Lesividad upheld for land titling in southern border stripLesividad declarada sobre titulación de terreno en franja fronteriza sur

PROCESO: Conocimiento ACTOR: Instituto de Desarrollo Rural DEMANDADO: Nombre81626 Judgment No. 45-2019 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEGUNDA. Anexo A del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, at nine hours and forty-five minutes on the twenty-eighth of June of the year two thousand nineteen.- PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO contencioso administrativo (LESIVIDAD), established by INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact Francisco Antonio Villegas Ramírez, of legal age, attorney, resident of Curridabat, identity card number CED24652, against Nombre81626 , identity card number CED60657 and Nombre81627 , identity card number CED60658, both of legal age and residents of Sabalito de Coto Brus. Also participating as an interested party is EL ESTADO, represented by the Procuradora Silvia Quesada Casares, of legal age, resident of San José, attorney, identity card number CED656- ;

RESULTANDO:

1).- In its complaint, the plaintiff party requests that the judgment order the following: "1. That it be declared, that the nullity is partial of the agreement taken by the Junta Directiva of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, with regard to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the parties Nombre81628 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005. 2. By connection, that public deed number fifteen, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at eight hours on October twenty-seventh, two thousand five, which formalized the segregation and transfer of Parcela 49 of Asentamiento Amalia Hernández, be annulled, solely with regard to the titling of a property in favor of Nombre81628 and Nombre81627 , which generated the registry entry folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number Placa13050. 3. By connection, that the registry entry of inscription of the property registered under the Folio Real system entry number Placa13049 , issued by the Registro Nacional, be annulled." (Claims formulated in the complaint writing visible in image 12 of the main digital file and set thus in the preliminary hearing -see recording and minutes in images 58 to 60 and 73 to 75-).

2).- The defendants did not answer the complaint nor appear in the proceedings, therefore they were declared in default by resolution at 11:40 hours on October 24, 2018 (See images 24 to 37 of the main digital file).

3).- By resolution at 10:44 hours on November 28, 2018, it was ordered that this proceeding be brought to the attention of the State, who appeared as an interested party (See images 61 to 66 of the main digital file).

4).- The preliminary hearing of this matter was held on November 28, 2018, and May 27, 2019. In said phase, this matter was declared to be of pure law and the present parties (plaintiff entity and the State) rendered their conclusions. (See minutes in images 58 to 60 and 73 to 75 of the main digital file, as well as the recording of the hearing).

5).- This ruling is issued after deliberation and in the proceedings, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness. Judge Núñez Castrillo writes and;

CONSIDERANDO:

I).- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING. PLAINTIFF PARTY'S PRESENTATION: In summary, the plaintiff entity requests that the partial nullity be declared of the agreement taken by the Junta Directiva of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, with regard to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, solely with regard to the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005) and the nullity of the registry entry of inscription of the mentioned property. It argues that through the cited agreement (article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005), the Junta Directiva of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario authorized the segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to parcela 49 of Asentamiento Amalia Hernández Piedra. That said segregation and transfer was carried out in public deed number 15 at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, generating the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real 143.767-0001 and 002. That according to a study carried out by the topography area, the indicated property is immersed in the Franja Fronteriza Sur. That the lands comprised within the 2,000-meter strip that runs along the border with Panama constitute public domain property by the will of the legislator. That as it is an inalienable zone, the content of the act is illegal and harmful (lesivo), therefore there is absolute nullity in the titling of the property in question. Consequently, it requests that the filed complaint be granted.

II).- POSITION OF THE STATE: In synthesis, the representation of the State in its appearance refers to the public domain status of the southern border line. That by legal provision, the zone 2,000 meters wide along the border with Panama is inalienable and not subject to private appropriation. That this is so, because in public domain property the principle of inmatriculation governs, which consolidates it with the declaration and legal affectation. That for this reason, the registration of the property does not validate the ownership, since the Registro does not correct the defects that the document may have, the act being absolutely null. That neither good faith nor legitimate expectation can be alleged against the public domain, regardless of the time elapsed and the administrative tolerance or actions.

III).- PROVEN FACTS: Of special relevance for the resolution of this matter, the following factual list is deemed demonstrated: 1).- That by agreement taken in article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005, the Junta Directiva of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario authorized the segregation and transfer of a piece of land -among others- in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to the Dirección8776 in Sabalito de Coto Brus (See first fact of the uncontroverted complaint, folios 85-105 of administrative file provided by INDER). 2).- That in public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, the segregation and transfer indicated in the previous fact was formalized in favor of the defendants, generating the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with folio real number 143.767-001 and 002, cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, with a measurement of 160,871.07 square meters, located at the Dirección8777 , (See second fact of the uncontroverted complaint, folios 01-82 of administrative file provided by INDER). 3).- That by agreement taken in article 90 of ordinary session 033-2008 of September 22, 2008, the Junta Directiva of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, ordered among other things, to instruct the Área de Topografía to determine which plots of Asentamiento Amalia Hernández are located within the border strip (See fourth fact of the uncontroverted complaint, folio 131 of administrative file provided by INDER). 4).- That by official letter AT-417-2016 of May 16, 2016, Engineer Jimmy Garita Hernández, Head of the Área de Topografía, informed the Junta Directiva of the plaintiff entity that the parcela 49 registered in favor of the defendants is partially within the Franja Fronteriza Sur. (See fifth fact of the uncontroverted complaint). 5).- That in agreement taken in article 46 of ordinary session 41 of November 14, 2016, the Junta Directiva of the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural declared harmful (lesivo) the agreement taken in article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005, by the Junta Directiva of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, which authorized the segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to the Dirección8776 in Sabalito de Coto Brus, due to determining that it is located within the Franja Fronteriza Sur and therefore, is a public domain property (See sixth fact of the uncontroverted complaint, folios 148-156 of administrative file provided by INDER).

