{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-154578", "citation": "Res. 01617-2014 Sala Tercera de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Desalojo y demolición en zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre", "title_en": "Eviction and demolition in the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zone", "summary_es": "La Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia resuelve un recurso de casación interpuesto por la defensa de Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, condenada por construcción ilegal en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre. La Sala interpreta sistemáticamente la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre N° 6043 y su Reglamento, diferenciando las figuras de \"poblador\" y \"ocupante\", y estableciendo los requisitos para cada una. Determina que los derechos reconocidos a estos sujetos se limitan a la zona restringida, no a la zona pública, la cual es inalienable e imprescriptible. Concluye que procede el desalojo de la imputada y la demolición de la construcción, al no contar con permiso o concesión habilitante. No obstante, aplica la moratoria de 24 meses establecida en la Ley N° 9073, suspendiendo la ejecución del desalojo y la demolición, y ordena a varias entidades públicas realizar el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre en ese plazo.", "summary_en": "The Supreme Court's Third Chamber resolves a cassation appeal filed by the defense of Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, convicted of illegal construction in the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zone. The Chamber systematically interprets the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 and its Regulation, differentiating between the figures of \"settler\" and \"occupant\", and establishing the requirements for each. It determines that the rights recognized to these subjects are limited to the restricted zone, not the public zone, which is inalienable and imprescriptible. It concludes that eviction of the accused and demolition of the construction are appropriate, as she lacks a legally enabling permit or concession. However, it applies the 24-month moratorium established in Law No. 9073, suspending the execution of the eviction and demolition, and orders several public entities to carry out the planning of the maritime terrestrial zone within that period.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Tercera de la Corte", "date": "2014", "year": "2014", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "zona marítimo terrestre", "zona pública", "zona restringida", "poblador", "ocupante", "Ley 6043", "Ley 9073" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 12", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 20", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 44", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 70", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 75", "law": "Decreto 7841-P" }, { "article": "Art. 1", "law": "Ley 9073" }, { "article": "Art. 7", "law": "Ley 9073" } ], "keywords_es": [ "zona marítimo terrestre", "zona pública", "desalojo", "demolición", "poblador", "ocupante", "Ley 6043", "Ley 9073", "casación", "Sala Tercera" ], "keywords_en": [ "maritime terrestrial zone", "public zone", "eviction", "demolition", "settler", "occupant", "Law 6043", "Law 9073", "cassation", "Third Chamber" ], "excerpt_es": "De las consideraciones expuestas se concluye, en general, que en tratándose de la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los ocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones realizadas; y, en particular, que la señora Gerarda Espinoza Briceño es ocupante de una construcción sita en la zona pública sin contar con permiso o concesión que le habiliten legalmente para ello, por lo que en su caso sí procede su desalojo y la destrucción de tal construcción para que la zona pública por ella ocupada recupere su estado anterior a la invasión.\n\nSe mantienen incólumes a) la orden de desalojo de la señora G.E.B. de la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, b) la orden de destrucción de la construcción habitada por la señora G.E.B. en calidad de ocupante en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, c) la suspensión por veinticuatro meses del desalojo y la destrucción de la construcción indicados.", "excerpt_en": "From the foregoing considerations, it follows, in general, that with regard to the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, the eviction of settlers and occupants and the destruction of the constructions carried out are appropriate; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant of a construction located in the public zone without having any permit or concession that legally enables her to do so, therefore, her eviction and the destruction of such construction are appropriate so that the public zone occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.\n\nThe following remain unaltered: a) the eviction order of Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, b) the order for the destruction of the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. as an occupant in the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, c) the suspension for twenty-four months of the eviction and destruction of the indicated construction.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Third Chamber denies the cassation appeal, upholds the eviction and demolition order, but applies the 24-month suspension established in Law 9073.", "summary_es": "La Sala Tercera declara sin lugar el recurso de casación, confirma la orden de desalojo y demolición, pero aplica la suspensión de 24 meses establecida en la Ley 9073." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III, citando Art. 20 LZMT", "quote_en": "Except for the exceptions established by law, the public zone may not be subject to occupation under any title or in any case. No one may claim any right over it.", "quote_es": "Salvo las excepciones establecidas por la ley, la zona pública no puede ser objeto de ocupación bajo ningún título ni en ningún caso. Nadie podrá alegar derecho alguno sobre ella." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The recognitions granted by the LZMT are limited to the restricted zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone.", "quote_es": "Los reconocimientos que se dan por la LZMT se reducen a la zona restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre, y no a la zona pública." }, { "context": "Considerando IV, citando inciso e) Art. 73 RLZMT", "quote_en": "When there are constructions, buildings, or facilities erected illegally in the public zone, the municipality must destroy, demolish, or remove them.", "quote_es": "Cuando existan construcciones, edificaciones o instalaciones levantadas ilegalmente en la zona pública, la municipalidad deberá destruirlas, demolerlas o removerlas." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32006", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6043 Art. 12" }, { "target_id": "norm-18579", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto 7841-P Art. 75" }, { "target_id": "norm-73503", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 9073 Art. 1" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-154578", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-18579", "norm_num": "7841", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "16/12/1977" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32006", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_name": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/03/1977" }, { "doc_id": "norm-73503", "norm_num": "9073", "norm_name": "Ley de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas clasificadas como Especiales", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "19/09/2012" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“III.