{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-158532",
  "citation": "Res. 00673-2016 Tribunal Agrario",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Derecho de vía en información posesoria y reservas de dominio público",
  "title_en": "Right-of-way in possessory information and public domain reservations",
  "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario conoce de la apelación interpuesta por la Procuraduría contra la sentencia que aprobó una información posesoria. La Procuraduría alegaba que el inmueble invadía el derecho de vía de una calle pública nacional. El Tribunal rechazó el recurso tras constatar, mediante reconocimiento judicial y análisis del plano catastrado, que el predio respeta debidamente el derecho de vía de 20 metros (10 metros desde el centro de la vía). Se aclaró que la confusión de la Procuraduría provenía de una lectura errónea del plano: la finca tiene un frente de solo 7 metros lineales sobre la calle pública, sin afectar el derecho de vía. El Tribunal enfatizó que, conforme al artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, las fincas inscritas por este medio quedan afectas a las reservas de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y la Ley de Aguas, como garantía de protección ambiental con fundamento en el artículo 50 constitucional. Asimismo, citó jurisprudencia constitucional que aclara que dichas reservas no implican desafectación de bienes de dominio público, sino que constituyen una reserva legal existente desde el inicio de la posesión, protegiendo el interés público sin vulnerar el derecho de propiedad.",
  "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court ruled on an appeal filed by the Attorney General's Office against a judgment that approved a possessory information proceeding. The State argued that the property encroached on the right-of-way of a national public road. The Court rejected the appeal after confirming, through a judicial inspection and cadastral map analysis, that the property duly respects the 20-meter right-of-way (10 meters from the road center). The Court clarified that the Attorney General's confusion stemmed from a misreading of the map: the property has only a 7-meter linear frontage on the public road, without affecting the right-of-way. The Court stressed that, under Article 19 of the Possessory Information Law, properties registered through this mechanism are subject to the reservations of the General Law of Public Roads and the Water Law, as an environmental protection guarantee grounded in Article 50 of the Constitution. It also cited constitutional precedent clarifying that these reservations do not entail the release of public domain assets, but constitute a legal reservation existing from the start of possession, protecting the public interest without violating property rights.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario",
  "date": "2016",
  "year": "2016",
  "topic_ids": [
    "property-and-titling"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "property-and-titling",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "información posesoria",
    "derecho de vía",
    "dominio público",
    "reconocimiento judicial",
    "plano catastrado",
    "usucapión",
    "reserva de dominio público",
    "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 19",
      "law": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 4",
      "law": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 50",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 72",
      "law": "Ley de Aguas"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 73",
      "law": "Ley de Aguas"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "información posesoria",
    "derecho de vía",
    "calle pública",
    "dominio público",
    "reservas legales",
    "reconocimiento judicial",
    "plano catastrado",
    "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias",
    "Ley General de Caminos Públicos",
    "Procuraduría General",
    "usucapión",
    "propiedad privada",
    "artículo 50 constitucional"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "possessory information",
    "right-of-way",
    "public road",
    "public domain",
    "legal reservations",
    "judicial inspection",
    "cadastral map",
    "Possessory Information Law",
    "General Law of Public Roads",
    "Attorney General's Office",
    "adverse possession",
    "private property",
    "Article 50 Costa Rican Constitution"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "El artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establece, las fincas inscritas por medio de esta ley, quedarán afectadas por varias reservas, sin que haya necesidad de indicarlas en la resolución que apruebe el proceso. Entre ellas: a) que los caminos públicos que existan frente a las fincas, con ancho inferior a veinte metros, estarán afecto a las reservas que indica la Ley General de Caminos Públicos; y, b) Las reservas que indica la Ley de Aguas en sus artículos 72 y 73, cuando existieren aguas de dominio público o privado, en su caso. Pese a que la norma citada indica no es necesario para la validez y eficacia de estas reservas se incluyan en el texto de la sentencia, debe tomarse en consideración, su fin es la tutela del ambiente y sus recursos, lo cual tiene en nuestro ordenamiento un fundamento constitucional (artículo 50). De esta forma, considera este Tribunal, para lograr mejorar la eficacia de dichas normas, a través de la publicidad registral que su inscripción permite, es pertinente que en las sentencias estimatorias de este tipo de procesos, se incluyan expresamente las reservas de ley respectivas.