{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-281731", "citation": "Res. 00219-2020 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Improcedencia del interdicto de amparo de posesión sobre servidumbre no constituida", "title_en": "Inadmissibility of Interdict for Possession Protection over Unconstituted Easement", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario rechaza un agravio en un proceso interdictal en el que la recurrente alegaba que no debía discutirse el título de constitución de una servidumbre en un interdicto de amparo de posesión. El voto, apoyándose en doctrina y jurisprudencia consolidada, distingue entre los distintos tipos de servidumbres (continuas/aparentes, continuas/no aparentes, discontinuas) y los requisitos de legitimación activa y prueba aplicables a cada una. Tratándose de una servidumbre de paso —discontinua y no constituida por convenio o última voluntad—, el Tribunal confirma que es indispensable acreditar el título de constitución conforme a los artículos 462 del Código Procesal Civil, 308 y 379 del Código Civil. Al no existir servidumbre legalmente constituida, se declara improcedente el interdicto. El tribunal aclara que la exigencia de título se refiere al acto jurídico de constitución y no a la inscripción registral, y deja abierta la posibilidad de analizar el interdicto de amparo de posesión de fundo enclavado, que tiene presupuestos distintos.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court denies an appeal in an interdict proceeding where the appellant argued that the title constituting an easement should not be discussed in a possessory protection interdict. Drawing on established doctrine and case law, the ruling distinguishes between different types of easements (continuous/apparent, continuous/non‑apparent, discontinuous) and the corresponding requirements for active legitimation and proof. In the case of a right‑of‑way easement —discontinuous and not constituted by agreement or last will— the Court confirms that the title of constitution must be proven under Articles 462 of the Civil Procedure Code, 308 and 379 of the Civil Code. Since no legally constituted easement exists, the interdict is declared inadmissible. The court clarifies that the title requirement refers to the juridical act of constitution, not to registry inscription, and leaves open the possibility of examining an interdict for protection of possession of a landlocked property, which has different requirements.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "16/03/2020", "year": "2020", "topic_ids": [ "procedural-environmental" ], "primary_topic_id": "procedural-environmental", "es_concept_hints": [ "interdicto de amparo de posesión", "servidumbre continua y aparente", "servidumbre discontinua", "fundo dominante y sirviente", "artículo 462 CPC", "artículo 308 Código Civil", "convenio o última voluntad", "servidumbre ecológica" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "307", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 63", "article": "307", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "308", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 63", "article": "308", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Procesal Civil", "article": "462", "doc_id": "norm-12443", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7130", "article": "462", "doc_id": "norm-12443", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "interdicto agrario", "amparo de posesión", "servidumbre de paso", "constitución de servidumbre", "legitimación activa", "servidumbre discontinua", "Tribunal Agrario", "Código Procesal Civil", "Código Civil", "fundo enclavado" ], "keywords_en": [ "agrarian interdict", "possession protection", "right of way easement", "constitution of easement", "active legitimation", "discontinuous easement", "Agrarian Court", "Civil Procedure Code", "Civil Code", "landlocked property" ], "excerpt_es": "Tratándose de este tipo de interdictos, la referencia del artículo 462 del Código Procesal Civil a los numerales 307 y 308 del Código Civil implica que necesariamente se analice sobre la constitución o no de la servidumbre. Por ende, al hablar de constitución de servidumbre, se refiere al título (convenio o declaración de última voluntad) en que se crea la servidumbre, no la inscripción registral de la servidumbre ya constituida. Como la misma recurrente lo indica, no hay una servidumbre legalmente constituida, por lo que la aseveración del a quo en el primer hecho probado como en el único hecho no demostrado es correcta; por lo que no procede el interdicto de amparo de posesión sobre servidumbre, por lo que se rechaza el agravio.", "excerpt_en": "In relation to this type of interdict, the reference of Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code to Articles 307 and 308 of the Civil Code necessarily implies an analysis of whether or not the easement has been constituted. Therefore, when speaking of the constitution of an easement, it refers to the title (agreement or declaration of last will) by which the easement is created, not to the registry inscription of an already constituted easement. As the appellant herself indicates, there is no legally constituted easement, so the lower court’s finding in the first proven fact and in the only fact not proven is correct; therefore, the possessory protection interdict over an easement is inadmissible, and the grievance is dismissed.