- Del poblador y del\r\nocupante en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre. La Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo\r\nTerrestre 6043, de 02 de marzo de 1977 (publicada en el Alcance 35 del Diario\r\nOficial La Gaceta\r\n52 de 16 de marzo de 1977, y vigente a partir de ésta última fecha, en adelante\r\nLZMT) establece en el artículo 12, en general sobre la zona marítimo\r\nterrestre, que “es prohibido, sin la debida autorización legal,\r\nexplotar la flora y fauna existentes, deslindar con cercas, carriles o en\r\ncualquier otra forma, levantar edificaciones o instalaciones, cortar árboles,\r\nextraer productos o realizar cualquier otro tipo de desarrollo, actividad u\r\nocupación.”. Y en forma específica sobre la zona pública determina en el\r\nnumeral 20: “Salvo las excepciones establecidas por la ley, la zona pública\r\nno puede ser objeto de ocupación bajo ningún título ni\r\nen ningún caso. Nadie podrá alegar derecho alguno sobre ella.\r\nEstará dedicada al uso público y en especial al libre\r\ntránsito de las personas. Las entidades y autoridades que indica el artículo 18\r\ndeberán dictar y hacer cumplir las disposiciones necesarias para garantizar el\r\nlibre y seguro tránsito de las personas y el uso público de esta zona.”. Las excepciones a las que se refiere este numeral 20 de la LZMT son: A) Aquellas\r\nsecciones que por su configuración geográfica, su topografía o sus condiciones\r\nespeciales, no pueden aprovecharse para uso público, en cuyo caso se autoriza\r\nsu desarrollo por la municipalidad respectiva y el Instituto Costarricense de\r\nTurismo, siempre que no se enajenen y se establezca una zona de libre tránsito\r\nque facilite el uso y disfrute públicos de las playas, riscos y esteros y se\r\ngarantice la seguridad de los peatones (artículo 21 LZMT). B) Las obras de\r\ninfraestructura y construcción que aprueben el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y\r\nTransportes, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, el Instituto Nacional de\r\nVivienda y Urbanismo, y la respectiva municipalidad, atendiendo al uso público\r\na que se destinen, o que se trate del establecimiento y operación de\r\ninstalaciones turísticas estatales de notoria conveniencia para el país\r\n(artículo 22 LZMT). Y C) Los casos contenidos en leyes que regulan aspectos\r\nespeciales de la zona marítimo terrestre, verbigracia, el caso contenido en la Ley 7744, de Concesión y\r\nOperación de Marinas y Atracaderos Turísticos de 19 de diciembre de 1997\r\n(publicada en el Diario Oficial La\r\n Gaceta 26, de 06 de febrero de 1998). Sin embargo, conviene\r\nprecisar que la Ley\r\n6043, sobre la Zona\r\n Marítimo Terrestre y su Reglamento (dictado por Decreto\r\n7841-P, de 16 de diciembre de 1977, publicado en el Alcance 16, del Diario\r\nOficial La Gaceta\r\n20, de 27 de enero de 1978, y vigente a partir de esta última fecha; en\r\nadelante RLZMT) establecen dos categorías de personas físicas que ejercen actos\r\nde ocupación en la zona marítima terrestre: poblador y ocupante. La figura del\r\npoblador se halla regulada en los artículos 70 de la LZMT y 75 del RLZMT; la del\r\nocupante se encuentra en los artículos 44 y Transitorio VII de la LZMT. El artículo 70 de la LZMT se lee: “Los\r\npobladores de la zona marítimo terrestre, costarricenses por nacimiento, con\r\nmás de diez años de residencia en ella, según información de la autoridad de la Guardia de Asistencia\r\nRural local o certificación del Registro Electoral sobre el domicilio del\r\nsolicitante, podrán continuar en posesión de sus respectivos lotes siempre que\r\nfuere su única propiedad. Sin embargo, deberán sujetarse a la\r\nplanificación de la zona, a cuyo efecto podrán ser reubicados e indemnizadas\r\nsus mejoras de acuerdo con esta ley. En todo caso\r\ndeberá respetarse la zona pública”. El numeral 75 del RLZMT indica:\r\n“ Los pobladores de la zona marítimo terrestre, costarricenses por\r\nnacimiento, con más de diez años de residencia continua en ella, según\r\ninformación de la autoridad de la\r\n Guardia de Asistencia Rural local o certificación del\r\nRegistro Electoral sobre el domicilio del solicitante podrán continuar en \r\nposesión de sus respectivos lotes siempre que fuere su única propiedad,\r\npudiendo ser reubicados de acuerdo con la planificación de la zona, previa\r\nindemnización de las mejoras. En todo caso deberá respetarse\r\nla zona pública. Cuando el período de residencia sea\r\ninferior a diez años, los pobladores podrán solicitar concesión sobre el\r\npredio, siempre que no se incluya parte alguna de la zona pública. Si\r\nexistiesen mejoras en la zona pública, se aplicará lo dispuesto en el inciso\r\ne), artículo 73 del reglamento, y las disposiciones del artículo 74 del\r\nreglamento si las mejoras estuvieren ubicadas en la zona restringida. Quienes\r\nno siendo pobladores hayan construido o edificado en la zona restringida en\r\npredios ilegalmente poseídos, no tendrán derecho al pago de mejoras. Sin\r\nembargo, podrán solicitar concesión sobre el predio y, si se les otorgare, no\r\nse les cobrará por el uso, y disfrute de esas mejoras.\r\nLas solicitudes de concesiones que hagan los ocupantes de la zona marítimo\r\nterrestre tendrán prioridad sobre las demás.”. El\r\nartículo 44 de la LZMT\r\nse lee: “ Las concesiones se otorgarán\r\natendiendo al principio de que el primero en tiempo es primero en derecho. Sin\r\nembargo, el reglamento de esta ley podrá establecer un orden de prioridades\r\natendiendo a la naturaleza de la explotación y a la mayor conveniencia pública\r\nde ésta; pero en igualdad de condiciones se ha de preferir al ocupante del\r\nterreno que la haya poseído quieta, pública y pacíficamente en forma continua.”.\r\nY el Transitorio VII de la LZMT\r\nseñala: “Las municipalidades con jurisdicción en la zona marítimo-terrestre\r\ncobrarán el canon que establece esta ley para los ocupantes de la misma. El\r\ncobro se hará de acuerdo con el uso y con el avalúo\r\nactual de la\r\n Dirección General de la Tributación Directa.\r\nEsta autorización tendrá carácter provisional, hasta tanto no entre en vigencia\r\nel plan de desarrollo para la respectiva zona, y no produce derecho alguno para\r\nlos ocupantes en lo que a concesión se refiere.”.\r\nDe la lectura de las normas transcritas se concluye la existencia de requisitos\r\nque debe cumplir toda persona para ostentar la condición de poblador: a) una\r\nposesión continua de al menos 10 años de antigüedad anterior a la entrada en\r\nvigencia de la LZMT\r\n–16 de marzo de 1977–, es decir, una posesión que iniciara al menos desde 1967;\r\nb) nacer antes de 1949, para tener mayoría de edad\r\nal iniciar los 10 años de la posesión indicada; c) ser costarricense por\r\nnacimiento; d) no ser propietario de otro terreno, e) contar con un informe de la Fuerza Pública o\r\nuna certificación del Registro Civil, que sirvan de prueba sobre la\r\nposesión de marras. En relación con la categoría de ocupante, los requisitos\r\npara ostentar tal condición son: i) una posesión inferior a 10 años con\r\nanterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la LZMT (16 de marzo de 1977), es decir, una\r\nposesión que iniciara con posterioridad a 1967; b) nacer antes de 1959; c) ser\r\ncostarricense por nacimiento; d) no ser propietario de otro terreno, e) contar\r\ncon un informe de la\r\n Fuerza Pública o una certificación del Registro Civil que\r\nsirvan de prueba sobre la posesión de marras. De esta forma, salvo disposición\r\nlegal especial, las