\n\nEn lo que interesa se dejó constancia de lo siguiente: “… Se utilizó como referencia el plano catastrado A-900669-90. Se procedió a recorrer el inmueble a efecto de determinar si se ajusta a lo descrito en el plano catastrado referido, lo cual se comprobó. Es un terreno con fuerte pendiente, de naturaleza agrícola. Además, se verificó que se respeta el derecho de vía en la colindancia por el rumbo Este, sea el frente a calle [Dirección2]. Para ello se utilizó una cinta métrica. Se midió desde el centro de la vía pública hasta donde la cinta señala los diez metros, dado que el derecho de vía es de veinte metros. Se observa las colidancias debidamente demarcadas, por medio de estacas, en particular con pintura neón a lo largo de la colindancia Este. Se determina que efectivamente se cumplió con lo prevenido y no se observa intereses estatales afectados ni lesionados.\"\n\nDe lo anterior se deriva, en este caso no se comete infracción alguna, porque el plano excluye lo que le corresponde al derecho de vía. Nótese en el reconocimiento judicial, arriba aludido, la delimitación de la finca respeta ese 12% mencionado en la sentencia constitucional y quedó excluida del levantamiento topográfico.",
  "excerpt_en": "Article 19 of the Possessory Information Law establishes that properties registered through this law will be subject to several reservations, without the need to indicate them in the resolution approving the proceeding. Among them: a) that the public roads existing in front of the properties, with a width of less than twenty meters, will be subject to the reservations indicated in the General Law of Public Roads; and b) The reservations indicated by the Water Law in its articles 72 and 73, when there are waters of public or private domain, as applicable. Although the cited norm indicates it is not necessary for the validity and effectiveness of these reservations to be included in the text of the judgment, it must be taken into consideration that their purpose is the protection of the environment and its resources, which has a constitutional basis in our legal system (article 50). Thus, this Court considers that, in order to improve the effectiveness of these norms through the publicity that their registration provides, it is pertinent that in the granting judgments of this type of proceedings, the respective legal reservations be expressly included.\n\nThe judicial inspection recorded the following: \"... The cadastral map A-900669-90 was used as a reference. The property was walked to determine whether it matches what is described in said cadastral map, which was verified. It is land with a steep slope, of agricultural nature. In addition, it was verified that the right-of-way is respected on the boundary to the East, i.e., the frontage to [Direction2] Street. For this, a tape measure was used. It was measured from the center of the public road to where the tape marks ten meters, given that the right-of-way is twenty meters. The boundaries are observed duly marked, by means of stakes, particularly with neon paint along the East boundary. It is determined that the provisions were effectively complied with and no state interests are affected or harmed.\"\n\nIt follows from the above that no violation is committed in this case, because the map excludes what corresponds to the right-of-way. Note in the judicial inspection, alluded to above, that the property boundary respects that 12% mentioned in the constitutional ruling and was excluded from the topographical survey.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Appeal denied",
    "label_es": "Apelación rechazada",
    "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court upheld the approval of the possessory information, finding that the property respects the public road right-of-way and that the legal reservations were properly included.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario confirmó la aprobación de la información posesoria al constatar que el inmueble respeta el derecho de vía de la calle pública y que las reservas legales fueron debidamente incluidas."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "Although the cited norm indicates it is not necessary for the validity and effectiveness of these reservations to be included in the text of the judgment, it must be taken into consideration that their purpose is the protection of the environment and its resources, which has a constitutional basis in our legal system (article 50).",
      "quote_es": "Pese a que la norma citada indica no es necesario para la validez y eficacia de estas reservas se incluyan en el texto de la sentencia, debe tomarse en consideración, su fin es la tutela del ambiente y sus recursos, lo cual tiene en nuestro ordenamiento un fundamento constitucional (artículo 50)."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "The confusion of the MOPT and the Attorney General arises because from vertex 1 to 2 there is a distance of seven meters, right in front of the public road, but just above vertex 2 the reference to the twenty-meter width of the [Dirección3] can be seen. Thus, both the cadastral map and the fence erected by the petitioner, as verified by this judge, respect the right-of-way, counting ten meters from the center of the road.",
      "quote_es": "La confusión del MOPT y de la Procuradora se genera por cuanto del vértice 1 al 2 existe una distancia de siete metros, justo frente a calle pública, pero justo encima del vértice 2 se observa la referencia del ancho de veinte metros de la [Dirección3]. De manera tal que tanto el plano catastrado, como la cerca puesta por el promovente, según verificó este juzgador, respetan el derecho de vía, contando diez metros desde el centro de calle."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-158532",
  "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-10044",