IV).- UNPROVEN FACTS: None are considered of special relevance for the resolution of this matter.

V).- ON THE MERITS. CRITERION OF THIS COURT: The plaintiff entity's claims seek the declaration of partial nullity of the agreement taken by the Junta Directiva of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, with regard to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, solely with regard to the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005) and the nullity of the registry entry of inscription of the mentioned property. According to the evidence and allegations that appear in the record and that were not controverted by the defendants, the cited property is located within the so-called Franja Fronteriza Sur (border with Panama), so it forms part of the public domain. Indeed, the Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -no longer in force-, provided at that time that: "Article 10.- The lands comprised in a zone of two kilometers in width, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable." The foregoing provision was preserved in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, number 2825 of October 14, 1961, and its amendments, which in its article 7 subsection f), provided the following: "As long as the State, by its own volition or upon the indication of the Ministerio de Agricultura or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, attending to reasons of national convenience, does not determine the lands that must be maintained under its domain, the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible of acquisition by claim or possession, except those that were under private domain, with legitimate title: ... f) Those comprised in a zone of 2,000 meters in width along the borders with Nicaragua and with Panama ..." (Emphasis is not from the original). Regarding the importance of the border strip, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has indicated: "Regarding the border strip, we have that the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos, No. 13 of January 10, 1939, in article 10 provided: 'The lands comprised in a zone of two kilometers in width, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable.' Said protection arises from the fact that our border zones continue to be considered indispensable for the country, not only for reasons of defense of the country's sovereignty, given the importance of reserving them as strategic zones for the security of the Nation, but also for their relevance from the standpoint of the protection of the State's natural heritage. The border zones, due to their position and cover, become an area of utmost importance for the protection of the environment as territory, an indispensable buffer zone for the communication of flora and fauna, water resources, and the prevailing ecosystem in certain regions of the country, and therefore, the interest and need of the Costa Rican State to regulate and protect the natural resources existing today, and which, without the control and limitation as to their disposal by the competent authorities, would seriously endanger the right to a healthy environment." (Voto número 2988-1999 of April 23, 1999). And also: "It is no coincidence that the Costa Rican legal system has preserved the state public ownership of the internal boundary zones of the borders, both north and south of the country, under a special regime, given that, by their special nature, they represent strategic zones for the defense of sovereignty and for the security of the Nation; as well as for the establishment of controls in matters of clear public interest such as health, customs, migration, exit and entry of goods, among others. Thus, the indiscriminate and general declassification contained in the consulted Draft Law, without having, beforehand, a technical study that establishes concretely which properties are to be declassified, in order to evaluate, among others, whether or not this endangers the security of the Nation or whether it prevents an effective exercise of sovereignty, or adequate migratory or customs control, etc., is irrational and disproportionate, which is contrary to the Constitutional Principles of Security and Sovereignty." (Voto número 18836-2014 of November 18, 2014). Given that the strip in question (2,000 meters wide along the border with Panama) is therefore a public domain property that forms part of the State's natural heritage, the lands it comprises are inalienable and imprescriptible. That is, they are not subject to being transferred or alienated in favor of private individuals, since they are outside commerce. As it is a legal affectation to the public domain, its declassification or change of destination can only be ordered or authorized equally by law, never through a simple administrative decision as occurred in this case in the challenged agreement. It must also be underlined that the registry inscription carried out does not legitimize the ownership of the property in favor of the defendants, because the Registro Nacional does not correct the defects of the registered document. Thus, then, it is evident that the agreement taken by the Junta Directiva of the then Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is absolutely null because it is harmful (lesivo) to the public interest insofar as it authorized the segregation and transfer of the land in question in favor of the defendants. Being absolutely null due to its non-conformity with the legal system, said act is not presumed legitimate, its execution, remediation, or validation cannot be ordered, as is thus derived from articles 169 and 172 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Moreover, such nullity, by necessary consequence or connection, extends to the public deed that formalized the alienation of the property, as well as to the registry entry of inscription that generated the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real number 143.767-001 and 002. For the foregoing, the present complaint must be granted.

VI).- COSTS: In accordance with article 193 of the CPCA, the procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the defeated party by the fact of being so. Dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when there is, in the judgment of the Court, sufficient reason to litigate or, when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, we find no reason that allows applying the cited exceptions, since the appropriateness of the action exercised could be corroborated; for which reason the costs -procedural and personal- shall be borne by the defendants.

POR TANTO:

The complaint filed by the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), against Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 is declared GRANTED. Consequently, and as it is harmful (lesivo) to the public interest, the following is ordered: 1).- The agreement taken by the Junta Directiva of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (today Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is partially annulled, solely with regard to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a piece of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005. 2).- By connection, public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, is partially annulled, solely with regard to the formalization of the segregation and transfer of Parcela 49 of Asentamiento Amalia Hernández in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 and which generated the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real number 143.767-001 and 002, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005. 3).- By connection, the registry entry of inscription of the property registered under the Folio Real system entry number Placa13049 , issued by the Registro Nacional in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627 , is annulled. The defendants are ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding, which must be settled in the judgment execution phase. Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo / Nombre12756 / Nombre13370 .- 4).- The preliminary hearing of this matter was held on November 28, 2018, and May 27, 2019. In that phase, this matter was declared purely legal, and the parties present (the plaintiff entity and the State) delivered their closing arguments. (See minutes in images 58 to 60 and 73 to 75 of the main digital case file, as well as the hearing recording).