personas que 1) ingresaron a la zona marítimo terrestre\r\nantes de la vigencia de la LZMT\r\ny no son pobladores ni ocupantes, y 2) ingresaron después del 16 de marzo de\r\n1977, se hallan en una situación de ocupación ilegal. Al concordar los\r\nartículos 70, 44 y Transitorio VII de la LZMT y 75 del RLZMT con los numerales 12 y 20 de la LZMT, se concluye que los\r\npobladores y los ocupantes no se hallan en los casos de excepción previstos en\r\nel último artículo (sea, el 20 iusidem), por lo que debe entenderse que los\r\nreconocimientos que se dan por la\r\n LZMT se reducen a la zona restringida de la zona marítimo\r\nterrestre, y no a la zona pública. Se tiene por resuelto, entonces, el alegato\r\nde precedentes contradictorios formulado por el Defensor Público Cristhiam\r\nGutiérrez Leal en el sentido de que respecto de la zona pública de la zona\r\nmarítimo terrestre a) sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los ocupantes\r\ny la destrucción de las construcciones por ellos utilizadas cuando no cuenten\r\ncon permiso o concesión que les habiliten legalmente para ejercer tal posesión,\r\ny b) ese desalojo y esa destrucción de las construcciones pueden ser\r\nsuspendidos por 24 meses según lo previsto en los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073, de Protección a los\r\nOcupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales de 19 de septiembre de 2012,\r\npublicada en el Diario Oficial La\r\n Gaceta 206, de 25 de octubre de 2012 Alcance 163 (sobre la\r\nque se exponen elementos relevantes en el Considerando V infra). \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- Situación específica de la señora Gerarda\r\nEspinoza Briceño. En el caso particular de la señora Gerarda Espinoza\r\nBriceño resulta necesario considerar que si bien es cierto el Tribunal de\r\nJuicio de Puntarenas señala como hecho probado a folio 134, para efectos del\r\ndictado de la absolutoria, que su posesión se realiza “al menos desde el 23\r\nde abril de 2007”, el mismo Tribunal reconoce que su posesión es de 40 a 50 años, según lo deriva\r\nde la prueba evacuada, en especial el testimonio de Jorge Pérez Espinoza\r\n(archivo digital c0100130530150339.vgz contador 15:19:34). En atención a tal\r\nreconocimiento posesorio, que no ha sido objeto de impugnación y se halla\r\nfirme, se logra concluir que la señora Espinoza Briceño no cumple con uno de\r\nlos requisitos para ser considerada pobladora: nacer antes de 1949 y así tener\r\ncapacidad para el ejercicio posesorio; al efecto, nótese que nació el 29 de\r\ndiciembre de 1951 (folio 23, identificación de la señora Espinoza Briceño). Por\r\nende, la categoría de ocupante (y no la de poblador) es la que resulta\r\nprocedente analizar para este caso de la señora\r\nEspinoza Briceño. Recordemos, en lo que interesa, que el numeral 75 del\r\nRLZMT indica que: “…Cuando el período de residencia sea inferior a diez\r\naños, los pobladores podrán solicitar concesión sobre el predio, siempre que no\r\nse incluya parte alguna de la zona pública. Si existiesen mejoras en la zona\r\npública, se aplicará lo dispuesto en el inciso e), artículo 73 del reglamento,\r\ny las disposiciones del artículo 74 del reglamento si las mejoras estuvieren\r\nubicadas en la zona restringida.”. En primer término, si bien es cierto el\r\nlegislador utiliza el término “pobladores”, en este supuesto descrito en este\r\npárrafo del numeral 75 debe entenderse que se trata de “ocupantes” dado el contexto\r\nde todo el artículo. En segundo término, ha quedado como probado y en firme que\r\nla señora Espinoza Briceño habita una construcción sita en la zona pública sin\r\ncontar con permiso o concesión algunos que le habiliten legalmente para ello,\r\nlo que obliga a la lectura del inciso e) del numeral 73 del RLZMT: “Cuando\r\nexistan construcciones, edificaciones, o instalaciones levantadas ilegalmente\r\nen la zona pública, la municipalidad deberá destruirlas, demolerlas o\r\nremoverlas, siguiendo el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 22 de este\r\nreglamento.”, y el 22 del RLZMT señala que las autoridades administrativas\r\nde la correspondiente jurisdicción, así como las respectivas municipalidades,\r\ntan pronto tengan noticia de alguna contravención a lo dispuesto en el artículo\r\n12 de la LZMT\r\ndeben proceder al desalojo de los infractores, así como a la destrucción o\r\ndemolición de las construcciones que se hayan realizado. De las consideraciones\r\nexpuestas se concluye, en general, que en tratándose de la zona pública de la\r\nzona marítimo terrestre sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los\r\nocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones realizadas; y, en particular,\r\nque la señora Gerarda Espinoza Briceño es ocupante de una construcción sita en\r\nla zona pública sin contar con permiso o concesión que le habiliten legalmente\r\npara ello, por lo que en su caso sí procede su desalojo y la destrucción de tal\r\nconstrucción para que la zona pública por ella ocupada recupere su estado\r\nanterior a la invasión.\n\r\n\r\n\nV. Ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre. La Ley 9073 , de Protección a los\r\nOcupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, de 19 de septiembre de 2012,\r\n(publicada en el Diario Oficial La\r\n Gaceta 206, de 25 de octubre de 2012, Alcance 163), señala en\r\nsus artículos 1 y 7 lo siguiente: “Por el plazo de veinticuatro meses, se\r\nsuspenderá el desalojo de personas, demolición de obras, suspensión de\r\nactividades y proyectos en la zona marítimo-terrestre, zona fronteriza y\r\npatrimonio natural del Estado.”; y “Durante la vigencia de esta\r\nmoratoria, el Estado deberá tomar las medidas necesarias para el ordenamiento\r\nde las zonas referidas en la presente ley.”. Estos numerales han sido la\r\nbase sobre la que el Tribunal de Juicio de Puntarenas y el Tribunal de\r\nApelación de San Ramón, determinaron la procedencia de otorgar un plazo de\r\nveinticuatro meses de moratoria, durante el que se suspende la ejecución del\r\ndesalojo de la señora Gerardo Espinoza Briceño y la destrucción de la\r\nconstrucción habitada por ella en la zona pública de la zona marítimo\r\nterrestre. Sin embargo, esta Ley 9073,\r\nno sólo regula el otorgamiento de aquella moratoria, busca también el\r\nordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre. Por ende, se ordena al\r\nAlcalde y al Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Cóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo\r\ny a la Junta Directiva\r\ndel Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a la Junta Directiva\r\ndel Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo ejecutar las acciones necesarias\r\npara que, en el plazo de veinticuatro meses, fijado por los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073 realicen el\r\nordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre correspondiente. Al efecto, se\r\nadvierte al Alcalde y al Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de\r\nCóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva\r\ndel Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los\r\nintegrantes de la\r\n Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y\r\nUrbanismo su obligación de realizar todos los procesos de coordinación\r\ninterinstitucional, para cumplir con el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo\r\nterrestre de marras. Se ordena la notificación correspondiente de la presente\r\nsentencia de casación a efectos de que las instancias\r\npúblicas indicadas cumplan con lo dispuesto por esta Sala.