      "norm_num": "139",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "14/07/1941"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-11950",
      "norm_num": "276",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Aguas",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "27/08/1942"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-38653",
      "norm_num": "5060",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "22/08/1972"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-62555",
      "norm_num": "34331",
      "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional",
      "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo",
      "norm_fecha": "29/11/2007"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“II. La apelación es interpuesta por la licenciada Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua en su carácter de Procuradora Adjunta. Recurre la sentencia de las 13 horas 46 minutos del 04 de marzo de 2016 donde se aprobó la información posesoria. Específicamente el agravio gravita en torno al derecho de vía de la calle pública que colinda por el rumbo este con predio a titular, a su criterio es de [Dirección1] de la ruta nacional. Agrega por el principio del paralelismo de las competencias, un bien afecto a la ley a dominio público solo el legislador puede desafectarlo y no otras instancias. A su entender la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en voto 2012-0116629 aborda el tema de las calles públicas. Pide se anule la sentencia y se readecuen los procedimientos (Escritorio virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Ramón, carpeta de escritos, del 09 de marzo de 2016). \n\n III. El artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establece, las fincas inscritas por medio de esta ley, quedarán afectadas por varias reservas, sin que haya necesidad de indicarlas en la resolución que apruebe el proceso. Entre ellas: a) que los caminos públicos que existan frente a las fincas, con ancho inferior a veinte metros, estarán afecto a las reservas que indica la Ley General de Caminos Públicos; y, b) Las reservas que indica la Ley de Aguas en sus artículos 72 y 73, cuando existieren aguas de dominio público o privado, en su caso. Pese a que la norma citada indica no es necesario para la validez y eficacia de estas reservas se incluyan en el texto de la sentencia, debe tomarse en consideración, su fin es la tutela del ambiente y sus recursos, lo cual tiene en nuestro ordenamiento un fundamento constitucional (artículo 50). De esta forma, considera este Tribunal, para lograr mejorar la eficacia de dichas normas, a través de la publicidad registral que su inscripción permite, es pertinente que en las sentencias estimatorias de este tipo de procesos, se incluyan expresamente las reservas de ley respectivas.\n\n IV. El reclamo se dirige específicamente a la dimensión del frente a calle pública que posee el bien objeto de las diligencias por el rumbo este. Se nota del plano catastrado aportado en el escrito inicial imagen 6, el fundo objeto de las diligencias limita por el este con calle pública en siete metros lineales, así como de las manifestaciones de la parte promovente en el hecho primero del escrito inicial en mención, rendido bajo la fe de juramente de conformidad con el ordinal 3 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. El argumento de la representación estatal ha sido sobradamente analizado y verificado lo errado de su interpretación del plano. Debe anotarse, el fundo asemeja geométricamente a un triángulo, siendo por el rumbo este, el cual colinda con calle pública solo unos pocos metros lo que da acceso a la finca a esa vía. Luego de las manifestaciones de la referida entidad apelante, y el oficio expedido por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, agregado el 26 de marzo de 2015 de las 1:09PM el despacho ordenó realizar un reconocimiento judicial según resoluciones de las 14 horas 02 minutos del 24 de agosto de 2015 y 13 horas 45 minutos del 27 de octubre de 2015. Esa diligencia judicial se verificó en el fundo a las 09 horas del 10 de noviembre de 2015. En lo que interesa se dejó constancia de lo siguiente: “… Se utilizó como referencia el plano catastrado A-900669-90. Se procedió a recorrer el inmueble a efecto de determinar si se ajusta a lo descrito en el plano catastrado referido, lo cual se comprobó. Es un terreno con fuerte pendiente, de naturaleza agrícola. Además, se verificó que se respeta el derecho de vía en la colindancia por el rumbo Este, sea el frente a calle [Dirección2]. Para ello se utilizó una cinta métrica. Se midió desde el centro de la vía pública hasta donde la cinta señala los diez metros, dado que el derecho de vía es de veinte metros. Se observa las colidancias debidamente demarcadas, por medio de estacas, en particular con pintura neón a lo largo de la colindancia Este. Se determina que efectivamente se cumplió con lo prevenido y no se observa intereses estatales afectados ni lesionados.