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Appeal dismissed", "label_es": "Rechazo del agravio", "summary_en": "The interdict is confirmed inadmissible because no legally constituted easement exists.", "summary_es": "Se confirma la improcedencia del interdicto por no existir servidumbre legalmente constituida." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "As the appellant herself indicates, there is no legally constituted easement, so the lower court’s finding in the first proven fact and in the only fact not proven is correct; therefore, the possessory protection interdict over an easement is inadmissible, and the grievance is dismissed.", "quote_es": "Como la misma recurrente lo indica, no hay una servidumbre legalmente constituida, por lo que la aseveración del a quo en el primer hecho probado como en el único hecho no demostrado es correcta; por lo que no procede el interdicto de amparo de posesión sobre servidumbre, por lo que se rechaza el agravio." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "when speaking of the constitution of an easement, it refers to the title (agreement or declaration of last will) by which the easement is created, not to the registry inscription of an already constituted easement.", "quote_es": "al hablar de constitución de servidumbre, se refiere al título (convenio o declaración de última voluntad) en que se crea la servidumbre, no la inscripción registral de la servidumbre ya constituida." }, { "context": "Considerando IV, cita de jurisprudencia", "quote_en": "Regarding the interdictal protection of right‑of‑way easements, the law is very clear: a) Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that when the claim concerns continuous non‑apparent easements or discontinuous easements, the provisions of Article 308 of the Civil Code shall apply.", "quote_es": "Tratándose de la protección interdictal de servidumbres de paso la ley es muy clara: a) el artículo 462 del Código Procesal Civil dispone que cuando la demanda versa sobre servidumbres continuas no aparentes, o sobre discontinuas, se aplicará lo dicho en el artículo 308 del Código Civil." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-12443", "citation": "Ley 7130", "title_en": "Code of Civil Procedure", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "16/08/1989", "year": "1989" } ], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-12443", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Procesal Civil" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "norm-15437", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=15437&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Civil", "norm_id": "15437" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-281731", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": true, "_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": [ { "art_num": "307", "art_scij": "89202", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "118816", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "308", "art_scij": "89203", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "118816", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "462", "art_scij": "71866", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-12443", "norm_fecha": "16 Ago 1989", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil", "norm_num": "7130", "norm_ver": "113746", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Improcedencia de interdicto de amparo de posesión al no estar legalmente constituida" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Servidumbre agraria" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Improcedencia sobre servidumbre no constituida" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Interdicto agrario de amparo de posesión" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"IV.- SOBRE EL AGRAVIO RELATIVO A LA ALEGADA IMPROCEDENCIA DE DISCUTIR SOBRE EL TITULO DE CONSTITUCION DE UNA SERVIDUMBRE EN UN INTERDICTO: No lleva razón la recurrente. Sobre los procesos interdictales, ha estimado este Tribunal : \"La vía interdictal en materia agraria, sirve para proteger una posesión agraria que se traduce en la realización de actos posesorios agrarios propiamente dichos. De esta acción específica ha surgido dentro del Derecho Procesal Agrario , lo que ha denominado \" acciones interdictales agrarias\" mediante las cuales se busca proteger la posesión actual y momentánea, a efecto de que las actividades de producción no sean afectadas, y se pueda cumplir con el destino productivo de los bienes agrarios. La pretensión interdictal, tiene por objeto mantener una situación de hecho, actual y momentánea, hasta tanto no sea resuelta en una vía más amplia, como la declarativa, el derecho de poseer una cosa, independientemente del derecho de propiedad o el mejor derecho de posesión; en otros términos; los interdictos tienden al pronto restablecimiento del estado de hecho, ya sea amparar al que fuere inquietado en la posesión, o restableciendo en ella al que ha sufrido despojo; incluso la ley faculta al poseedor de cualquier clase que sea para repeler la fuerza con la fuerza, en caso de que se atente contra su posesión, el cual es un recurso excepcional, el cual las personas sólo deben acudir en situaciones muy calificadas (artículo 457 del Código Procesal Civil). En el presente caso se trata de un acceso ubicado en la propiedad del demandado hacia el fundo de la actora. (Tribunal Agrario Voto 649-f-03 de las 14.40 horas del 26 de septiembre del 2003).