\n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- Por las consideraciones expuestas, se declara sin lugar el recurso de\r\ncasación, formulado por el defensor público Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal , a favor\r\nde la señora G.E.B. Se resuelve el alegato de precedentes contradictorios\r\nformulado por el Defensor Público en el sentido de que sí procede el desalojo\r\nde los pobladores y los ocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones\r\nrealizadas en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, cuando no cuenten\r\ncon permiso o concesión que les habiliten legalmente para ejercer tal posesión.\r\nSe mantienen incólumes a) la orden de desalojo de la señora G.E.B. de la zona\r\npública de la zona marítimo terrestre, b) la orden de destrucción de la\r\nconstrucción habitada por la señora G.E.B. en calidad de ocupante en la zona\r\npública de la zona marítimo terrestre, c) la suspensión por veinticuatro meses\r\ndel desalojo y la destrucción de la construcción indicados. Se ordena al\r\nAlcalde y a los integrantes del Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de\r\nCóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva\r\ndel Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los\r\nintegrantes de la\r\n Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y\r\nUrbanismo ejecutar las acciones necesarias para que en el plazo de veinticuatro\r\nmeses, fijado por los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas\r\nClasificadas como Especiales, realicen en forma coordinada el ordenamiento de\r\nla zona marítimo terrestre correspondiente bajo el apercibimiento de que el no\r\nacatamiento de esta decisión implicará la comisión del delito de desobediencia\r\na la autoridad.”", "body_en_text": "“III.- On the dweller (poblador) and the\noccupant (ocupante) in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). The Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial\nZone 6043, of March 2, 1977 (published in Alcance 35 of the Diario\nOficial La Gaceta\n52 of March 16, 1977, and in force as of this last date, hereinafter\nLZMT) establishes in article 12, generally regarding the maritime-terrestrial\nzone, that “it is prohibited, without the proper legal authorization,\nto exploit the existing flora and fauna, demarcate with fences, tracks, or in\nany other manner, erect buildings or installations, cut trees,\nextract products, or carry out any other type of development, activity, or\noccupation.” And specifically regarding the public zone, it determines in\nnumeral 20: “Except for the exceptions established by law, the public zone\nmay not be the object of occupation under any title nor\nin any case. No one may claim any right over it.\nIt shall be dedicated to public use and especially to the free\ntransit of persons. The entities and authorities indicated in article 18\nmust issue and enforce the necessary provisions to guarantee the\nfree and safe transit of persons and the public use of this zone.” The exceptions to which this numeral 20 of the LZMT refers are: A) Those\nsections that due to their geographical configuration, their topography, or their special\nconditions, cannot be utilized for public use, in which case their\ndevelopment is authorized by the respective municipality and the Costa Rican Institute of\nTourism, provided they are not alienated and a zone of free transit is established\nthat facilitates the public use and enjoyment of beaches, cliffs, and estuaries, and\nthe safety of pedestrians is guaranteed (article 21 LZMT). B) The\ninfrastructure and construction works approved by the Ministry of Public Works and\nTransport, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, the National Institute of\nHousing and Urbanism, and the respective municipality, considering the public use\nto which they are destined, or if it involves the establishment and operation of\nstate tourist facilities of notable convenience for the country\n(article 22 LZMT). And C) The cases contained in laws that regulate special\naspects of the maritime-terrestrial zone, for example, the case contained in Law 7744, on Concession and\nOperation of Tourist Marinas and Docks of December 19, 1997\n(published in the Diario Oficial La\n Gaceta 26, of February 6, 1998). However, it is convenient\nto specify that Law\n6043, on the Maritime-Terrestrial\n Zone and its Regulation (Reglamento) (issued by Decreto\n7841-P, of December 16, 1977, published in Alcance 16, of the Diario\nOficial La Gaceta\n20, of January 27, 1978, and in force as of this last date; hereinafter\nRLZMT) establish two categories of natural persons who exercise acts\nof occupation in the maritime-terrestrial zone: dweller (poblador) and\noccupant (ocupante). The figure of the\ndweller (poblador) is regulated in articles 70 of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT; that of the\noccupant (ocupante) is found in articles 44 and Transitorio VII of the LZMT. Article 70 of the LZMT reads: “The\ndwellers (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with\nmore than ten years of residence in it, according to information from the authority of the local Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia\nRural) or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the\napplicant’s domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots provided that\nit is their only property. However, they must subject themselves to the\nplanning of the zone, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for\ntheir improvements in accordance with this law. In any case,\nthe public zone must be respected”. Numeral 75 of the RLZMT indicates:\n“ The dwellers (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by\nbirth, with more than ten years of continuous residence in it, according to\ninformation from the authority of the\n local Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural) or certification from the\nElectoral Registry regarding the applicant’s domicile, may continue in\npossession of their respective lots provided that it is their only property,\nand may be relocated in accordance with the planning of the zone, upon prior\ncompensation for improvements. In any case, the public zone must be respected.\nWhen the period of residence is\nless than ten years, the dwellers (pobladores) may request a concession (concesión) over the\nproperty, provided that no part of the public zone is included. If\nthere are improvements in the public zone, the provisions of subsection\ne), article 73 of the regulation shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the\nregulation if the improvements are located in the restricted zone (zona restringida). Those\nwho, not being dwellers (pobladores), have constructed or built in the restricted zone on\nillegally possessed properties, shall not have the right to payment for improvements. However,\nthey may request a concession (concesión) over the property and, if it is granted to them,\nthey shall not be charged for the use, and enjoyment of those improvements.\nThe requests for concessions (concesiones) made by the occupants (ocupantes) of the maritime-terrestrial\nzone shall have priority over the others.” The\narticle 44 of the LZMT\nreads: “ The concessions (concesiones) shall be granted\nin accordance with the principle that first in time is first in right. However,\nthe regulation of this law may establish an order of priorities\nconsidering the nature of the exploitation and its greater public convenience;\nbut under equal conditions, preference shall be given to the occupant (ocupante) of the\nland who has possessed it quietly, publicly, and peacefully in a continuous manner.”\nAnd Transitorio VII of the LZMT\nstates: “The municipalities with jurisdiction over the maritime-terrestrial zone\nshall collect the canon (canon) that this law establishes for the occupants (ocupantes) thereof. The\ncollection shall be made in accordance with the use and with the current appraisal\nof the\n Dirección General de la Tributación Directa.