- El terreno corresponde en su descripción y dimensiones al descrito en el plano catastrado aportado al proceso. Se tomaron fotografías de la finca y de la colindancia, las cuales se incorporan al expediente”. Este reconocimiento fue puesto en conocimiento por la representación estatal. Como se deriva del reconocimiento judicial y el estudio del levantamiento topográfico, éste se ajusta los requerimientos de la Ley General de Caminos y la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Nótese se tiene por demostrado que por el rumbo este colinda con “…calle pública con un frente de siete metros lineales…” lo cual realizado el estudio de los autos se comprueba con el plano incorporado al expediente virtual y el reconocimiento judicial de fecha 10 de noviembre de 2015. Además, la decisión impugnada se avocó por analizar de manera puntualizada la oposición de la Procuraduría General, y expuso lo que de seguido se extracta, y estima esta Cámara, sobradamente explica la aparente confusión en la lectura del dibujo topográfico; indica en lo que interesa lo siguiente: “…La confusión del MOPT y de la Procuradora se genera por cuanto del vértice 1 al 2 existe una distancia de siete metros, justo frente a calle pública, pero justo encima del vértice 2 se observa la referencia del ancho de veinte metros de la [Dirección3] . De manera tal que tanto el plano catastrado, como la cerca puesta por el promovente, según verificó este juzgador, respetan el derecho de vía, contando diez metros desde el centro de calle…”. Este razonamiento, amén de encontrarse ajustados a las probanzas, resulta abundante, razonable y ajustado a derecho; es compartido por esta Instancia. Por otra parte, en el segmento dispositivo de la resolución impugnada expresamente se indica: “…Queda afecto el inmueble a las reservas en cuanto a derechos de vía que disponen los artículos 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y 19 inciso a) de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias” velando de esa manera con dar publicidad registral a esas importantes limitaciones. \n\n V. A mayor abundamiento de razones, el numeral 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, establece lo siguiente: \"El ancho de las carreteras y de los caminos vecinales será el que indique los Departamentos Técnicos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, sin que pueda ser menor de veinte metros para las primeras y de catorce metros para los segundos\". Debe tomar en consideración la representación estatal que en autos consta el tipo de vía que se relacionan con el fundo, y en consecuencia el ancho de tal y se comprobó el cumplimiento de lo indicado. El procedimiento de información posesoria, constituye una formalización del derecho de propiedad, porque la parte ya ha adquirido el derecho de posesión por usucapión. Si se debe cumplir con lo establecido en el artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias en cuanto a quedar sujeto a las reservas que indica la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, como ocurre en la especie. Lo anterior con la finalidad que tanto la parte promovente como los terceros, al inscribir el título en el Registro pertinente, tengan conocimiento de tal afección a su derecho de propiedad. El ordinal 2 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, establece que los planos deberán representar datos y medidas exactas, e impone al profesional encargado del levantamiento la responsabilidad por el cumplimiento de lo estatuido. Además, remite a las leyes 3454 del14 de noviembre de 1964 y la Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura, N° 4294 del 16 de diciembre de 1968. En el Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional, en el ordinal 1° establece una serie de definiciones. Para los fines de este caso, interesa analizar los siguientes conceptos: “Plano de Agrimensura: Es el documento mediante el cual se representa en forma gráfica, matemática, literal y jurídicamente sólo una finca, parcela o predio, que cumple con las normas que establece el presente reglamento. Plano Catastrado: Es el plano de agrimensura que ha sido inscrito en el Catastro Nacional”. Con todo lo anterior, el levantamiento topográfico representa el fundo a titular, y debe ser de forma real. En este caso las dimensiones indicadas en el plano agregado en la imagen 6 del escrito inicial se encuentra apegado a la realidad cuando se constató mediante el reconocimiento judicial, con lo cual se tiene por probado el ancho actual de la vía y así se consigna en el fallo recurrido. \n\nVI. Tampoco tiene sustento el alegato sobre la desafectación de un bien de dominio público, pues de manera abundante se ha explicado el cumplimiento de lo ordenado en la ley de caminos referida. El voto de la Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, número 2012-116629 de las 16 horas 31 minutos del 28 de noviembre de 201, analiza una consulta sobre la constitucionalidad del artículos 7 inciso b) de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, Nº 5060 del 22 de agosto de 1972, y del numeral 19 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, Nº 139 del 14 de julio de 1941, pues el órgano judicial consultante considera que podrían ir en detrimento del numeral 45 de la Carta Política, en el cual se reconoce el derecho fundamental a la propiedad privada. De la exuberante argumentación del Alto Tribunal Constitucional conviene, a criterio de esta Sede, resaltar la siguiente conclusión sobre las normas de aplicación en el sub exámine: “…resulta del todo plausible la conclusión de que este inciso b) en realidad lo que contempla es una reserva de dominio público, la cual no se constituye con la expedición del título inscribible (sentencia aprobatoria de la información posesoria) ni tampoco cuando el titulante cumple diez años de posesión sobre el terreno objeto de las diligencias, sino desde el mismo momento en que el poseedor o el transmitente original comenzó a detentar el inmueble. Desde ese primer momento, existe la posibilidad de que el Estado destine una franja del terreno afectado de hasta un 12% a fin de construir alguna obra de evidente utilidad pública: caminos de cualquier naturaleza con un ancho no mayor de veinte metros, aprovechamiento de fuerzas hidroeléctricas o para el paso de líneas telegráficas o telefónicas, construcción de puentes o utilización de cursos de agua que fueren necesarios para el abastecimiento de poblaciones, abrevaderos de ganado o irrigación, o para cualquier otra finalidad de utilidad pública. Como