGIO MENA GARCÍA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ILEANA SÁNCHEZ NAVARRO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |

Firmar Documento TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Correo Electrónico ...01 Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección144 (Antiguo Edificio Motorola) ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero) No. 04-2019-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN QUINTA. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, a las once horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del quince de enero del dos mil diecinueve.

Excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario, interpuesta por la representante del Estado, dentro del proceso de conocimiento, planteado por Nombre113656 , en su condición de albacea de la SUCESIÓN DE Nombre113657 , representada por RICARDO ZELEDÓN ZELEDÓN, carné de abogado CED8633, en su condición de apoderado especial judicial (folios 188, 2298 del expediente judicial); contra el ESTADO, cuya representante es la Procuradora apersonada al proceso, SUSANA FALLAS CUBERO, cédula de identidad número CED11322 (folio 307 del expediente judicial); el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), cuyo Apoderad Especial Judicial es NATANAEL BARRANTES AZOFEIFA, carné de abogado 19857 (folio 2338 del expediente judicial); y el SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC), representado por KAROL ROJAS CALDERÓN, carné de abogada 13249, en su condición de Apoderada Especial Judicial (ver memorial del 09 de mayo del 2016, en la carpeta de escritos del expediente virtual).

RESULTANDO

1.- El 26 de noviembre del 2015, las accionantes presentaron el texto definitivo de la demanda, para que en sentencia -y conforme a lo resuelto en las audiencias preliminares celebradas el 26 de noviembre del 2015 y el 06 de mayo del 2016- se declare lo siguiente: "... l) El Acto Administrativo de la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, hoy Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, Nº 35 de la sesión 040-2007, del 10 de noviembre del 2007, ES NULO porque como acuerdo DEROGATORIO del Artículo XXXIX de la sesión No 44-05, del 14 de noviembre del Placa3796 OCULTADO, Y NUNCA NOTIFICADO, POR EL ESTADO Y EL IDA, EN FORMA PERSONAL NI EN EL PROCEDIMIENTO ADMINISTRATIVO de los actores TRAMITADO EN LA OFICINA REGIONAL DE OSA para dejar sin fundamento el Artículo XXXIX de la sesión No 44-05, de la Junta Directiva del 14 de noviembre del 2005. 2) El Acto Administrativo de la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, N° 35 de la sesión 040-2007, del10 de noviembre del 2007, ES NULO porque dejó sin efecto los DERECHOS RECONOCIDOS DE USUCAPIÓN de los actores, acaecida antes de haberse constituido la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, reconocidos por los Decretos Ejecutivos Nº 8494-A del 28 de abril de 1978, Artículos 9, 10, 11 donde se dispuso EXPROPIAR las fincas privadas o usucapidas dentro de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce (La Gaceta N° 104 del 1º de junio de 1978), y el Decreto reformador del 8494-A correspondiente al N° 9388-A del 30 de noviembre de 1978, Artículo 2, donde se estipula nuevamente la EXPROPIACIÓN de las fincas antes referidas (La Gaceta N° 239 del 15 de diciembre de 1978) y el Decreto N° 10.088-G-H donde se dispuso la expropiación de las tierras de la Osa (sic) (Alcance N° 6 a La Gaceta N° 102 del 1 o de junio de 1979), y la Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional bajo el N° 97-256 de las 11 horas 3 minutos del 2 de mayo de 1977 donde "se condenó al Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, a través de la Dirección General Forestal o la Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, a cumplir con los Decretos Ejecutivos 8494-A, 9388-A y 10.142 a iniciar las diligencias de expropiación". 3) El Acuerdo de Junta Directiva N° 35 de la sesión 040-2007, del 10 de noviembre del 2007, ES NULO porque fue dictado como acto administrativo DEROGATORIO Y OCULTO, no notificado a ninguno de los actores de este y los demás procesos, PARA NO ENTREGARLE LAS ESCRITURAS A Nombre113656 , NI A LOS DEMÁS GESTIONANTES, pues la intención del ESTADO fue hacer nugatorio los derechos de los campesinos, acogidos al procedimiento establecido por la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo en su Artículo XXXIX de la sesión N° 44-05, del 14 de noviembre del 2005, sin resolver en base suyo los trámites iniciados por su medio en la Oficina Regional de OSA, o por su existencia declarar sin lugar la gestión o dar por agotada la vía administrativa. La Oficina solo les devolvió partes de algunos documentos de los expedientes, ocultando la causa jurídica real del Artículo cuya nulidad se solicita. E igualmente sería nula cualquier documentación posterior a la devolución de los documentos provenientes de la Oficina Regional de OSA, dentro o fuera de ese expediente reconstruido para servicio de los demandados en este juicio, particularmente si son para reducir o eliminar el reconocimiento de derechos de las partes. 