\nThis authorization shall be provisional in nature, until the\ndevelopment plan for the respective zone comes into effect, and it does not produce any right whatsoever for\nthe occupants (ocupantes) with respect to a concession (concesión).”.\nFrom a reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements\nthat any person must meet to hold the status of dweller (poblador) is concluded: a) a\ncontinuous possession of at least 10 years prior to the entry into\nforce of the LZMT\n–March 16, 1977–, that is, a possession that began at least in 1967;\nb) being born before 1949, to be of legal age\nat the start of the 10 years of the indicated possession;\nc) being Costa Rican by\nbirth; d) not being the owner of other land, e) having a report from the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) or\na certification from the Civil Registry, to serve as proof of the\npossession in question. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements\nto hold such status are: i) a possession of less than 10 years prior\nto the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, a\npossession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being\nCosta Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of other land, e) having\na report from the\n Public Force (Fuerza Pública) or a certification from the Civil Registry that\nserves as proof of the possession in question. In this way, unless a special legal\nprovision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone\nbefore the effectiveness of the LZMT\nand are neither dwellers (pobladores) nor occupants (ocupantes), and 2) entered after March 16,\n1977, are in a situation of illegal occupation. Upon reconciling\narticles 70, 44 and Transitorio VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with numerals 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that the\ndwellers (pobladores) and the occupants (ocupantes) are not within the exception cases provided for in\nthe latter article (that is, the 20 iusidem), so it must be understood that the\nrecognitions granted by the\n LZMT are reduced to the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the maritime-terrestrial\nzone, and not to the public zone (zona pública). The allegation\nof contradictory precedents formulated by Public Defender Cristhiam\nGutiérrez Leal is therefore resolved, in the sense that with respect to the public zone of the\nmaritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction (desalojo) of dwellers (pobladores) and\noccupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions used by them is indeed appropriate when they do not have\na permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables them to exercise such possession,\nand b) that eviction (desalojo) and that destruction of the constructions may be\nsuspended for 24 months as provided for in articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073, of Protection for\nOccupants of Zones Classified as Special of September 19, 2012,\npublished in the Diario Oficial La\n Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012 Alcance 163 (on which\nrelevant elements are set forth in Considerando V infra).\n\n\nIV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda\nEspinoza Briceño. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza\nBriceño, it is necessary to consider that although it is true that the Trial\nCourt of Puntarenas indicates as a proven fact on folio 134, for the purposes\nof issuing the acquittal, that her possession has been carried out “at least since April 23,\n2007”, the same Court acknowledges that her possession is of 40 to 50 years, as deduced\nfrom the evidence evaluated, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza\n(digital file c0100130530150339.vgz counter 15:19:34). In consideration of such\nacknowledgment of possession, which has not been challenged and is\nfinal, it can be concluded that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of\nthe requirements to be considered a dweller (pobladora): being born before 1949 and thus having\ncapacity for the exercise of possession; to this effect, note that she was born on December 29,\n1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore,\nthe category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of dweller (poblador)) is the one that is\nappropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs.\nEspinoza Briceño. Let us recall, insofar as it is relevant, that numeral 75 of the\nRLZMT indicates that: “…When the period of residence is less than ten\nyears, the dwellers (pobladores) may request a concession (concesión) over the property, provided that\nno part of the public zone is included. If there are improvements in the public\nzone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation shall apply,\nand the provisions of article 74 of the regulation if the improvements are\nlocated in the restricted zone (zona restringida).”. In the first place, although it is true that the\nlegislator uses the term “dwellers (pobladores)”, in this scenario described in this\nparagraph of numeral 75, it must be understood that it refers to “occupants (ocupantes)” given the context\nof the entire article. In the second place, it has been established as proven and final that\nMrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone (zona pública) without\nhaving any permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables her to do so,\nwhich obliges the reading of subsection e) of numeral 73 of the RLZMT: “When\nthere are constructions, buildings, or installations erected illegally\nin the public zone, the municipality must destroy them, demolish them, or\nremove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this\nregulation.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT states that the administrative authorities\nof the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities,\nas soon as they have knowledge of any contravention of the provisions of article\n12 of the LZMT\nmust proceed with the eviction (desalojo) of the offenders, as well as the destruction or\ndemolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the\nstated considerations, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone (zona pública) of the\nmaritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction (desalojo) of dwellers (pobladores) and\noccupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions made is indeed appropriate; and, in particular,\nthat Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant (ocupante) of a construction located in\nthe public zone (zona pública) without having a permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables her\nto do so, therefore, in her case, her eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of such\nconstruction is indeed appropriate so that the public zone (zona pública) occupied by her recovers its state\nprior to the invasion.\n\n\nV. Planning (Ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Law 9073, of Protection for\nOccupants of Zones Classified as Special, of September 19, 2012,\n(published in the Diario Oficial La\n Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163), states in\nits articles 1 and 7 the following: “For a period of twenty-four months, the\neviction (desalojo) of persons, demolition of works, suspension of\nactivities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone and\nnatural heritage of the State shall be suspended.”; and “During the term of this\nmoratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the planning (ordenamiento)\nof the zones referred to in this law.”