señala el mencionado numeral: “Tales restricciones y cargas irán aparejadas a la inscripción de la finca afectada, quedando obligado el funcionario a quien corresponde otorgar la escritura o suscribir el mandamiento inscribible a dejar constancia de las mismas. El Registro Público no inscribirá el título si en éste no constan dichas restricciones y cargas” Al tratarse de una reserva de dominio público, se entiende que la franja de terreno que se afecta (12% del área total a inscribir) no es susceptible de posesión apta para prescribir positivamente, sino que queda destinada al fin público dispuesto en la norma; de tal forma que esa porción de terreno no es susceptible de apropiación ni de ingresar al patrimonio privado de particulares. Ahora bien, como señala la Procuraduría, partiendo de la concepción esbozada, mientras la franja sujeta no sea requerida materialmente para el fin público dispuesto, el Estado permite que su detentador la ocupe, y aún que la incluya dentro del área descrita en el plano catastrado con base en el cual se tramitan diligencias de información posesoria sobre el resto del inmueble poseído (88% del área total inscrita). En otras palabras, habría que entender que del total del área inscrita registralmente por medio del trámite de información posesoria, un 88% pertenece a la persona a cuyo nombre aparece inscrita y el 12% restante constituye una reserva de dominio público, la cual nunca ingresó al patrimonio privado de esa persona por prescripción positiva. Un caso similar se aplicaría a las reservas de aguas, según se explicará más adelante (los cauces de agua incluidos en los planos catastrados, aunque forman parte del cálculo del área inscrito total, no pertenecen al particular propietario de la finca inscrita por tratarse de bienes demaniales)” (lo destacado no es del texto original). De lo anterior se deriva, en este caso no se comete infracción alguna, porque el plano excluye lo que le corresponde al derecho de vía. Nótese en el reconocimiento judicial, arriba aludido, la delimitación de la finca respeta ese 12% mencionado en la sentencia constitucional y quedó excluida del levantamiento topográfico. Por esa razón, es infundado el argumento de la procuradora apelante, en cuanto se está permitiendo la titulación de un segmento del demanio público.”",
  "body_en_text": "**II.** The appeal is filed by licensed attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua in her capacity as Deputy Procuradora. She appeals the judgment of 1:46 p.m. on March 4, 2016, in which the possessory information was approved. Specifically, the grievance revolves around the right-of-way of the public road bordering the property to be titled on its east boundary, which in her opinion is [Address1] of the national route. She adds that, by the principle of parallelism of powers, a property affected by law as public domain can only be disaffected by the legislator and not by other instances. In her understanding, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in decision 2012-0116629, addresses the issue of public roads. She requests that the judgment be annulled and the procedures readjusted (Virtual Desk of the Agrarian Court of San Ramón, filings folder, dated March 9, 2016).\n\n**III.** Article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that properties registered through this law shall be subject to several easements (reservas), without the need to indicate them in the resolution approving the process. Among them: **a)** that public roads existing in front of the properties, with a width of less than twenty meters, shall be subject to the easements indicated by the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; and, **b)** the easements indicated by the Ley de Aguas in its articles 72 and 73, when public or private domain waters exist, as applicable. Although the cited rule indicates it is not necessary for the validity and effectiveness of these easements that they be included in the text of the judgment, it must be taken into consideration that their purpose is the protection of the environment and its resources, which has a constitutional basis in our legal system (article 50). Thus, this Court considers that, in order to improve the effectiveness of said rules through the publicity of registration that their inscription allows, it is pertinent that the respective legal easements (reservas de ley) be expressly included in judgments granting these types of processes.\n\n**IV.** The claim is specifically directed at the dimension of the frontage onto the public road that the property subject to the proceedings possesses on its east boundary. It can be seen from the registered survey plan (plano catastrado) provided in the initial filing, image 6, that the parcel subject to the proceedings borders to the east with a public road for seven linear meters, as well as from the statements of the petitioner in fact one of the mentioned initial filing, given under sworn statement in accordance with article 3 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The argument of the state representation has been amply analyzed, and the error in its interpretation of the plan verified. It should be noted that the parcel geometrically resembles a triangle, with its east boundary bordering the public road for only a few meters, which provides the property access to that road. After the statements of the referred appellant entity, and the official letter issued by the MOPT, added on March 26, 2015, at 1:09 PM, the court ordered a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) to be conducted, according to resolutions of 2:02 p.m. on August 24, 2015, and 1:45 p.m. on October 27, 2015. This judicial proceeding was carried out on the parcel at 9:00 a.m. on November 10, 