- Asimismo, propiamente sobre los interdictos agrarios que tutelan las servidumbres, ha dicho la doctrina: \"Para que el interdicto sobre servidumbres sea establecido con éxito, resulta necesario apuntar variaciones importantes en estos aspectos, principalmente en lo referente a la legitimación activa que difiere no sólo si trata de un interdicto civil o uno agrario –e incluso agroambiental- sino también en los caracteres de la servidumbre que se trate –sea continua y aparente -algunos supuestos de vista-, continua y no aparente -otros supuestos de servidumbre de vista- y discontinuas -como las de paso, sean aparentes o no-. a.- Legitimación activa y supuestos especiales: En esta figura, tratándose de servidumbres continuas no aparentes y discontinuas, se debe hablar de una legitimación activa “compuesta” pues se integra de varios elementos propios. En caso del interdicto civil de servidumbres, la legitimación activa radica en que el actor logre acreditar no sólo su condición de poseedor, sino que lo es de un fundo dominante, es decir, sobre el cual tenga a su favor el uso de una servidumbre. Si la servidumbre es discontinua (como el ejemplo típico de la de paso, sean agrarias o civiles) o continua no aparente (como la de vista sin signos externos), deberá acreditar que la servidumbre está inscrita en el Registro -arts. 308, 379 C.Ci. y 462 CPC- ó el título proveniente de dicho titular o de los anteriores propietarios, es decir, prueba tasada documental. Si la servidumbre es continua y aparente, bastará con que demuestre el uso del actor y la paciencia del demandado, es decir, la posesión de hecho sobre el fundo dominante, mediante, básicamente, reconocimiento judicial, confesional y testimonial, sin menoscabo de otros medios de prueba. En materia de interdicto agrario, tal y como se analizó en el Capítulo VI de esta obra, los presupuestos materiales de la pretensión radica en el thema probandum de demostrar la calidad de ser poseedor actual o momentáneo -de hecho-, de un fundo de naturaleza agrario, forestal o agrario-ambiental que tenga a su favor una servidumbre que se haya visto afectada u obstaculizada. El tipo de acto posesorio, al igual que en el resto de los interdictos, dependerá de la naturaleza del bien inmueble -agraria, agroforestal o ecológica-. Las salvedades de la demostración del título en que se funde las servidumbres contempladas en los artículos 462 CPC, 308 y 379 del C.Ci., señaladas anteriormente, son aplicables en materia agraria. De igual manera con las que no se incluyen en dichas excepciones. En el caso específico de una servidumbre de paso, resulta irrelevante el enclave o no del fundo dominante, sino que prima la demostración de la constitución de la servidumbre, sea por convenio o por última voluntad. Es en este supuesto del 462 del CPC que se ventila el derecho de poseer y no la simple posesión ad interdictam en el caso de la legitimación activa. Sin embargo, si aceptamos la tesis de que las servidumbres ecológicas pueden ser admitidas como tales aún sin la existencia de fundo dominante, encontramos que tratándose de actos perturbatorios que afecten este tipo de servidumbres, al afectarse el interés colectivo o difuso al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, cualquier persona por el hecho de serlo, tendría legitimación activa para demandar en la vía interdictal agraria, incluyéndose en esto a las ONGs de carácter ambiental de la zona de conflicto, pero también debe tomarse en cuenta que estas servidumbres ecológicas generalmente son no aparentes, o discontinuas, por lo que siempre deberá demostrarse la constitución de estas servidumbres en el inmueble del demandado. b.- Legitimación pasiva y su casuística: La legitimación activa y la pasiva son correlativas, por el nexo de causalidad que involucra a las partes a través del acto perturbatorio. Pero a la vez, así como el tipo de servidumbre que se trate justifica determinado medio de prueba para la legitimación activa, los caracteres de la servidumbre van a determinar también quiénes pueden ser demandados y quiénes no en determinados supuestos, lo cual abre un abanico de posibilidades que trataremos de dar respuesta. Si se tratase de una servidumbre continua y aparente, que por ser excluida de los artículos 462 CPC y 308 y 379 del C.Ci, solo basta demostrar el uso del actor a paciencia del demandado, necesariamente, la legitimación pasiva en estos casos radicará en que se logre demostrar fehacientemente que el demandado –sin importar si es el titular del fundo sirviente o cualquier tercero- haya sido el (os) responsable (s) o causante (s) de la perturbación, cierre u obstaculización del uso de dicha servidumbre. Como no se exige un título, mucho menos inscrito en el Registro y la servidumbre es aparente, pues tiene signos externos que deben revelar fehacientemente su existencia, cualquier tercero puede percatarse que su acción afecta el uso de la