4) El Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, por Acuerdo su Junta Directiva, Artículo XXXIX de la sesión N° 44-05, del 14 de noviembre del 2005, RECONOCIÓ la condena de la Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional N° 256 de las 11 horas 3 minutos del 2 de mayo de 1977 donde "se condenó al Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, a través de la Dirección General Forestal o la Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, a cumplir con los Decretos Ejecutivos 84-94-A, 9388-A y 10.142 a iniciar las diligencias de expropiación", creándoles a los usucapientes un procedimiento administrativo pata poder reconocerles sus posesiones sumadas las de sus transmitentes, conforme con su propia declaración jurada, procedimiento en el que participó Nombre113656 , con el reconocimiento de su usucapión previa a la Constitución de la Reserva de Golfo Dulce, y sus años de posesión. 5) El procedimiento administrativo creado en el 2005. por el Acuerdo de Junta Directiva N° Artículo XXXIX de la sesión No 44-05 del mismo 2005, se sumó Nombre113656 con el INICIO de su tramitación en el mismo 2005. El IDA le reconoció una posesión personal por un período de 25 años al 2005 (Memoriales OS0-820-05 y OSO- 822-05, ambos del 9 de diciembre del 2005), conforme al plano catastrado N° P-687965-2001 de la parcela N° 111, del sector 7, con una medida de 83 hectáreas 7.523,67 metros cuadrados. 6) El Acuerdo de Junta Directiva, Artículo XXXIX de la sesión N° 44-02, del 14 de noviembre del 2005 es VÁLIDO porque reconoció a favor de Nombre113656 sus años de posesión, sumada la de sus transmitentes, consecuentemente sus derechos de usucapión se consagraron antes de la constitución de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce. 7) Para dejar sin efecto el proceso sumario administrativo para la entrega de escrituras en la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, así como los DERECHOS RECONOCIDOS a Nombre113656 , por haberlo señalado la Procuraduría General de la República, la Junta Directiva del IDA dispuso NUNCA TERMINAR EL TRÁMITE DEL PROCESO ADMINISTRATIVO INICIADO. 8) La Junta Directiva del IDA nunca tomó ningún acuerdo ni inició el nombramiento de un órgano director del proceso para plantear ante los Tribunales de lo Contencioso Administrativa un PROCESO DE LESIVIDAD en su contra, manteniendo OCULTO el ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO NULO de la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, N° 35 de la sesión 040-2007, del 10 de noviembre del 2007, nunca notificado a los actores ni señalado en ninguna resolución del proceso administrativo iniciado y no terminado en la Oficina Regional de Osa. 9) El Instituto de Desarrollo Rural DEBERÁ ENTREGARLE A Nombre113656 y a la SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 , LAS ESCRITURAS, como usucapiente no sujeta a ninguna limitación como PROPIEDAD PRIVADA PERFECTA, porque ella fue usucapida contra las propiedades de la empresa OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, sin limitaciones forestales ni de la normativa de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, porque se trata de una propiedad exclusivamente civil o agraria con una disciplina independiente y diferente, dado que la usucapión operó contra la EMPRESA EXPROPIADA, OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES. Los terrenos sobre los que deberá entregar propiedad perfecta reconociéndolo en la escritura se describen así: Parcela N° 111 del sector 7, situada en Rancho Quemado, distrito Sierpe. Cantón Osa, Puntarenas, lindantes: NORTE: Quebrada Chiquerón, SUR: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; ESTE: Nombre113659 y Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría y OESTE: Nombre113660 , mide 83 hectáreas 7.523,67 metros cuadrados, según plano catastrado del Registro Nacional número P-687965-2001. (Memorial OS0-820-05 del 9 de diciembre del 2005). 10) Se CONDENE al ESTADO, principalmente, por su RESPONSABILIDAD de todos los DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS CAUSADOS A Nombre113656 y a Nombre113658 en vida, POR DAÑO MATERIAL, a las consecuencias de tenerlos prácticamente encarcelados con la prohibición del uso y ejercicio de sus derechos desde 1979. Dicha prohibición comprende la imposibilidad de realizar ningún tipo actividad forestal, agraria, comercial o industrial, entre ellos actos agrarios para sembrar o al menos producir siquiera para la subsistencia de su familia, así como actividades comerciales, industriales, por más pequeño que fuere como una pulpería, farmacia, impidiéndoles a los actores hasta poder sacar la madera caída porque la Administración Forestal no lo autorizó prefiriendo dejar podrirse que autorizar a los legítimos poseedores a extraerla. Este rubro se calculará en ejecución de sentencia en una suma no menor de DOS MILLONES DE COLONES POR AÑO, desde 1978 y hasta la fecha del pago del fallo condenatorio. 11) Se condene, en igual forma como se ha solicitado CONDENAR a las tres partes demandadas, al pago por los daños y perjuicios también causados por la imposibilidad de recibir los INCENTIVOS FORESTALES, o beneficios de mantener y cuidar los bosques cuyo pago verifica FONAFIFO anualmente a todos los propietarios o con autorización del IDA en los últimos años (pero sin que me fuera admitida nunca mi solicitud a la Oficina Regional de Osa) debiendo pagar tales perjuicios desde que fue constituido ese tipo de incentivo hasta el momento de la cancelación del pago de la indemnización. Todos estos daños y pe1juicios se liquidarán en EJECUCIÓN DE SENTENCIA, y en dicha EJECUCIÓN dichos perjuicios a razón de la fijación en las tablas de FONAFIFO para el pago por hectárea por año, en las hectáreas de la finca de Nombre113656 y la SUCESIÓN DE Nombre113658 . 