2015. Regarding what is relevant, the following was recorded: “… The registered survey plan A-900669-90 was used as a reference. The property was toured in order to determine if it conforms to what is described in the referenced registered survey plan, which was confirmed. It is land with a steep slope, of an agricultural nature. Furthermore, it was verified that the right-of-way is respected on the boundary to the East, that is, the frontage onto [Address2] road. For this, a measuring tape was used. It was measured from the center of the public road to where the tape indicates ten meters, given that the right-of-way is twenty meters. The boundaries are observed to be properly demarcated, by means of stakes, particularly with neon paint along the East boundary. It is determined that compliance with what is mandated was effectively achieved and no affected or injured state interests are observed.- The land corresponds in its description and dimensions to that described in the registered survey plan submitted to the process. Photographs were taken of the property and the boundary, which are incorporated into the case file.” This judicial inspection was made known to the state representation. As derived from the judicial inspection and the study of the topographical survey, it conforms to the requirements of the Ley General de Caminos and the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. It should be noted that it has been proven that on its east boundary it borders with “…public road with a frontage of seven linear meters…,” which, upon study of the court records, is confirmed by the plan incorporated into the virtual case file and the judicial inspection dated November 10, 2015. Moreover, the challenged decision proceeded to analyze point by point the opposition of the Procuraduría General, and set forth what is excerpted below, and this Chamber considers it amply explains the apparent confusion in the reading of the topographical drawing; it states, in what is relevant, the following: “…The confusion of the MOPT and the Procuradora arises because between vertex 1 and 2 there is a distance of seven meters, precisely in front of a public road, but just above vertex 2 the reference to the twenty-meter width of [Address3] is observed. In such a way that both the registered survey plan, and the fence erected by the petitioner, as this judge verified, respect the right-of-way, counting ten meters from the center of the road…”. This reasoning, besides being aligned with the evidence, is ample, reasonable, and in accordance with the law; it is shared by this Instance. On the other hand, in the operative part of the challenged resolution it is expressly stated: “…The property is subject to the easements regarding rights-of-way provided for in articles 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and 19 subsection a) of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias,” thereby ensuring that these important limitations are made public in the registry.\n\n**V.** For further abundant reasoning, article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos establishes the following: \"The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the MOPT, without it being able to be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter.\" The state representation must take into consideration that the type of road related to the parcel is recorded in the case file, and consequently its width, and compliance with what is indicated was verified. The possessory information procedure constitutes a formalization of the property right, because the party has already acquired the right of possession through usucapion. It must comply with the provisions of article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias regarding being subject to the easements indicated by the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, as occurs in the present case. The purpose of this is so that both the petitioner and third parties, upon registering the title in the pertinent Registry, are aware of such an effect on their property right. Article 2 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias establishes that the plans must represent exact data and measurements, and imposes on the professional in charge of the survey the responsibility for compliance with what is established. Furthermore, it refers to laws 3454 of November 14, 1964, and the Ley para el ejercicio de la Topografía y Agrimensura, No. 4294 of December 16, 1968. In the Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional, article 1 establishes a series of definitions. For the purposes of this case, it is relevant to analyze the following concepts: **“Surveying Plan (Plano de Agrimensura)**: It is the document through which only one property, parcel, or plot is represented graphically, mathematically, literally, and juridically, which complies with the norms established by this regulation. **Registered Survey Plan (Plano Catastrado)**: It is the surveying plan that has been registered in the Catastro Nacional.” With all of the above, the topographical survey represents the property to be titled, and must be in a real form. In this case, the dimensions indicated in the plan added as image 6 of the initial filing are found to correspond to reality, as was verified through the judicial inspection, whereby the current width of the road is considered proven, and thus recorded in the appealed ruling.\n\n**VI.