5).- This resolution is issued after deliberation, and no nullities requiring correction or causing defenselessness have been observed in the proceedings. Judge Núñez Castrillo writes this opinion and;

CONSIDERANDO:

I).- PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING. PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF PARTY: In summary, the plaintiff entity requests that the partial nullity be declared of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, regarding the authorization for the segregation and transfer of a property (segregación y traspaso) in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005; the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Public Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, only concerning the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (real property folio number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Puntarenas Registry District, with cadastral map number P-1021586-2005); and the nullity of the registration entry for the inscription of the mentioned property. It argues that through the cited resolution (article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005), the Board of Directors of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario authorized the segregation and transfer of a property in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to parcel 49 of the Amalia Hernández Piedra Settlement (Asentamiento Amalia Hernández Piedra). That said segregation and transfer was effectuated in public deed number 15 of 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, generating the property of the Puntarenas Registry District with Real Folio 143.767-0001 and 002. That according to a study conducted by the topography area, the indicated property is immersed in the Southern Border Strip (Franja Fronteriza Sur). That the lands comprised within the strip of 2,000 meters running along the border with Panama constitute public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) by the will of the legislator. That since it is an inalienable zone, the content of the act is illegal and injurious (lesivo), and therefore there exists absolute nullity in the titling of the property in question. Consequently, it requests that the filed lawsuit be granted.

II).- POSITION OF THE STATE: In synthesis, the State's representation in its appearance refers to the public domain nature (demanialidad) of the southern border line. That by legal provision, the zone of 2,000 meters wide along the border with Panama is inalienable and not susceptible to private appropriation. That this is so because, in public domain assets, the principle of initial registration (inmatriculación) applies, which consolidates the asset with the declaration and designation (afectación) by law. That for this reason, the registration of the property does not validate the title, since the Registry does not cure the defects that the document may have, the act being absolutely null. That neither good faith nor legitimate reliance can be alleged against public domain, regardless of the time elapsed and the tolerance or administrative actions.

III).- PROVEN FACTS: Of special relevance for the resolution of this matter, the following factual list is considered proven: 1).- That through a resolution adopted in article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005, the Board of Directors of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario authorized the segregation and transfer of a property -among others- in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to Dirección8776 in Sabalito de Coto Brus (See uncontroverted fact one of the lawsuit, folios 85-105 of the administrative case file provided by INDER). 2).- That in public deed number 15, granted before Notary Public Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, the segregation and transfer indicated in the preceding fact was formalized in favor of the defendants, generating the property of the Puntarenas Registry District with real folio number 143.767-001 and 002, cadastral map number P-1021586-2005, measuring 160,871.07 square meters, located at Dirección8777 (See uncontroverted fact two of the lawsuit, folios 01-82 of the administrative case file provided by INDER). 3).- That through a resolution adopted in article 90 of ordinary session 033-2008 of September 22, 2008, the Board of Directors of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario resolved, among other things, to instruct the Topography Area (Área de Topografía) to determine which properties of the Amalia Hernández Settlement are located in the border strip (See uncontroverted fact four of the lawsuit, folio 131 of the administrative case file provided by INDER). 4).- That through official communication AT-417-2016 of May 16, 2016, Engineer Jimmy Garita Hernández, Head of the Topography Area, informed the Board of Directors of the plaintiff entity that parcel 49, registered in favor of the defendants, is partially within the southern border strip. (See uncontroverted fact five of the lawsuit). 5).- That in a resolution adopted in article 46 of ordinary session 41 of November 14, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural declared injurious (lesivo) the resolution adopted in article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005, by the Board of Directors of the then-called Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, which authorized the segregation and transfer of a property in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to Dirección8776 in Sabalito de Coto Brus, because it was determined that it is located within the southern border strip and therefore, is a public domain asset (bien de dominio público) (See uncontroverted fact six of the lawsuit, folios 148-156 of the administrative case file provided by INDER).

IV).- UNPROVEN FACTS: None are considered of special relevance for the resolution of this matter.

V).- ON THE MERITS. CRITERION OF THIS TRIBUNAL: The claims of the plaintiff entity have as their object the declaration of the partial nullity of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, regarding the authorization for the segregation and transfer of a property in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005; the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Public Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, only concerning the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (real folio number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Puntarenas Registry District, with cadastral map number P-1021586-2005); and the nullity of the registration entry for the inscription of the mentioned property. According to the evidence and allegations in the case file, which were not controverted by the defendants, the cited property is located within the so-called Southern Border Strip (Frontera with Panama), meaning it forms part of the public domain (demanio público). Indeed, the Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -now repealed-, provided at that time that: "Article 10.-The lands comprised in a zone of two kilometers wide, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable." The foregoing provision was preserved in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, number 2825 of October 14, 1961, and its amendments, which in its article 7 subsection f), provided the following: "While the State, by its own will or by indication of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, attending to reasons of national convenience, does not determine the lands that must remain under its domain, the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible of acquisition by claim (denuncio) or possession, except those that were under private domain, with legitimate title: ... f) Those comprised in a zone of 2,000 meters wide along the borders with Nicaragua and with Panama …" (Emphasis not in the original). On the importance of the border strip, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated: "Regarding the border strip, we have that the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos, No. 13 of January 10, 1939, in article 10 provided: 'The lands comprised in a zone of two kilometers wide, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable.' Said protection arises because our border zones continue to be considered indispensable for the country, not only for reasons of defending the country's sovereignty, given the importance of reserving them as strategic zones for National security, but also due to their relevance from the point of view of protecting the State's natural heritage. Border zones, due to their position and cover, become an extremely important area for environmental protection as territory, an indispensable buffer zone for the communication of flora and fauna, water resources, and the prevailing ecosystem in certain regions of the country, and therefore, the interest and need of the Costa Rican State to regulate and protect the natural resources existing today, which without the control and limitation regarding their disposal by the competent authorities, would seriously endanger the right to a healthy environment." (Voto número 2988-1999 of April 23, 1999). And also: "It is no coincidence that the Costa Rican legal system has preserved the state public ownership of the internal border-limits zones, both of the north and the south of the country, under a special regime, given that, by their special nature, they represent strategic zones for the defense of sovereignty and for National security; as well as for the establishment of controls in matters of clear public interest such as health, customs, migration, exit and entry of goods, among others. In such a way, that the indiscriminate and general declassification (desafectación) contained in the consulted Bill, without a prior technical study that establishes specifically which are the properties to be declassified, in order to assess, among others, whether it endangers National security or prevents an effective exercise of sovereignty, or an adequate migratory or customs control, etcetera, is irrational and disproportionate, which is contrary to the Constitutional Principles of Security and Sovereignty." (Voto número 18836-2014 of November 18, 2014). Since the strip in question (2,000 meters wide along the border with Panama) is a public domain asset that forms part of the State's natural heritage, the lands that comprise it are inalienable and imprescriptible. That is, they are not subject to being transferred or alienated in favor of private individuals, as they are outside the commerce of men. Since this is a legal designation (afectación) to the public domain, its declassification or change of use can only be ordered or authorized equally by law, never by a simple administrative decision, as occurred in this case in the challenged resolution. It must be further emphasized that the registry inscription carried out does not legitimize the ownership of the property in favor of the defendants, since the National Registry does not cure the defects of the registered document. Thus, it is evident that the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the then Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is absolutely null for being injurious to the public interest, insofar as it authorized the segregation and transfer of the property in question in favor of the defendants. Being absolutely null due to its non-compliance with the legal system, said act is not presumed legitimate, and its execution, cure (saneamiento), or validation (convalidación) cannot be ordered, as derived from numerals 169 and 172 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Furthermore, such nullity, by necessary consequence or connection, extends to the public deed that formalized the alienation of the property, as well as to the registry inscription entry that generated the property of the Puntarenas Registry District with Real Folio number 143.767-001 and 002. For the foregoing, this lawsuit must be granted.