. These numerals have been the\nbasis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the\nAppellate Court of San Ramón determined the appropriateness of granting a term of\ntwenty-four months of moratorium, during which the execution of the\neviction (desalojo) of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the\nconstruction inhabited by her in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial\nzone is suspended. However, this Law 9073,\nnot only regulates the granting of that moratorium, but also seeks the\nplanning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the\nMayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Cóbano, the Executive President\nand the Board of Directors\nof the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors\nof the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism are ordered to execute the necessary actions\nso that, within the period of twenty-four months, set by articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073, they carry out the\nplanning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. To this effect, the\nMayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipality of\nCóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors\nof the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the\nmembers of the\n Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and\nUrbanism are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination\nprocesses, to comply with the planning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial\nzone in question. The corresponding notification of this\ncassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated\npublic entities comply with the provisions of this Chamber.\n\n\nVI.- Due to the considerations set forth, the appeal of\ncassation, formulated by public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, on behalf\nof Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The allegation of contradictory precedents\nformulated by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction (desalojo)\nof dwellers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions\nmade in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone does indeed proceed, when they do not have\na permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables them to exercise such possession.\nThe following are maintained intact: a) the eviction (desalojo) order of Mrs. G.E.B. from the\npublic zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the destruction order of the\nconstruction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. in the capacity of occupant (ocupante) in the\npublic zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the suspension for twenty-four months\nof the eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of the indicated construction. The\nMayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of\nCóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors\nof the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the\nmembers of the\n Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and\nUrbanism are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that within the period of twenty-four\nmonths, set by articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073 of Protection for Occupants of Zones\nClassified as Special, they carry out in a coordinated manner the planning (ordenamiento) of\nthe corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone, under the warning that failure\nto comply with this decision will entail the commission of the crime of disobedience\nto authority.”\n\nThe charge shall be made in accordance with the use and with the current appraisal of the Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. This authorization shall be provisional in nature, until the development plan for the respective zone enters into force, and it does not produce any right for the occupants with regard to a concession.” From the reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements that every person must meet to hold the status of settler (poblador) is concluded: a) continuous possession (posesión) of at least 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT – March 16, 1977 –, that is, possession that began at least in 1967; b) being born before 1949, in order to have reached the age of majority at the start of the 10 years of indicated possession; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another plot of land, e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Registry, which serve as proof of the aforementioned possession. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements to hold such status are: i) possession of less than 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, possession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another plot of land, e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Registry that serve as proof of the aforementioned possession. Thus, unless a special legal provision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone before the LZMT came into force and are neither settlers (pobladores) nor occupants (ocupantes), and 2) entered after March 16, 1977, find themselves in a situation of illegal occupation. Upon harmonizing Articles 70, 44, and Transitory VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with numerals 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) are not found in the exception cases provided for in the latter article (that is, Article 20 ibidem), so it must be understood that the recognitions granted by the LZMT are reduced to the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone. The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by the Public Defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal is therefore considered resolved, in the sense that regarding the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions used by them does proceed when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession, and b) that eviction and that destruction of the constructions may be suspended for 24 months as provided for in Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales of September 19, 2012, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Scope 163 (regarding which relevant elements are set forth in Considerando V below).   \n\n**IV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño**. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, it is necessary to consider that although it is true that the Trial Court of Puntarenas indicates as a proven fact on folio 134, for purposes of issuing the acquittal, that her possession is carried out “*at least since April 23, 2007*”, the same Court recognizes that her possession is of 40 to 50 years, according to what it derives from the evidence produced, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza (digital file c0100130530150339.vgz counter 15:19:34). In consideration of such possessory recognition, which has not been challenged and is final, it is possible to conclude that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of the requirements to be considered a settler (pobladora): being born before 1949 and thus having the capacity for possessory exercise; in this regard, note that she was born on December 29, 1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore, the category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of settler (poblador)) is the one that is appropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño. Let us recall, as relevant, that numeral 75 of the RLZMT indicates that: “…When the period of residence is less than ten years, the settlers (pobladores) may request a concession over the property, provided that no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation if the improvements are located in the restricted zone.” In the first place, although it is true that the legislator uses the term “settlers (pobladores)”, in this scenario described in this paragraph of numeral 75 it must be understood that it refers to “occupants (ocupantes)” given the context of the entire article. In the second place, it has been proven and is final that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone without having any permit or concession that legally enables her to do so, which obliges a reading of subsection e) of numeral 73 of the RLZMT: “*When there are constructions, buildings, or installations illegally erected in the public zone, the municipality must destroy, demolish, or remove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this regulation*.