** Nor does the argument regarding the disaffection of a public domain property have any basis, as compliance with what is mandated in the referenced law on roads has been amply explained. Decision number 2012-116629 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, issued at 4:31 p.m. on November 28, 201, analyzes a consultation on the constitutionality of article 7 subsection b) of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, No. 5060 of August 22, 1972, and of article 19 subsections a) and b) of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, No. 139 of July 14, 1941, as the consulting judicial body considered they could be detrimental to article 45 of the Constitution, which recognizes the fundamental right to private property. From the abundant reasoning of the High Constitutional Court, it is appropriate, at the discretion of this Court, to highlight the following conclusion regarding the applicable rules in the case under examination: “…the conclusion is entirely plausible that this subsection b) actually contemplates a public domain easement (reserva de dominio público), which is not constituted with the issuance of the registrable title (judgment approving the possessory information) nor when the titleholder completes ten years of possession over the land subject to the proceedings, but rather from the very moment when the possessor or the original transferor began to hold the property. From that first moment, there exists the possibility for the State to designate a strip of the affected land of up to 12% in order to build some work of evident public utility: roads of any nature with a width no greater than twenty meters, use of hydroelectric power or for the passage of telegraph or telephone lines, construction of bridges or use of watercourses that are necessary for the supply of populations, livestock watering places or irrigation, or for any other purpose of public utility. As the aforementioned article states: ‘Such restrictions and burdens shall be attached to the registration of the affected property, the official responsible for granting the deed or signing the registrable order being obligated to attest to them. The Public Registry will not register the title if said restrictions and burdens do not appear in it.’ Being a public domain easement, it is understood that the strip of land that is affected (12% of the total area to be registered) is not susceptible to possession capable of positive prescription, but rather is destined for the public purpose set out in the rule; in such a way that this portion of land is not susceptible to appropriation nor to entering the private estate of individuals. Now, as the Procuraduría points out, based on the outlined conception, while the subject strip is not materially required for the designated public purpose, the State allows its holder to occupy it, and even to include it within the area described in the registered survey plan on the basis of which possessory information proceedings are processed for the rest of the possessed property (88% of the total registered area). In other words, one must understand that of the total area registered through the possessory information process, 88% belongs to the person in whose name it is registered and the remaining 12% constitutes a public domain easement, which never entered the private estate of that person through positive prescription. A similar case would apply to water easements, as will be explained further on (the water channels included in the registered survey plans, although they form part of the total registered area calculation, do not belong to the particular owner of the registered property because they are public domain assets)” (the highlighting is not in the original text). From the above, it follows that in this case no infringement is committed, because the plan excludes what corresponds to the right-of-way. Note in the judicial inspection, alluded to above, that the delimitation of the property respects that 12% mentioned in the constitutional judgment and was excluded from the topographical survey. For this reason, the argument of the appealing procuradora is unfounded, insofar as it claims the titling of a segment of the public domain is being permitted.\n\nIn this case, the dimensions indicated on the map attached as image 6 of the initial filing conform to reality as verified during the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial), by which the current width of the road is deemed proven and is so recorded in the appealed ruling.\n\n**VI.** Nor is there any support for the argument regarding the removal of an asset from the public domain (desafectación de un bien de dominio público), since compliance with the provisions of the aforementioned roads law has been amply explained. The ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, number 2012-116629 of 4:31 p.m. on November 28, 201, analyzes a consultation on the constitutionality of Article 7, subsection b) of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, No. 5060 of August 22, 1972, and of section 19, subsections a) and b) of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, No. 139 of July 14, 1941, because the consulting judicial body considers that they could be detrimental to section 45 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes the fundamental right to private property. From the exhaustive reasoning of the High Constitutional Court, it is appropriate, in the opinion of this Court, to highlight the following conclusion regarding the applicable rules in the sub exámine: “...it is entirely plausible to conclude that this subsection b) actually contemplates a reserve of public domain (reserva de dominio público), which is not constituted upon the issuance of the registrable title (judgment approving the possessory information (información posesoria)) nor when the titleholder completes ten years of possession over the land subject to the proceedings, but rather from the very moment the possessor or the original transferor began to hold the property. From that first moment, there