12) Se condene, en igual forma como se ha solicitado CONDENAR a las tres partes demandadas, al pago del DAÑO MORAL, por el gran sufrimiento sometido por todo tipo de injusticias de parte de los demandados principalmente EL ESTADO, y subsidiariamente el IDA o INDER y al SINAC pido se les condene en forma SOLIDARIA o proporcional de conformidad con los años de su intervención por todo el DAÑO MORAL ocasionado, teniéndoles en condiciones de expropiación DESDE HACE MÁS DE 41 AÑOS, mientras tanto se les prohibió a TODO tipo de actividades en la finca (agrícolas, industriales, comerciales o forestales). El DAÑO MORAL cuya condenatoria se pide fue porque se les obligó a vivir en lo más espeso de las montañas de Costa Rica, sufrido desde más de 50 años, en espera Nombre113656 y Nombre113658 , hoy su sucesión, su familia de niños pequeños, por un pago justo de las fincas, mientras pagaban con enfermedades anuales de los niños, en un ambiente de altísimo índice de mortalidad, falta de fluido eléctrico, falta de calles y movilización terrestre obligándolos a salir de esos lugares en lancha, sin comunicación telefónica para alguna emergencia, falta de la posibilidad de poder estudiar en Escuelas o Colegios, asediados los niños por los peligros de la montaña con hombres solos, muchos depravados sexuales causándole grandes daños a las niñas (con embarazos de 12 años), e igualmente muchos violentos y pleiteros, hasta delincuentes escondidos, porque debían sacarse los niños de las montañas para cualquier lado aunque fueran de pequeña edad como 10 años desperdigándose la familia, en suma pagando con la pobreza y el hambre la conservación de los bosques, donde la Administración Pública ambiental no les dejaba en lo absoluto la cacería que es como se subsiste en la montañas de cualquier parte del mundo, imposibilitados también para sacar la madera caída, prefiriendo que se pudriera, empleándose con otros patrones Nombre113661 y Nombre113658 , y sus hijos, para obtener un trabajo futuro de peones, pues de la finca solo se obtenían pocos productos sin que pudieran cubrir los gastos mínimos de alimentación, o ramas caídas para el fuego. 13) Pido se condene a las partes, en la forma como se ha indicado, a pagar por este concepto (de DAÑO MORAL y DAÑO MATERIAL) a cada uno de los actores la suma de CINCUENTA MILLONES DE COLONES. SUBSIDIARIAMENTE. En caso de que no se condene al Instituto de Desarrollo Rural a la PRETENSIÓN N° 9, consistente en ENTREGARLE a Nombre113656 y a la SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 , LA ESCRITURAS, COMO USUCAPIENTES AL MOMENTO DE LA CREACIÓN de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, como propiedad privada perfecta, porque ella fue usucapida contra las propiedades de la empresa OSA PRODUCTOS FORESTALES, sin limitaciones forestales ni de la normativa de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, pido se DECLARE LO SIGUIENTE: l. Se condena a EL ESTADO, subsidiariamente al INDER y a SINAC, a PAGARLE A Nombre113656 y a la SUCESIÓN Nombre113662 , sumando la posesión de sus transmitentes, en ejecución de sentencia, el valor de la finca no expropiada desde 1978 por su culpa y BAJO SU PROPIA RESPONSABILIDAD a incumplir por todos los medios posibles los Decretos Ejecutivos N° 8494-A del 28 de abril de 1978, Artículos 9, 10, 11 donde se dispuso EXPROPIAR las fincas privadas o usucapidas dentro de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce (La Gaceta N° 104 del 1 o de junio de 1978), el Decreto reformador del 8494-A correspondiente al N° 9388-A del 30 de noviembre de 1978, Artículo 2, donde se estipula nuevamente la EXPROPIACIÓN de las fincas antes referidas (La Gaceta N° 239 del 15 de diciembre de 1978), el Decreto N° 10.088-G-H donde se dispuso la expropiación de las tierras de la Osa (Alcance N° 6 a La Gaceta N° 102 del 1 o de junio de 1979), la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional N° 97-256 de las 11 horas 3 minutos del 2 de mayo de 1977 donde "se condenó al Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, a través de la Dirección General Forestal o la Dirección Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, a cumplir con los Decretos Ejecutivos 84-94-A, 9388-A y 10.142 a iniciar las diligencias de expropiación sobre los terrenos a los que el IDA les reconoció como poseedor por más de 40 años al 2005, y que se describen así: Parcela N° 111 del sector 7, situada en Rancho Quemado, distrito Sierpe. Cantón Osa, Puntarenas, lindantes: NORTE: Quebrada Chiquerón, SUR: Aladina Gatgens c.c. Alice; ESTE: Nombre113659 y Juan Humberto Arias Chavarría y OESTE: Nombre113660 , mide 83 hectáreas 7.523,67 metros cuadrados, según plano catastrado del Registro Nacional número P-687965-2001. (Memorial OS0-820-05 del9 de diciembre del 2005). 2. Se condene a EL ESTADO, al INDER y a SINAC, a pagarle Nombre113656 y a la SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 , en ejecución de sentencia, por medio del respectivo avalúo, la finca valorado en un precio no menor a ¢10 MILLONES por hectárea (DIEZ MILLONES DE COLONES POR HECTÁREA) que fue el precio de mercado determinado cuando se iniciaron los trámites de este juicio. PRETENSIÓN COMÚN A AMBAS. Independientemente se condene al ESTADO, al INDER y a SINAC, a la demanda principal con la pretensión No 9, o la subsidiaria de indemnización como si fuera expropiación, se le deberá pagar a Nombre113656 y a la SUCESIÓN Nombre113658 , ambas costas de esta acción..." (folios 2384 a 2390 del expediente judiciaL; 2449 a 2453, 2835 a 2840 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución).