servidumbre. (...) De forma similar sucede en los casos en que sí se aplican las excepciones de los artículos 462 CPC y 308 y 379 del C.Ci: son los supuestos de las servidumbres continuas no aparentes –la servidumbre de vista sin signos externos y la servidumbre agraria de paso apícola- y las discontinuas –como todo el resto de servidumbres de paso-. Aunque dichas normas establecen la obligatoriedad de acreditar el acto –ya no hablamos de hecho- jurídico que se encuentran debidamente constituidas por convenio o última disposición del propietario del fundo sirviente o sus anteriores dueños, debemos tomar en cuenta que dicho requisito es únicamente para la legitimación activa, pues todo este tipo de servidumbres prediales o reales, se imponen a favor y en contra de bienes inmuebles y no sobre o a favor de personas. Pero, tal como se analizó en los Capítulos VI, VII y VIII, la legitimación pasiva en los interdictos de amparo de posesión y restitución radica en cualquier tercero que perturbare o despojare al actor en su posesión de hecho. Por ello, la legitimación pasiva radica no sólo en la figura del titular del fundo sirviente, sino a cualquier tercero que perturbe o despoje el uso de la servidumbre al actor. Por supuesto que la solución a todos estos casos hipotéticos dependen de la configuración del tercer presupuesto de la demanda interdictal, el cual revisamos a continuación en forma breve. c.- Caducidad: Al igual que cualquier otro interdicto, salvo el de derribo, el término fatal de caducidad empieza a correr tres meses a partir del inicio de la perturbación, cierre u obstaculización del uso de la servidumbre.\" [Nombre1] () y [Nombre2] (). Los Interdictos en Materia Civil, Agraria, Ambiental y Contenciosa, San José, Faro, 2017, p.p. 415 a 420. Lo anterior concuerda con lo establecido en forma reiterada por la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal: \"Cuando de lo que se trata es de una servidumbre o derecho de paso, la legitimación activa se configura cuando la posesión se ejerce agraria o ecológicamente en el terreno del actor (que sería el fundo dominante, si se tratara de servidumbre) y la vía de acceso se utiliza para realizar en el mismo las actividades propias de la producción agraria o de conservación ambiental, para ingresar al fundo o sacar los bienes producidos en él. Sin embargo, en esos casos debe tomarse en cuenta, además, lo que se expone en los siguientes considerandos.- VI- Tratándose de la protección interdictal de servidumbres de paso la ley es muy clara: a) el artículo 462 del Código Procesal Civil dispone que cuando la demanda versa sobre servidumbres continuas no aparentes, o sobre discontinuas, se aplicará lo dicho en el artículo 308 del Código Civil. b) Ese artículo establece que tratándose de esas servidumbres \"el reclamo, para ser atendido, debe fundarse en título que provenga del propietario del fundo sirviente o de aquellos de quien éste lo hubo\". c) Por su parte el numeral 379 del último código citado señala que \"Las servidumbres discontinuas de toda clase y las continuas no aparentes, sólo pueden constituirse por convenio o por última voluntad.\" TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto Nº 697 de las 16:10 hrs. del 8 de noviembre de 1996. Tratándose de este tipo de interdictos, la referencia del artículo 462 del Código Procesal Civil a los numerales 307 y 308 del Código Civil implica que necesariamente se analice sobre la constitución o no de la servidumbre. Por ende, al hablar de constitución de servidumbre, se refiere al título (convenio o declaración de última voluntad) en que se crea la servidumbre, no la inscripción registral de la servidumbre ya constituida. Como la misma recurrente lo indica, no hay una servidumbre legalmente constituida, por lo que la aseveración del a quo en el primer hecho probado como en el único hecho no demostrado es correcta; por lo que no procede el interdicto de amparo de posesión sobre servidumbre, por lo que se rechaza el agravio. Diferentes supuestos rigen sobre el interdicto de amparo de posesión de fundo enclavado, el cual es el objeto del siguiente agravio, el cual se resolverá a continuación.\"", "body_en_text": "**IV.- REGARDING THE GRIEVANCE CONCERNING THE ALLEGED INADMISSIBILITY OF DISCUSSING THE TITLE OF CONSTITUTION OF AN EASEMENT (SERVIDUMBRE) IN AN INTERDICT (INTERDICTO):** The appellant is not correct. Regarding interdictal proceedings, this Tribunal has held: \"The interdictal avenue in agrarian matters serves to protect an agrarian possession that translates into the performance of specifically agrarian possessory acts. From this specific action has emerged within Agrarian Procedural Law what has been termed 'agrarian interdictal actions' through which the protection of current and momentary possession is sought, so that production activities are not affected, and the productive purpose of agrarian assets can be fulfilled. The interdictal claim aims to maintain a factual, current, and momentary situation, until the right to possess a thing is resolved in a broader avenue, such as a declaratory action, independently of the right of ownership or the better right of possession; in other words, interdicts (interdictos) tend to the prompt restoration of the factual state, whether protecting the one who was disturbed in possession, or restoring possession to the one who has suffered dispossession; even the law empowers the possessor of any kind to repel force with force, in the event that their possession is threatened, which is an exceptional recourse, to which people should only resort in very qualified situations (Article 457 of the Civil Procedure Code). In the present case, it involves an access located on the defendant's property leading to the plaintiff's farm. (Tribunal Agrario Voto 649-f-03 of 14:40 hours on September 26, 2003).