VI).- COSTS: In accordance with numeral 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs (costas) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for being so. The waiver of this sanction is only viable when, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there is sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the present case, we find no reason whatsoever to apply the cited exceptions, since the appropriateness of the action brought could be corroborated; which is why the costs -procedural and personal- shall be borne by the defendants.

POR TANTO:

The lawsuit filed by the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), against Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, is GRANTED. Consequently, and being injurious to the public interest, the following is ordered: 1).- The resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (today Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is partially annulled, only regarding the authorization for the segregation and transfer of a property in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral map number P-1021586-2005.

2).- By connection, public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, is partially annulled, solely regarding the formalization of the segregation (segregación) and transfer of Parcel 49 of the Amalia Hernández Settlement (Asentamiento Amalia Hernández) in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, and which generated the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real number 143.767-001 and 002, with cadastral map number P-1021586-2005. 3).- By connection, the registry entry of inscription of the property inscribed under the Folio Real system registration number Placa13049, issued by the National Registry (Registro Nacional) in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, is annulled. The defendants are ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding, which shall be settled in the sentence execution phase. Notify.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo / Nombre12756 / Nombre13370 .- *I555QSGUSX061* Nombre12756 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Nombre13370 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A By connection, that public deed number fifteen, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at eight o'clock on October twenty-seventh, two thousand five, which formalized the segregation and transfer of Parcel 49 of the Amalia Hernández Settlement, be annulled, <span style="font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline">only</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> with respect to</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the titling of a property in favor of Nombre81628</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, which generated the registered folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number Placa13050. 3. By connection, that the registry entry of the property registered under the Folio Real system registration number Placa13049</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, issued by the Registro Nacional, be annulled." (Claims set forth in the complaint visible in image 12 of the main digital file and established as such in the preliminary hearing -see recording and minute in images 58 to 60 and 73 to 75-).</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> 2).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">The defendants did not answer the complaint nor appear in the proceedings, so they were declared</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> in default by resolution at 11:40 a.m. on October 24, 2018 (See images</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">24 to 37 of</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the main digital file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> 3).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">By resolution at 10:44 a.m. on November 28, 2018, it was ordered that the State be notified of this proceeding, and it appeared as an interested party (See images 61 to 66 of</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the main digital file). </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> 4).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">The preliminary hearing of this matter was held on November 28, 2018 and May 27, 2019. During that phase, this matter was declared one of pure law, and the present parties (the plaintiff entity and the State) presented their conclusions. (See minutes in images 58 to 60 and 73 to 75 of the main digital file, as well as the hearing recording).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> 5).- This resolution is issued following deliberation, and no procedural defects (nulidades) have been observed in the proceedings that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness.</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Judge Núñez Castrillo writes and;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial">WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO):</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> I).- SUBJECT MATTER (OBJETO) </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">OF THE PROCEEDING. PLAINTIFF'S</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> POSITION:</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">In summary, the plaintiff entity requests a declaration of partial nullity (nulidad parcial)</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">of the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in Article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, with respect to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a plot of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 a.m. on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, only with respect to</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005), and the nullity</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> of the registry entry of the aforementioned property. It argues that through the cited agreement (Article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005),</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the Board of Directors of what was then called the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario authorized the segregation and transfer of a plot of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to parcel 49 of the Amalia Hernández Piedra Settlement. That said segregation and transfer was executed in public deed number 15 at 08:00 a.m. on October 27, 2005, generating the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real 143.767-0001 and 002. That according to a survey conducted by the topography area, the indicated property is immersed in the Southern Border Strip (Franja Fronteriza Sur). That the lands comprised within the 2,000-meter strip running along the border with Panama constitute public domain property by legislative will. That since it is an inalienable zone, the content of the act is illegal and harmful (lesivo), meaning there is absolute nullity in the titling of the property in question. Consequently, it requests that the filed complaint be granted.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> II).- POSITION OF THE STATE: In synthesis, the representation of the State, in its appearance, refers to the public domain status (demanialidad) of the southern border line. That by legal provision, the 2,000-meter-wide zone along the border with Panama is inalienable and not susceptible to private appropriation. That this is so because the principle of inmatriculation (inmatriculación) governs public domain property, which consolidates it upon the declaration and designation (afectación) by law. That for this reason, the registration of the</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> property does not validate the title, as the Registro does not remedy the defects (vicios) that the document may have, the act being absolutely null. That against the public domain, neither good faith nor legitimate expectation can be alleged, regardless of the time elapsed and the administrative tolerance or actions.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> III).- PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS):</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Deemed of special relevance for the resolution of this matter, the following factual list is considered proven:</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">1).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">That through an agreement adopted in Article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005, the Board of Directors of what was then called the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, authorized the segregation and transfer of a plot of land -among others- in favor of the defendants Nombre81626</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to Dirección8776</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">in Sabalito de Coto Brus </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">(See uncontested first fact of the complaint, folios 85-105 of the administrative</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> file</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> provided</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> by INDER). 2).- That in </span><span style="font-family:Arial">public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> 08:00 a.m. on October 27, 2005, the segregation and transfer indicated in the previous fact was formalized in favor of the defendants, generating the property of the Partido de Puntarenas with folio real number 143.767-001 and 002, cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, with an area of 160,871.07 square meters, located in the Dirección8777</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">,</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">(See uncontested second fact of the complaint, folios 01-82 of the administrative</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> file</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> provided</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> by INDER). 