2.- La representante del Estado solicitó la suspensión del juicio señalado para el 11 y 12 de febrero del 2019, y la integración de la litis consorcio pasivo necesaria con Nombre113660 , cédula de identidad número CED89904, quien figuró como actor en el proceso que se tramitó bajo expediente número 15-008151-1027-CA, en el cual, pretendía la entrega de un título de propiedad sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado P-829518-2002, con el que existen pequeños traslapes con la finca del plano catastrado número P-687965-2001 -según estudio registral aportado- sobre la cual, las actoras pretenden que se declare que tienen un derecho de propiedad originado en una supuesta posesión decenal (imágenes 2019 a 2922 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución).

3.- Que por auto de las 13:45 horas del 04 de octubre del 2018, se dio audiencia a la parte actora y los restantes demandados (INDER y SINAC), sobre la solicitud de suspensión del juicio señalado para el 11 y 12 de febrero del 2019, y la integración de la litis consorcio pasivo necesaria, planteada por la representante del Estado (imágenes 2930 y 2931 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución).

4.- Los representantes del INDER y del SINAC contestaron de manera positiva la audiencia, pues estiman que debe integrarse como litis consorcio pasivo necesario a Nombre113660 , cédula de identidad número CED89904 (imágenes 2935 a 2940, 2961 a 2963 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución).