- Likewise, specifically regarding agrarian interdicts that protect easements, the doctrine has stated: 'For an interdict concerning easements to be successfully established, it is necessary to note important variations in these aspects, mainly regarding active standing (legitimación activa) which differs not only depending on whether it is a civil or agrarian interdict –even agro-environmental– but also on the characteristics of the easement in question –whether it is continuous and apparent -some assumptions of view-, continuous and non-apparent -other assumptions of easement of view- and discontinuous -such as those of passage, whether apparent or not-. a.- Active standing and special assumptions: In this figure, in the case of continuous non-apparent and discontinuous easements, one must speak of a “compound” active standing as it is composed of several own elements. In the case of a civil interdict for easements, active standing lies in the plaintiff being able to prove not only their condition as possessor, but that they are the possessor of a dominant farm (fundo dominante), that is, one over which they have the use of an easement in their favor. If the easement is discontinuous (as the typical example of right of way, whether agrarian or civil) or continuous non-apparent (such as that of view without external signs), they must prove that the easement is registered in the Registry -Arts. 308, 379 C.Ci. and 462 CPC- or the title from said holder or the previous owners, that is, assessed documentary proof. If the easement is continuous and apparent, it will suffice to demonstrate the plaintiff's use and the defendant's patience, that is, the de facto possession over the dominant farm, basically through judicial inspection, confession, and witness testimony, without prejudice to other means of proof. In the matter of agrarian interdict, as analyzed in Chapter VI of this work, the material presuppositions of the claim lie in the probandum theme of demonstrating the status of being a current or momentary possessor –de facto– of a farm of an agrarian, forestry, or agrarian-environmental nature that has an easement in its favor that has been affected or obstructed. The type of possessory act, as in the rest of the interdicts, will depend on the nature of the real estate –agrarian, agroforestry, or ecological–. The exceptions to the demonstration of the title on which the easements contemplated in Articles 462 CPC, 308 and 379 of the C.Ci., mentioned above, are applicable in agrarian matters. Likewise for those not included in said exceptions. In the specific case of a right of way (servidumbre de paso), whether or not the dominant farm is enclaved is irrelevant, but rather the demonstration of the constitution of the easement, whether by agreement (convenio) or by last will, prevails. It is in this assumption of Article 462 of the CPC that the right to possess is aired, and not the simple ad interdictam possession in the case of active standing. However, if we accept the thesis that ecological easements can be admitted as such even without the existence of a dominant farm, we find that in the case of disturbing acts that affect this type of easement, as the collective or diffuse interest in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is affected, any person by virtue of being so would have active standing to sue in the agrarian interdictal avenue, including in this the environmental NGOs of the conflict zone, but it must also be taken into account that these ecological easements are generally non-apparent or discontinuous, and therefore the constitution of these easements on the defendant's property must always be demonstrated. b.- Passive standing (legitimación pasiva) and its casuistry: Active and passive standing are correlative, due to the causal link that involves the parties through the disturbing act. But at the same time, just as the type of easement in question justifies a certain means of proof for active standing, the characteristics of the easement will also determine who can be sued and who cannot in certain assumptions, which opens a range of possibilities that we will try to answer. If it were a continuous and apparent easement, which by being excluded from Articles 462 CPC and 308 and 379 of the C.Ci, only requires demonstrating the plaintiff's use with the defendant's patience, necessarily, passive standing in these cases will lie in being able to conclusively demonstrate that the defendant –regardless of whether they are the owner of the servient farm (fundo sirviente) or any third party– was the person(s) responsible or causing the disturbance, closure, or obstruction of the use of said easement. As a title is not required, much less registered in the