exists the possibility that the State may destine a strip of the affected land of up to 12% for the purpose of constructing some work of evident public utility: roads of any nature with a width not exceeding twenty meters, exploitation of hydroelectric power or for the passage of telegraph or telephone lines, construction of bridges or use of watercourses necessary for supplying populations, livestock watering places or irrigation, or for any other purpose of public utility. As the aforementioned section states: “Such restrictions and charges shall be attached to the registration of the affected property, the official responsible for granting the deed or signing the registrable order being obligated to record them. The Public Registry shall not register the title if said restrictions and charges are not stated therein.” As this is a reserve of public domain, it is understood that the strip of land affected (12% of the total area to be registered) is not susceptible to possession capable of positive prescription (prescripción positiva), but rather is destined for the public purpose provided in the rule; in such a way that this portion of land is not susceptible to appropriation nor to entering the private patrimony of individuals. Now then, as the Attorney General's Office points out, starting from the conception outlined, as long as the subject strip is not materially required for the stipulated public purpose, the State allows its holder to occupy it, and even to include it within the area described in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) based on which possessory information proceedings are processed over the rest of the possessed property (88% of the total registered area). In other words, it must be understood that of the total area registered in the registry through the possessory information procedure, 88% belongs to the person in whose name it is registered and the remaining 12% constitutes a reserve of public domain, which never entered that person's private patrimony by positive prescription. A similar case would apply to water reserves, as will be explained later (the watercourses included in the cadastral maps, although they form part of the calculation of the total registered area, do not belong to the private owner of the registered property as they are assets in the public domain (bienes demaniales))” (the highlighting is not from the original text). It follows from the foregoing that in this case no infraction is committed, because the map excludes what corresponds to the right-of-way (derecho de vía). Note in the judicial inspection, alluded to above, that the delimitation of the property respects that 12% mentioned in the constitutional judgment and was excluded from the topographic survey. For this reason, the argument of the appellant attorney is unfounded, insofar as the titling of a segment of the public domain is being permitted.”\n\nFrom that first moment, there exists the possibility that the State may allocate a strip of the affected land of up to 12% in order to construct some work of evident public utility: roads of any nature with a width no greater than twenty meters, exploitation of hydroelectric forces or for the passage of telegraph or telephone lines, construction of bridges or use of watercourses that are necessary for the supply of populations, livestock watering places or irrigation, or for any other public-utility purpose. As the aforementioned provision states: \"Such restrictions and charges shall accompany the registration of the affected property, and the official responsible for granting the deed or signing the registrable order is obliged to record them. The Public Registry shall not register the title if said restrictions and charges do not appear therein.\" Being a public-domain reserve, it is understood that the strip of land that is affected (12% of the total area to be registered) is not susceptible to possession suitable for positive prescription, but rather remains destined for the public purpose set forth in the rule; in such a way that this portion of land is not susceptible to appropriation or to entering the private patrimony of individuals. However, as the Attorney General's Office indicates, based on the conception outlined, as long as the subject strip is not materially required for the designated public purpose, the State allows its holder to occupy it, and even to include it within the area described in the cadastral map based on which possessory information proceedings are processed over the remainder of the possessed property (88% of the total registered area). In other words, it must be understood that of the total area registered in the registry by means of the possessory information proceeding, 88% belongs to the person in whose name it appears registered and the remaining 12% constitutes a public-domain reserve, which never entered that person's private patrimony through positive prescription. A similar case would apply to water reserves, as will be explained later (the water channels included in the cadastral maps, although they form part of the calculation of the total registered area, do not belong to the private owner of the registered property because they are public-domain assets)\" (emphasis not in the original text). From the foregoing it follows that, in this case, no infraction is committed, because the map excludes what corresponds to the right-of-way. Note in the judicial inspection, alluded to above, the delimitation of the property respects that 12% mentioned in the constitutional judgment and was excluded from the topographic survey. For that reason, the argument of the appellant prosecutor, to the effect that the titling of a segment of the public domain is being permitted, is unfounded.\""
}