5.- El apoderado de las demandantes y de Nombre113660 , contestó de manera negativa la audiencia conferida, pues entre otras razones, indica que se dio por terminado el proceso tramitado en expediente 15-008151-1027-CA, dado que la Sección Octava del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, acogió la solicitud de desistimiento planteada por el demandante Nombre113660 , por lo que, sostiene que éste no tiene un derecho que reclamar y por ende, no tiene interés en participar de este proceso de conocimiento (imágenes 2949 a 2959 del expediente virtual, a la fecha dictado de esta resolución).

CONSIDERANDO.

Io.- EL LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIO.- En términos generales, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha considerado, que con esta figura se busca garantizar la participación y defensa en el proceso de todos los sujetos cuya esfera jurídica sustancial será afectada con la resolución definitiva del asunto, sea porque la pretensión deba ser planteada por un cúmulo de sujetos, titulares del interés subjetivo cuya tutela o reconocimiento se reclama (litis consorcio activo necesario) o, por cuanto aquélla debe indefectiblemente dirigirse en su contra (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) (Resolución número 156-F-TC-2008, de 8:45 horas del 7 de noviembre, citando las resoluciones números 29-F-TC-2008 de las 14:15 horas del 8 de mayo de 2008, 30-F-TC-2008 de las 14:20 del 8 de mayo de 2008 y no. 63-A-TC-2008 de las 9:45 horas del 11 de junio de 2008).