Registry, and the easement is apparent, as it has external signs that must conclusively reveal its existence, any third party can realize that their action affects the use of the easement. (...) A similar situation occurs in cases where the exceptions of Articles 462 CPC and 308 and 379 of the C.Ci do apply: these are the assumptions of continuous non-apparent easements –the easement of view without external signs and the agrarian beekeeping right of way– and discontinuous ones –like all the rest of the rights of way–. Although these rules establish the obligation to prove the legal act –we no longer speak of fact– which is duly constituted by agreement or last disposition of the owner of the servient farm or its previous owners, we must take into account that this requirement is only for active standing, since all this type of predial servitudes (servidumbres prediales) or real easements are imposed in favor of and against real estate and not upon or in favor of persons. But, as analyzed in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII, passive standing in interdicts for protection of possession and restitution lies in any third party who disturbs or despoils the plaintiff in their de facto possession. Therefore, passive standing lies not only in the figure of the owner of the servient farm, but in any third party who disturbs or despoils the plaintiff's use of the easement. Of course, the solution to all these hypothetical cases depends on the configuration of the third presupposition of the interdictal claim, which we briefly review below. c.- Statute of limitations (Caducidad): As with any other interdict, except that of demolition, the fatal term of the statute of limitations begins to run three months from the start of the disturbance, closure, or obstruction of the use of the easement.' [Nombre1] () and [Nombre2] (). Los Interdictos en Materia Civil, Agraria, Ambiental y Contenciosa, San José, Faro, 2017, p.p. 415 to 420. The foregoing agrees with what has been repeatedly established by the jurisprudence of this Tribunal: 'When what is at issue is an easement or right of way, active standing is configured when possession is exercised agrariantly or ecologically on the plaintiff's land (which would be the dominant farm, if it were an easement) and the access way is used to carry out on it the activities typical of agrarian production or environmental conservation, to enter the farm or remove the goods produced on it. However, in these cases, what is set out in the following recitals (considerandos) must also be taken into account.- VI- Regarding the interdictal protection of rights of way, the law is very clear: a) Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that when the claim concerns continuous non-apparent easements, or discontinuous ones, what is stated in Article 308 of the Civil Code shall apply. b) That article establishes that in the case of those easements \"the claim, to be heard, must be based on a title that comes from the owner of the servient farm or from those from whom the latter obtained it\". c) For its part, numeral 379 of the last cited code indicates that \"Discontinuous easements of all kinds and continuous non-apparent easements can only be constituted by agreement or by last will.\" TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto Nº 697 of 16:10 hrs. on November 8, 1996. In the case of this type of interdict, the reference of Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code to numerals 307 and 308 of the Civil Code implies that the constitution or non-constitution of the easement must necessarily be analyzed. Therefore, when speaking of the constitution of an easement, it refers to the title (agreement or declaration of last will) by which the easement is created, not the registry inscription of the already constituted easement. As the appellant herself indicates, there is no legally constituted easement, and therefore the assertion of the a quo in the first proven fact as well as in the only non-demonstrated fact is correct; therefore, the interdict for protection of possession over an easement does not proceed, and the grievance is rejected. Different rules govern the interdict for protection of possession of an enclaved farm, which is the subject of the following grievance, which will be resolved below.\"\n\n**\"IV.- REGARDING THE GRIEVANCE CONCERNING THE ALLEGED INADMISSIBILITY OF DISCUSSING THE TITLE OF CONSTITUTION OF AN EASEMENT (SERVIDUMBRE) IN AN INTERDICT PROCEEDING:** The appellant is incorrect. Regarding interdictal processes, this Court has considered: \"*The interdictal route in agrarian matters serves to protect an agrarian possession that translates into the performance of agrarian possessory acts proper. From this specific action has arisen within Agrarian Procedural Law what has been called 'agrarian interdictal actions' through which the aim is to protect current and momentary possession, so that production activities are not affected, and the productive purpose of agrarian goods can be fulfilled. The interdictal claim aims to maintain a factual, current, and momentary situation, until the right to possess a thing is resolved in a broader venue, such as a declaratory action, independently of the right of ownership or the better right of possession; in other words, interdicts aim for the prompt reestablishment of the state of fact, either by protecting the one who was disturbed in possession, or by restoring possession to the one who has suffered despoilment; the law even empowers the possessor of any kind to repel force with force, in the event of an attack against their possession, which is an exceptional resource, to which people should only resort in very qualified situations (article 457 of the Código Procesal Civil). In the present case, it concerns an access located on the defendant's property leading to the plaintiff's* fundo *(land).