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT indicates that the administrative authorities of the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities, as soon as they have notice of any contravention to the provisions of article 12 of the LZMT must proceed with the eviction (desalojo) of the offenders, as well as the destruction or demolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the considerations set forth, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions carried out does proceed; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant (ocupante) of a construction located in the public zone without having a permit or concession that legally enables her to do so, therefore in her case her eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of such construction do proceed so that the public zone occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.\n\n**V. Planning (Ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone**. Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, of September 19, 2012, (published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Scope 163), states in its articles 1 and 7 the following: “*For a period of twenty-four months, the eviction of persons, demolition of works, suspension of activities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone, and natural heritage of the State shall be suspended.*”; and “*During the term of this moratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the planning (ordenamiento) of the zones referred to in this law.*”. These numerals have been the basis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the Appellate Court of San Ramón determined the appropriateness of granting a twenty-four-month moratorium period, during which the execution of the eviction (desalojo) of Mrs. Gerardo Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the construction inhabited by her in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is suspended. However, this Ley 9073 not only regulates the granting of that moratorium, it also seeks the planning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period set by Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, they carry out the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. To this end, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination processes, to comply with the planning (ordenamiento) of the aforementioned maritime-terrestrial zone. The corresponding notification of this cassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated public entities comply with what is ordered by this Chamber.\n\n**VI.-** For the considerations set forth, the cassation appeal filed by the public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, in favor of Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions carried out in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone does proceed, when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession. The following are kept intact: a) the eviction order (orden de desalojo) for Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the destruction order for the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. as an occupant (ocupante) in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the twenty-four-month suspension of the indicated eviction (desalojo) and destruction of the construction. The Mayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that within the twenty-four-month period, set by Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, they carry out in a coordinated manner the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone under the warning that failure to comply with this decision will entail the commission of the crime of disobedience to authority.”\n\nHowever, they must be subject to the zoning plan for the area, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements (mejoras) in accordance with this law. In all cases, the public zone (zona pública) must be respected.” Article 75 of the RLZMT states: “ Inhabitants (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), Costa Rican by birth, with more than ten years of continuous residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Assistance Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Register regarding the applicant’s domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots provided it is their only property, and may be relocated in accordance with the zoning plan for the area, upon prior indemnification for improvements. In all cases, the public zone must be respected. When the period of residence is less than ten years, the inhabitants may apply for a concession (concesión) over the property, provided no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation, shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation shall apply if the improvements are located in the restricted zone (zona restringida). Those who, not being inhabitants, have constructed or built in the restricted zone on illegally possessed properties shall have no right to payment for improvements. However, they may apply for a concession over the property, and, if granted, they shall not be charged for the use and enjoyment of those improvements. Concession applications made by occupants (ocupantes) of the maritime-terrestrial zone shall have priority over others.” Article 44 of the LZMT reads: “ Concessions shall be granted in accordance with the principle of first in time, first in right. However, the regulation of this law may establish an order of priorities based on the nature of the exploitation and its greater public convenience; but under equal conditions, preference shall be given to the occupant of the land who has possessed it quietly, publicly, and peacefully on a continuous basis.” And Transitory Provision VII of the LZMT states: “Municipalities with jurisdiction in the maritime-terrestrial zone shall charge the fee established by this law to the occupants thereof. The charge shall be made in accordance with the use and the current appraisal by the Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. This authorization shall be provisional, until the development plan for the respective zone comes into force, and does not confer any right upon the occupants with respect to a concession.” From a reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements that every person must meet to hold the status of inhabitant (poblador) is concluded: a) continuous possession of at least 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT –March 16, 1977–, that is, possession that began at least from 1967; b) being born before 1949, in order to have reached the age of majority upon commencing the indicated 10 years of possession; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another property; e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Register, serving as proof of said possession. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements to hold such status are: i) possession of less than 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, possession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another property; e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Register serving as proof of said possession. Thus, unless a special legal provision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone before the LZMT came into force and are neither inhabitants nor occupants, and 2) entered after March 16, 1977, find themselves in a situation of illegal occupation. By harmonizing articles 70, 44 and Transitory Provision VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with articles 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that inhabitants and occupants are not within the cases of exception provided for in the latter article (that is, article 20 ibidem), and therefore it must be understood that the recognitions granted by the LZMT are limited to the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone. The plea of contradictory precedent made by the Public Defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal is therefore resolved in the sense that with respect to the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions used by them is indeed proper when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession, and b) such eviction and destruction of constructions may be suspended for 24 months as provided in articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales of September 19, 2012, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163 (relevant elements concerning which are set forth in Considerando V below).\n\n**IV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño**. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, it is necessary to consider that although the Trial Court of Puntarenas states as a proven fact, on page 134, for purposes of issuing the acquittal, that her possession has been carried out “at least since April 23, 2007”, the same Court acknowledges that her possession has lasted 40 to 50 years, as it derives from the evidence presented, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza (digital file c0100130530150339.vgz, counter 15:19:34). In light of such possessory acknowledgment, which has not been challenged and is final, it is possible to conclude that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of the requirements to be considered an inhabitant (poblador): being born before 1949 and thus having the capacity for possessory exercise; note in this regard that she was born on December 29, 1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore, the category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of inhabitant) is the one appropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño. Let us recall, as relevant, that article 75 of the RLZMT indicates that: “...When the period of residence is less than ten years, the inhabitants may apply for a concession over the property, provided no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation, shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation shall apply if the improvements are located in the restricted zone.” First, while it is true the legislator uses the term “inhabitants” (pobladores), in this scenario described in this paragraph of article 75, it must be understood that it refers to “occupants” (ocupantes) given the context of the entire article. Second, it has been proven and stands firm that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone without having any permit or concession legally enabling her to do so, which compels the reading of subsection e) of article 73 of the RLZMT: “When there are constructions, buildings, or installations erected illegally in the public zone, the municipality must destroy, demolish, or remove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this regulation.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT states that the administrative authorities of the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities, as soon as they become aware of any contravention of the provisions of article 12 of the LZMT, must proceed with the eviction of offenders, as well as the destruction or demolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the considerations set forth, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions carried out is proper; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant of a construction located in the public zone without a permit or concession legally enabling her to do so, and therefore, in her case, her eviction and the destruction of such construction are proper so that the public zone occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.\n\n**V. Zoning of the maritime-terrestrial zone**. Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, of September 19, 2012 (published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163), states in its articles 1 and 7 the following: “For a period of twenty-four months, the eviction of persons, demolition of works, and suspension of activities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone, and State natural heritage shall be suspended.”; and “During the effectiveness of this moratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the zoning (ordenamiento) of the zones referred to in this law.” These articles have been the basis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the Court of Appeals of San Ramón determined the propriety of granting a twenty-four-month moratorium period, during which the execution of the eviction of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the construction inhabited by her in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is suspended. However, this Ley 9073 not only regulates the granting of said moratorium, it also seeks the zoning of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period established by articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, they carry out the zoning of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. For that purpose, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination processes to comply with the zoning of the aforementioned maritime-terrestrial zone. The corresponding notification of this cassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated public entities comply with what is ordered by this Chamber.\n\n**VI.-** For the considerations set forth, the appeal for cassation filed by the public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, on behalf of Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The plea of contradictory precedent made by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions carried out in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is proper when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession. The following remain intact: a) the eviction order against Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the order for the destruction of the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. in her capacity as occupant of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the twenty-four-month suspension of the indicated eviction and destruction of the construction. The Mayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period established by articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, they carry out, in a coordinated manner, the zoning of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone, under the warning that failure to comply with this decision shall entail the commission of the crime of disobedience to authority.”" }