IIo.- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO CONCRETO.- De conformidad con lo antes expuesto, resulta fundamental para determinar si procede o no la integración de la litis solicitada, verificar si la relación que se trae al proceso es de naturaleza tal que no permita su división para resolver el conflicto de fondo. Este análisis se hace a partir de las pretensiones esbozadas por las actoras en su escrito definitivo demanda y de pretensiones (folios 2340 a 2383, 2384 a 2390 del expediente judicial). En ese sentido y en términos generales, el objeto de este proceso constituye en determinar si las demandantes tienen un derecho de posesión sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado número P-687965-2001 -que forma parte de la finca número 6-39334-000 cuyo propietario es el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural-, y que de ser procedente se les otorgue un título de propiedad sobre dicho terreno. Ahora bien, la representante del Estado aportó un "Estudio para determinar si existe traslape entre los planos catastrados P-0829518-2002 y P-0687965-2001", realizado por el Sub Proceso de Conciliación Registral Catastral del Registro Inmobiliario del Registro Nacional, el 25 de mayo del 2018, en el cual, se concluye -en lo que interesa- que "...Los planos catastrados P-0829518-2002 y P-0687965-2011 no han generado título de propiedad (...) Ambos planos presentan derroteros con errores de cierre lineal y de tolerancia de área. Existe un traslape parcial, el cual se obtuvo como producto del montaje de los planos catastrados. Para esto se tomó en cuenta la localización y la ubicación respectiva de ambos..." (imágenes 2912 a 2922 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución); conclusiones a las que también arribaron tanto el Jefe de Información y Registro de Tierras del INDER, en oficio número IRT-0847-2018 del 09 de octubre del 2018, como el Departamento de Información y Regularización del Territorio del SINAC, por oficio número SINAC-SE-IRT-229 del 09 de octubre del 2018 (imágenes 2939, 2940, 2962 y 2963 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución). No obstante lo anterior, este Tribunal considera que en este momento procesal y por las razones que de seguido se expondrán, carece de interés integrar como litis consorcio pasivo necesario a Nombre113660 , cédula de identidad número CED89904, que como demandante en el proceso de conocimiento que se tramitó en expediente 15-008151-1027-CA, pretendió la entrega de un título de propiedad sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado P-829518-2002, con el que existen pequeños traslapes respecto a la finca del plano catastrado número P-687965-2001, sobre la cual, las actoras pretenden que se declare que tienen un derecho de propiedad por posesión decenal. Ello por cuanto, si bien es cierto Nombre113660 , cédula de identidad número CED89904, interpuso un proceso de conocimiento que se tramitó en expediente 15-008151-1027-CA contra el Estado, el INDER y el SINAC, y cuyo objeto también consistía -en términos generales- en establecer si tenía o no un derecho de posesión sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado número P-829518-2002 -que forma parte de la finca número 6-39334-000 cuyo propietario es el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural-, y que de haber sido procedente, se le otorgara un título de propiedad sobre dicho terreno; también lo es, que por auto sentencia número 67-2018-VIII dictada por la Sección Octava de este Tribunal a las 16:00 horas del 24 de julio del 2018, adicionada por resolución 67-2018-BIS/VIII de las 10:48 horas del 18 de octubre del 2018 (ver carpeta de documentos asociados del expediente virtual 15-008151-1027-CA), se dispuso acoger "... la solicitud de desistimiento del proceso establecido por el actor Nombre113660 . En consecuencia se da por terminado el proceso y se ordena su archivo una vez firme esta resolución (...) Se adiciona el auto N° 67-2018-VIII de este Tribunal, de las dieciséis horas del veinticuatro julio de dos mil dieciocho, únicamente en cuanto se condena al pago de ambas costas de está acción y los intereses que las mismas generen a partir de que se fijen y hasta su efectivo pago, a la parte actora, montos que se determinaran en la fase de ejecución de sentencia, en lo demás se mantiene incólume...". Aunado a lo anterior, el propio Nombre113660 , mediante escrito presentado por el apoderado de las demandantes, a fin de contestar la audiencia conferida para que se refiriera a la solicitud de integración de la litis planteada por la Procuradora Fallas Cubero y secundada por los representes del INDER y del SINAC, manifestó -en lo que interesa- que: "...Me doy por notificado de la gestión planteada por la Procuraduría (...) me parece absurdo que la Procuraduría pretenda traerme como demandado en este proceso porque (...) no tengo ningún derecho que reclamar, y en mis condiciones económicas jamás podré recurrir a un abogado para sostener lo que en este momento señalo. Renuncio de manera expresa a ser traído a este proceso carezco absolutamente de interés en esta discusión, por serme ajena y absurda (...) pido se valore que no tengo ninguna condición de litisconsorte, se me exima de asumir un rol que no me pertenece, y más bien me causa perjuicios..." (imágenes 2957 a 2959 del expediente virtual, a la fecha de dictado de esta resolución; el resaltado no es del original). En consecuencia, este órgano colegiado estima que la excepción de falta de integración de la litis consorcio pasivo necesario debe rechazarse por falta de interés actual, dado que el propio Nombre113660 , no sólo manifiesta que no tiene ningún derecho que reclamar sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado P-829518-2002 -que forma parte de la finca número 6-39334-000 cuyo propietario es el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural- y que según los estudios registrales presentados traslapa en pequeñas áreas con la finca del plano catastrado número P-687965-2001, sobre la cual, las actoras pretenden que se declare que tienen un derecho de propiedad por posesión decenal; sino también, que no tiene ningún interés en el objeto de este proceso de conocimiento, tan es así, que desistió de la causa en que alegaba tener un derecho real sobre la finca descrita en el plano catastrado P-829518-2002, que se tramitó bajo expediente 15-008151-1027-CA contra el Estado, el INDER y el SINAC, solicitud que fue acogida por la Sección Octava de este Tribunal, dándolo por terminado con condenatoria en costas para la parte actora y ordenándose su archivo. Por todo lo expuesto, se rechaza por falta de interés actual la excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario interpuesta por el Estado y secundada por los representantes del INDER y del SINAC. Se previene a todas las partes, que una vez que les sea notificada esta resolución, deberán indicar en el plazo de tres días hábiles si van a presentar o no recurso de apelación contra esta auto sentencia -y en caso positivo deberán aportar copia con sello de recibido del Tribunal de Apelaciones-, lo anterior a fin de tomar las previsiones del caso, dada la solicitud de la representante del Estado, tendente a que se suspenda la audiencia de juicio oral y público, señalada para los días 11 y 12 de febrero del 2019.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario interpuesta por el Estado y secundada por el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural y el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, por falta de interés actual. Se previene a todas las partes, que una vez que les sea notificada esta resolución, deberán indicar en el plazo de tres días hábiles si van a presentar o no recurso de apelación contra esta auto sentencia -y en caso positivo deberán aportar copia con sello de recibido del Tribunal de Apelaciones-, lo anterior a fin de tomar las previsiones del caso, dada la solicitud de la representante del Estado, tendente a que se suspenda la audiencia de juicio oral y público, señalada para los días 11 y 12 de febrero del 2019. Notifíquese.- Marianella Álvarez Molina Ileana Isabel Sánchez Navarro Sergio Mena García ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre113656 Y OTRA DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y EL ESTADO (Procuradora Susana Fallas Cubero) Nombre113663 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A