* (Tribunal Agrario Voto 649-f-03 of 14:40 hours on September 26, 2003).- Likewise, specifically regarding agrarian interdicts that protect easements (servidumbres), the doctrine has stated: \"*For the interdict regarding easements (servidumbres) to be successfully established, it is necessary to point out important variations in these aspects, mainly regarding active legal standing which differs not only if it is a civil or agrarian—and even agro-environmental—interdict, but also in the characteristics of the easement (servidumbre) in question—be it continuous and apparent—some cases regarding views—, continuous and non-apparent—other cases of view easements (servidumbres)—and discontinuous—such as those of passage, whether apparent or not.— a.- Active legal standing and special cases: In this figure, in the case of continuous non-apparent and discontinuous easements (servidumbres), one must speak of a 'compound' active legal standing as it is composed of various specific elements. In the case of the civil interdict of easements (servidumbres), active legal standing lies in the plaintiff managing to prove not only their condition as possessor, but that they are the possessor of a dominant* fundo *(land), that is, a property over which they hold the use of an easement (servidumbre) in their favor. If the easement (servidumbre) is discontinuous (like the typical example of right of way, whether agrarian or civil) or continuous non-apparent (like that of a view without external signs), they must prove that the easement (servidumbre) is registered in the Registry—arts. 308, 379 C.Ci. and 462 CPC—or the title from said owner or from the previous owners, that is, restricted documentary evidence. If the easement (servidumbre) is continuous and apparent, it will suffice to demonstrate the plaintiff's use and the defendant's acquiescence, that is, de facto possession over the dominant* fundo *(land), basically through judicial inspection, confession, and testimony, without prejudice to other means of proof. In matters of the agrarian interdict, as analyzed in Chapter VI of this work, the material prerequisites of the claim lie in the* thema probandum *of demonstrating the quality of being a current or momentary possessor—in fact—of a* fundo *(land) of an agrarian, forestry, or agrarian-environmental nature that holds an easement (servidumbre) in its favor that has been affected or obstructed. The type of possessory act, as in the rest of the interdicts, will depend on the nature of the immovable property—agrarian, agroforestry, or ecological—. The exceptions regarding the demonstration of the title on which the easements (servidumbres) contemplated in articles 462 CPC, 308 and 379 of the C.Ci. are based, as previously noted, are applicable in agrarian matters. The same applies to those not included in said exceptions. In the specific case of an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso), whether or not the dominant* fundo *(land) is landlocked is irrelevant; rather, the demonstration of the constitution of the easement (servidumbre), whether by agreement or by last will, prevails. It is under this assumption of article 462 CPC that the right to possess is aired and not the simple possession ad interdictam in the case of active legal standing. However, if we accept the thesis that ecological easements (servidumbres ecológicas) can be admitted as such even without the existence of a dominant* fundo *(land), we find that in the case of disruptive acts affecting this type of easements (servidumbres), upon affecting the collective or diffuse interest in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, any person, by the mere fact of being one, would have active legal standing to sue through the agrarian interdictal route, including NGOs of an environmental nature from the conflict zone; but it must also be considered that these ecological easements (servidumbres ecológicas) are generally non-apparent or discontinuous, so the constitution of these easements (servidumbres) on the defendant's immovable property must always be demonstrated. b.