3).- That </span><span style="font-family:Arial">through an agreement adopted in Article 90 of ordinary session 033-2008 of September 22, 2008, the Board of Directors of what was then called the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, resolved, among other things, to instruct the Topography Area to determine which plots of the Amalia Hernández Settlement are located in the border strip</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">(See uncontested fourth fact of the complaint, folio 131 of the administrative</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> file</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> provided</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> by INDER).</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">4).- That through official communication AT-417-2016 of May 16, 2016, Engineer Jimmy Garita Hernández, Head of the Topography Area, informed the Board of Directors of the plaintiff entity that parcel 49, registered in favor of the defendants, is partially located within the southern border strip. (See uncontested fifth fact of the complaint). 5).- That in </span><span style="font-family:Arial">an agreement adopted in Article 46 of ordinary session 41 of November 14, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural declared harmful (lesivo) the agreement adopted in Article 66 of session 041-05 of October 24, 2005 by the Board of Directors of what was then called the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, which authorized the segregation and transfer of a plot of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005 and corresponding to Dirección8776</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">in Sabalito de Coto Brus, as it was determined to be located within the southern border strip and, therefore, is a public domain property (See uncontested sixth fact of the complaint, folios 148-156 of the administrative file provided by INDER). </span></p><p style="margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> IV).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">NOT PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">NO PROBADOS):</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">None is considered of</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> special relevance for the resolution of this matter. </span></p><p style="margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> V).-</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">ON THE MERITS. CRITERION OF THIS TRIBUNAL:</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">The claims of the plaintiff entity seek the declaratory judgment of partial nullity</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">of the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in Article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, with respect to the authorization of segregation and transfer of a plot of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and Nombre81627</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005, the nullity of public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus, at 08:00 a.m. on October 27, 2005, which formalized said segregation and transfer, only with respect to</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the titling of the property in favor of the defendants (folio real number 143.767-001 and 002 of the Partido de Puntarenas, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005), and the nullity</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> of the registry entry for the aforementioned property. According to the evidence and allegations in the record that were not contested by the defendants, the cited property is located within the so-called Southern Border Strip (Franja Fronteriza Sur) (border with Panama), such that it forms part of the public domain. Indeed, the Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 10, 1939 -no longer in force-, provided at that time that: "Article 10.- The lands comprised within a zone of two kilometers in width, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable". The preceding provision was preserved in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, number 2825 of October 14, 1961 and its amendments, which in its Article 7, subsection f), provided the following: "While the State, of its own volition or by direction of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, for reasons of national convenience, does not determine the lands that must be kept under its domain, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline">the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible to acquisition by denouncement (denuncio) or possession</span><span style="font-family:Arial">,</span><span style="font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline"> except those that were under private domain, with a legitimate title</span><span style="font-family:Arial">: …</span><span style="font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline"> f) Those comprised within a zone of 2,000 meters in width along the borders with Nicaragua and with Panama</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> …"(Highlighting is not from the original). Regarding the importance of the border strip, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has stated: "With respect to the border strip, we have that the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos, No. 13 of January 10, 1939, in Article 10 provided: 'The lands comprised within a zone of two kilometers in width, along the border with Nicaragua and with Panama, are likewise inalienable'. This protection arises because our border zones continue to be considered indispensable for the country, not only for reasons of defending the country's sovereignty, given the importance of reserving them as strategic zones for the security of the Nation, but also for their relevance from the standpoint of protecting the State's natural heritage. The border zones, by their position and cover, become an extremely important area for environmental protection as a territory, an indispensable buffer zone for the communication of flora and fauna, water resources, and the prevailing ecosystem in certain regions of the country, and therefore, the interest and the need of the Costa Rican State to regulate and protect the natural resources existing today, and which, without the control and limitation regarding their disposition by the competent authorities, would seriously endanger the right to a healthy environment."</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(Voto number 2988-1999 of April 23, 1999). And also: "It is no coincidence that the Costa Rican legal system has preserved state public ownership of the internal zones bordering the frontiers, both of the north and the south of the country, under a special regime, given that, by their special nature, they represent strategic zones for the defense of sovereignty and for the security of the Nation; as well as for establishing controls in matters of clear public interest such as health, customs, migration, exit and entry of goods, among others. In such a way, that the indiscriminate declassification (desafectación) in a general manner that the consulted Bill contains, without a prior technical study that establishes specifically which properties are going to be declassified, in order to assess, among other things, whether this endangers the security of the Nation or prevents an effective exercise of sovereignty, or adequate migratory or customs control, etcetera, is irrational and disproportionate, which is contrary to the Constitutional Principles of Security and Sovereignty."</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(Voto number 18836-2014 of November 18, 2014). Given that the strip in question (2,000 meters in width along the border with Panama) is a public domain property that forms part of the State's natural heritage, the lands that comprise it are inalienable and imprescriptible. That is, they are not subject to being transferred or alienated in favor of private individuals, as they are outside the commerce of men. Being a legal designation (afectación) to the public domain, its declassification or change of use can only be ordered or authorized equally by law, never through a simple administrative decision as occurred in this case with the challenged agreement. It must also be emphasized that the registry registration carried out does not legitimize the ownership of the property in favor of the defendants, because the Registro Nacional does not remedy the defects of the registered document. Thus, it is evident that the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the then Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in Article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is absolutely null for being harmful (lesivo) to the public interest insofar as it authorized the segregation and transfer of the plot of land in question in favor of the defendants. Being absolutely null due to its non-conformity with the legal system, said act is not presumed legitimate, its execution, remediation (saneamiento), or validation (convalidación) cannot be ordered, as thus follows from numerals 169 and 172 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Furthermore, such nullity,</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> by necessary consequence or connection (conexidad), extends to the public deed that formalized the alienation of the property, as well as the registry entry that generated the</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real number 143.767-001 and 002. Therefore, the present complaint must be granted.</span></p> VI).- COSTS: In accordance with numeral 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. A dispensation from this award is only viable when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there is sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, we find no reason to apply the cited exceptions, given that the merit of the action exercised was confirmed; therefore, the costs —procedural and personal— shall be borne by the defendants.