- Passive legal standing and its casuistry: Active and passive legal standing are correlative, due to the causal link involving the parties through the disruptive act. But at the same time, just as the type of easement (servidumbre) in question justifies a certain means of proof for active legal standing, the characteristics of the easement (servidumbre) will also determine who can be sued and who cannot in certain scenarios, which opens a range of possibilities that we will try to address. If it were a continuous and apparent easement (servidumbre), which by being excluded from articles 462 CPC and 308 and 379 of the C.Ci., only requires demonstrating the plaintiff's use with the defendant's acquiescence, necessarily, passive legal standing in these cases will lie in reliably demonstrating that the defendant—regardless of whether they are the owner of the servient* fundo *(land) or any third party—was the person(s) responsible or the cause of the disturbance, closure, or obstruction of the use of said easement (servidumbre). Since a title is not required, much less one registered in the Registry, and the easement (servidumbre) is apparent, as it has external signs that must reliably reveal its existence, any third party can realize that their action affects the use of the easement (servidumbre). (...) It happens similarly in cases where the exceptions of articles 462 CPC and 308 and 379 of the C.Ci. do apply: these are the assumptions of continuous non-apparent easements (servidumbres)—the view easement (servidumbre de vista) without external signs and the agrarian bee-keeping passage easement (servidumbre agraria de paso apícola)—and discontinuous ones—like all other easements of passage (servidumbres de paso)—. Although these rules establish the obligation to prove the legal act—we are no longer speaking of fact—that they are duly constituted by agreement or last disposition of the owner of the servient* fundo *(land) or its previous owners, we must consider that this requirement is only for active legal standing, since all this type of predial or real easements (servidumbres) are imposed in favor of and against immovable property and not on or in favor of persons. But, as analyzed in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII, passive legal standing in interdicts for protection of possession (amparo de posesión) and restitution lies in any third party who disturbs or despoils the plaintiff in their de facto possession. Therefore, passive legal standing lies not only in the figure of the owner of the servient* fundo *(land), but in any third party who disturbs or despoils the plaintiff of the use of the easement (servidumbre). Of course, the solution to all these hypothetical cases depends on the configuration of the third prerequisite of the interdictal claim, which we will briefly review next. c.- Expiration: Like any other interdict, except for that of demolition, the fatal expiration term begins to run three months from the onset of the disturbance, closure, or obstruction of the use of the easement (servidumbre).\"* [Nombre1] () y [Nombre2] (). *Los Interdictos en Materia Civil, Agraria, Ambiental y Contenciosa*, San José, Faro, 2017, pp. 415 to 420. The foregoing agrees with what has been repeatedly established by the jurisprudence of this Court: \"*When what is involved is an easement (servidumbre) or right of way, active legal standing is configured when possession is exercised in an agrarian or ecological manner on the plaintiff's land (which would be the dominant* fundo *(land), if it were an easement (servidumbre)) and the access route is used to carry out activities proper to agrarian production or environmental conservation on it, to enter the* fundo *(land) or to remove the goods produced on it. However, in those cases, what is stated in the following recitals (considerandos) must also be taken into account.— VI- Regarding the interdictal protection of easements of passage (servidumbres de paso), the law is very clear: a) article 462 of the Código Procesal Civil provides that when the claim concerns continuous non-apparent easements (servidumbres), or discontinuous ones, what is stated in article 308 of the Código Civil shall apply. b) That article establishes that regarding those easements (servidumbres) 'the claim, to be entertained, must be based on a title from the owner of the servient* fundo *(land) or from those from whom the latter obtained it'. c) In turn, numeral 379 of the last-cited code states that 'Discontinuous easements (servidumbres) of all kinds and continuous non-apparent ones can only be constituted by agreement or by last will.'\"* TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto Nº 697 of 16:10 hrs. on November 8, 1996. In this type of interdict, the reference in article 462 of the Código Procesal Civil to numerals 307 and 308 of the Código Civil implies that the constitution or non-constitution of the easement (servidumbre) must necessarily be analyzed. Therefore, when speaking of the constitution of an easement (servidumbre), it refers to the title (agreement or declaration of last will) by which the easement (servidumbre) is created, not the registry inscription of the already constituted easement (servidumbre). As the appellant herself indicates, there is no legally constituted easement (servidumbre), so the assertion of the lower court in the first proven fact as well as in the sole non-demonstrated fact is correct; therefore, the possessory protection interdict (interdicto de amparo de posesión) regarding an easement (servidumbre) does not proceed, and therefore the grievance is rejected. Different rules govern the possessory protection interdict (interdicto de amparo de posesión) of a landlocked property (fundo enclavado), which is the subject of the following grievance, which will be resolved below.\"" }