POR TANTO:

The lawsuit filed by the INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (INDER), against Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, is declared WITH MERIT. Consequently, and as it is detrimental to the public interest, the following is ordered: 1).- The agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (today Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) in article 66 of session 041-05, held on October 24, 2005, is partially annulled, solely as regards the authorization for the segregation and transfer of a plot of land in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, described in cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005. 2).- By connection, public deed number 15, granted before Notary Jimmy Meza Lázarus at 08:00 hours on October 27, 2005, is partially annulled, solely with respect to the formalization of the segregation and transfer of Parcela 49 of the Asentamiento Amalia Hernández in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, which generated property of the Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real number 143.767-001 and 002, with cadastral plan number P-1021586-2005. 3).- By connection, the registration entry for the property registered under the Folio Real system registration number Placa13049, issued by the National Registry in favor of the defendants Nombre81626 and Nombre81627, is annulled. The defendants are ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding, which shall be settled in the judgment execution phase. Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo / Nombre12756 / Nombre13370 .- | - Código Verificador - | | *I555QSGUSX061* | | I555QSGUSX061 | | | | Documento firmado por: | | Nombre12756 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | Nombre13370 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | FABIAN NUÑEZ CASTRILLO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |

ConvertirPDF *180041571027CA* PROCESO: Conocimiento ACTOR: Instituto de Desarrollo Rural DEMANDADO: Nombre81626 Sentencia No. 45-2019 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEGUNDA. Anexo A del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, a las nueve horas con cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiocho de junio del año dos mil diecinueve.- PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO contencioso administrativo (LESIVIDAD), establecido por INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), representado por su apoderado especial judicial Francisco Antonio Villegas Ramírez, mayor de edad, abogado, vecino de Curridabat, cédula de identidad CED24652, contra Nombre81626 , cédula de identidad CED60657 y Nombre81627 , cédula de identidad CED60658, ambos mayores de edad y vecinos de Sabalito de Coto Brus. Interviene además como interesado EL ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Silvia Quesada Casares, mayor, vecina de San José, abogada, cédula de identidad CED656- ;

RESULTANDO:

1).- En su demanda, la parte actora pretende que en sentencia se disponga lo siguiente: "1. Que se declare, que la nulidad es parcial del acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05, efectuada el 24 de octubre de 2005, en lo que se refiere a autorización de segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los señores Nombre81628 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005. 2. Por conexidad, que se anule la escritura pública número quince, otorgada ante el Notario Jimmy Meza Lázarus, a las ocho horas del veintisiete de octubre de dos mil cinco, que formalizó la segregación y traspaso de la Parcela 49 del Asentamiento Amalia Hernández, únicamente en lo que se refiere a la titulación de un a finca a favor de Nombre81628 y Nombre81627 , que generó la matrícula registral folio real número 143.767-001 y 002 del Partido de Puntarenas, con plano catastrado número Placa13050. 3. Por conexidad, que se anule el asiento registral de inscripción de la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de Folio Real matrícula número Placa13049 , emitido por el Registro Nacional." (Pretensiones formuladas en escrito de demanda visible en imagen 12 del expediente digital principal y fijadas así en audiencia preliminar -ver grabación y minuta en imágenes 58 a 60 y 73 a 75-).

2).- Los demandados no contestaron la demanda ni se apersonaron al proceso, por lo que fueron declarados en rebeldía mediante resolución de las 11:40 horas del 24 de octubre de 2018 (Ver imágenes 24 a 37 de expediente digital principal).

3).- Mediante resolución de las 10:44 horas del 28 de noviembre de 2018, se ordenó poner este proceso en conocimiento del Estado, quien se apersonó en condición de interesado (Ver imágenes 61 a 66 de expediente digital principal).

4).- La audiencia preliminar de este asunto, fue celebrada los días 28 de noviembre de 2018 y 27 de mayo de 2019. En dicha fase, se declaró este asunto de puro derecho y las partes presentes (entidad actora y el Estado) rindieron sus conclusiones. (Ver minutas en imágenes 58 a 60 y 73 a 75 del expediente digital principal, así como grabación de la audiencia).

5).- La presente resolución se dicta previa deliberación y en los procedimientos, no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión. Redacta el Juez Núñez Castrillo y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I).- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. PLANTEAMIENTO DE LA PARTE ACTORA: En resumen, la entidad actora pide que se declare la nulidad parcial del acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05, efectuada el 24 de octubre de 2005, en lo que se refiere a la autorización de segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005, la nulidad de la escritura pública número 15, otorgada ante el Notario Jimmy Meza Lázarus, a las 08:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2005, que formalizó dicha segregación y traspaso, únicamente en lo que se refiere a la titulación de la finca a favor de los demandados (folio real número 143.767-001 y 002 del Partido de Puntarenas, con plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005) y la nulidad del asiento registral de inscripción de la finca mencionada. Argumenta que mediante el acuerdo citado (artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05 del 24 de octubre de 2005), la Junta Directiva del entonces llamado Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario autorizó la segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005 y correspondiente a la parcela 49 del Asentamiento Amalia Hernández Piedra. Que dicha segregación y traspaso se realizó en la escritura pública número 15 de las 08:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2005, generando la finca del Partido de Puntarenas con Folio Real 143.767-0001 y 002. Que según estudio realizado por el área de topografía, el inmueble señalado se encuentra inmerso en la Franja Fronteriza Sur. Que los terrenos comprendidos dentro de la franja de 2.000 metros que discurre a lo largo de la frontera con Panamá, constituyen bienes de dominio público por voluntad del legislador. Que al tratarse de una zona inalienable, el contenido del acto es ilegal y lesivo, por lo que existe nulidad absoluta en la titulación del inmueble en cuestión. En consecuencia, pide declarar con lugar la demanda formulada.

II).- POSICIÓN DEL ESTADO: En síntesis, la representación del Estado en su apersonamiento se refiere a la demanialidad de la línea fronteriza sur. Que por disposición legal, la zona de 2.000 metros de ancho a lo largo de la frontera con Panamá es inalienable y no susceptible de apropiación particular. Que ello es así, porque en los bienes de dominio público rige el principio de inmatriculación, que consolida a aquél con la declaratoria y afectación mediante ley. Que por tal razón, la inscripción del inmueble no bonifica la titularidad, pues el Registro no subsana los vicios que puede tener el documento, siendo el acto absolutamente nulo. Que contra el dominio público no puede alegarse buena fe ni la confianza legítima, sin importar el tiempo transcurrido y la tolerancia o actuaciones administrativas.

III).- HECHOS PROBADOS: De especial relevancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tiene por demostrado el siguiente elenco fáctico: 1).- Que mediante acuerdo tomado en artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05 del 24 de octubre de 2005, la Junta Directiva del entonces llamado Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, autorizó, la segregación y traspaso de un terreno -entre otros- a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005 y correspondiente a la Dirección8776 en Sabalito de Coto Brus (Ver hecho primero de la demanda no controvertido, folios 85-105 de expediente administrativo aportado por INDER). 2).- Que en escritura pública número 15, otorgada ante el Notario Jimmy Meza Lázarus, a las 08:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2005, se formalizó la segregación y traspaso indicada en el hecho anterior a favor de los demandados, generándose la finca del Partido de Puntarenas con folio real número 143.767-001 y 002, plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005, con una medida de 160.871,07 metros cuadrados, ubicada en el Dirección8777 , (Ver hecho segundo de la demanda no controvertido, folios 01-82 de expediente administrativo aportado por INDER). 3).- Que mediante acuerdo tomado en artículo 90 de la sesión ordinaria 033-2008 del 22 de setiembre de 2008, la Junta Directiva del entonces llamado Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, dispuso entre otras cosas, instruir al Área de Topografía para que determine cuáles predios del Asentamiento Amalia Hernández se encuentran en la franja fronteriza (Ver hecho cuarto de la demanda no controvertido, folio 131 de expediente administrativo aportado por INDER). 4).- Que mediante oficio AT-417-2016 del 16 de mayo de 2016, el Ingeniero Jimmy Garita Hernández, Jefe del Área de Topografía, informó a la Junta Directiva de la entidad actora, que la parcela 49 inscrita a favor de los demandados, se encuentra parcialmente dentro de la franja fronteriza sur. (Ver hecho quinto de la demanda no controvertido). 5).- Que en acuerdo tomado en artículo 46 de la sesión ordinaria 41 del 14 de noviembre de 2016, la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Rural declaró lesivo el acuerdo tomado en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05 del 24 de octubre de 2005 por la Junta Directiva del entonces llamado Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, que autorizó la segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005 y correspondiente a la Dirección8776 en Sabalito de Coto Brus, por determinarse que se encuentra dentro de la franja fronteriza sur y por lo tanto, es un bien de dominio público (Ver hecho sexto de la demanda no controvertido, folios 148-156 de expediente administrativo aportado por INDER).

IV).- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: No se considera ninguno de especial relevancia para la resolución de este asunto.

V).- SOBRE EL FONDO. CRITERIO DE ESTE TRIBUNAL: Las pretensiones de la entidad actora tienen como objeto la declaratoria nulidad parcial del acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05, efectuada el 24 de octubre de 2005, en lo que se refiere a la autorización de segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrita en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005, la nulidad de la escritura pública número 15, otorgada ante el Notario Jimmy Meza Lázarus, a las 08:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2005, que formalizó dicha segregación y traspaso, únicamente en lo que se refiere a la titulación de la finca a favor de los demandados (folio real número 143.767-001 y 002 del Partido de Puntarenas, con plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005) y la nulidad del asiento registral de inscripción de la finca mencionada. Según la prueba y alegaciones que constan en autos y que no fueron controvertidas por los demandados, el inmueble citado se encuentra dentro de la denominada Franja Fronteriza Sur (frontera con Panamá), de modo que forma parte del demanio público. En efecto, la Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 del 10 de enero de 1939 -hoy no vigente-, dispuso en ese momento que: "Artículo 10.-Son asimismo inalienables los terrenos comprendidos en una zona de dos kilómetros de ancho, a lo largo de la frontera con Nicaragua y con Panamá". La anterior disposición fue conservada en la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, número 2825 del 14 de octubre de 1961 y sus reformas, que en su artículo 7 inciso f), dispuso lo siguiente: “Mientras el Estado, por voluntad propia o por indicación del Ministerio de Agricultura o del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, atendiendo razones de conveniencia nacional, no determine los terrenos que deben mantenerse bajo su dominio, se considerarán inalienables y no susceptibles de adquirirse por denuncio o posesión, salvo los que estuvieren bajo el dominio privado, con título legítimo, los siguientes: … f) Los comprendidos en una zona de 2.000 metros de ancho a lo largo de las fronteras con Nicaragua y con Panamá …”(Lo destacado no es del original). Sobre la importancia de la franja fronteriza, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha señalado: "Respecto a la franja fronteriza, tenemos que la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos, No. 13 de 10 de enero de 1939, en el artículo 10 dispuso: "Son asimismo inalienables los terrenos comprendidos en una zona de dos kilómetros de ancho, a lo largo de la frontera con Nicaragua y con Panamá". Dicha protección nace a raíz de que nuestras zonas fronterizas siguen siendo consideradas indispensables para el país, no sólo por razones de defensa de la soberanía del país, ante la importancia que tiene reservarlas como zonas estratégicas para la seguridad de la Nación, sino también por su relevancia desde el punto de vista de la protección del patrimonio natural del Estado. Las zonas fronterizas por su posición y cobertura se convierten en un área sumamente importante para la protección del medio ambiente como territorio, una zona de amortiguamiento indispensable para la comunicación de la flora y fauna, recursos hídricos y del ecosistema imperante en determinadas regiones del país, y por ende, el interés y la necesidad del Estado costarricense de regular y proteger los recursos naturales existentes hoy en día, y que sin el control y la limitación en cuanto a su disposición por parte de las autoridades competentes, pondrían en grave peligro el derecho a un ambiente sano". (Voto número 2988-1999 del 23 de abril de 1999). Y también: "No es casualidad que el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense haya preservado la titularidad pública estatal de las zonas internas limítrofes de las fronteras, tanto del norte como del sur del país, bajo un régimen especial, dado que, por su especial naturaleza, representan zonas estratégicas para la defensa de la soberanía y para la seguridad de la Nación; así como para el establecimiento de controles en materias de claro interés público como la salud, aduanas, migración, salida e ingreso de mercancías, entre otros. De manera tal, que la desafectación indiscriminada y en forma general que contiene el consultado Proyecto de Ley, sin contar, de previo, con un estudio técnico que establezca en concreto cuáles son los inmuebles que se van a desafectar, a fin de valorar, entre otros, si ello pone o no en peligro la seguridad de la Nación o si impide un efectivo ejercicio de la soberanía, o un adecuado control migratorio o aduanero, etcétera, resulta irracional y desproporcionado, lo que resulta contrario a los Principios Constitucionales de Seguridad y Soberanía". (Voto número 18836-2014 del 18 de noviembre de 2014). Al tratarse entonces la franja en cuestión (2.000 metros de ancho a lo largo de la frontera con Panamá) de un bien de dominio público que forma parte del patrimonio natural del Estado, los terrenos que la comprenden resultan inalienables e imprescriptibles. Es decir, no son sujetos de ser traspasados o enajenados a favor de particulares, pues se encuentran fuera del comercio de los hombres. Al tratarse de una afectación legal al dominio público, su desafectación o cambio de destino solo puede ser dispuesto o autorizado igualmente por ley, nunca mediante una simple decisión administrativa como ocurrió en este caso en el acuerdo impugnado. Debe subrayarse además, que la inscripción registral realizada no legitima la titularidad del inmueble a favor de los demandados, pues el Registro Nacional no subsana los vicios del documento inscrito. Así entonces, es evidente que el acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del entonces Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05, efectuada el 24 de octubre de 2005, es absolutamente nulo por ser lesivo al interés público en el tanto autorizó la segregación y traspaso del terreno en cuestión a favor de los demandados. Al ser absolutamente nulo por su disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico, dicho acto no se presume legítimo, no puede ordenarse su ejecución, saneamiento o convalidación, tal como así se desprende de los numerales 169 y 172 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Tal nulidad además, por necesaria consecuencia o conexidad se extiende a la escritura pública que formalizó la enajenación del inmueble, así como del asiento de inscripción registral que generó la finca del Partido de Puntarenas con Folio Real número 143.767-001 y 002. Por lo anterior, la presente demanda debe ser declarada con lugar.

VI).- COSTAS: De conformidad con el numeral 193 del CPCA, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encontramos motivo alguno que permita aplicar las excepciones citadas, toda vez que se pudo corroborar la procedencia de la acción ejercida; razón por lo cual las costas -procesales y personales- serán a cargo de los demandados.

POR TANTO:

Se declara CON LUGAR la demanda interpuesta por el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER), contra Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 . Por consiguiente y al ser lesivo al interés público, se dispone lo siguiente: 1).- Se anula parcialmente el acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (hoy Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) en el artículo 66 de la sesión 041-05, efectuada el 24 de octubre de 2005, únicamente en lo que se refiere a la autorización de segregación y traspaso de un terreno a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 , descrito en el plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005. 2).- Por conexidad, se anula parcialmente la escritura pública número 15, otorgada ante el Notario Jimmy Meza Lázarus, a las 08:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2005, únicamente en cuanto a la formalización de la segregación y traspaso de la Parcela 49 del Asentamiento Amalia Hernández a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 y que generó la finca del Partido de Puntarenas con Folio Real número 143.767-001 y 002, con plano catastrado número P-1021586-2005. 3).- Por conexidad, se anula el asiento registral de inscripción de la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de Folio Real matrícula número Placa13049 , emitido por el Registro Nacional a favor de los demandados Nombre81626 y Nombre81627 . Se condena a los demandados al pago de ambas costas de este proceso, las cuales deberán ser liquidadas en fase de ejecución de sentencia. Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo / Nombre12756 / Nombre13370 .- *I555QSGUSX061* Nombre12756 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Nombre13370 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A