{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0004-1276236", "citation": "Res. 01864-2024 Sala Primera de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Inicio del cómputo de prescripción para anular información posesoria", "title_en": "Start of limitation period to annul possessory information proceedings", "summary_es": "El documento es la sentencia número 01864-F-S1-2024 dictada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica. Resuelve un recurso de casación interpuesto por los actores Alexander García Alvarado y Minor García Alvarado en un proceso ordinario donde se discute la propiedad de un terreno denominado 'La Isla', ubicado dentro del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del Colorado. La controversia central fue la declaratoria de prescripción decenal de la acción para solicitar la nulidad de una información posesoria que tituló el inmueble en cabeza de los demandados. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo había acogido la excepción de prescripción, considerando que el plazo de diez años empezaba a correr desde la presentación del título en el Registro Nacional (02/04/1995), lo que hacía que la acción estuviera prescrita al presentarse la demanda en 2008. La Sala Primera acoge el recurso y anula la sentencia recurrida, determinando que en el caso de bienes adquiridos mediante información posesoria, la publicidad registral y por tanto el inicio del cómputo de la prescripción decenal para terceros se da a partir de la inscripción del título en el Registro Público (23/06/1998), no desde su presentación. La Sala concluye que la acción no estaba prescrita porque los demandados fueron notificados del emplazamiento judicial antes del 23 de junio de 2008, interrumpiendo así el plazo. Ordena el reenvío del expediente al tribunal de origen para que dicte nueva sentencia sobre el fondo del asunto, resolviendo las pretensiones y excepciones restantes, incluyendo la demanda, la reconvención y la afectación demanial del inmueble por su ubicación en un refugio de vida silvestre.", "summary_en": "The document is ruling number 01864-F-S1-2024 issued by the First Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court of Justice. It decides a cassation appeal filed by the plaintiffs Alexander García Alvarado and Minor García Alvarado in an ordinary proceeding concerning the ownership of a property called 'La Isla,' located within the Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge. The central issue was the declaration of the ten-year statute of limitations on the action to annul a possessory information proceeding that titled the property in the defendants' name. The lower court had upheld the statute of limitations defense, calculating the ten-year period from the filing of the title with the National Registry (04/02/1995), which made the claim time-barred when filed in 2008. The First Chamber grants the appeal and annuls the lower ruling. It holds that for property acquired through possessory information proceedings, the public notice effect of registration—and thus the start of the ten-year limitation period for third parties—begins upon the actual registration of the title in the Public Registry (06/23/1998), not the date of filing. The Court concludes that the action was not time-barred because the defendants were served with the judicial summons before June 23, 2008, interrupting the limitation period. The case is remanded to the lower court for a new ruling on the merits, addressing the remaining claims and defenses, including the main claim, the counterclaim, and the public domain status of the property due to its location within a wildlife refuge.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Primera de la Corte", "date": "19/12/2024", "year": "2024", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "información posesoria", "prescripción decenal", "publicidad registral", "inscripción registral", "Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre", "bien demanial", "derecho de posesión" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "prescripción decenal", "información posesoria", "publicidad registral", "inscripción", "Sala Primera", "Costa Rica", "propiedad", "Refugio Barra del Colorado", "herencia", "posesión", "casación" ], "keywords_en": [ "ten-year statute of limitations", "possessory information", "registration publicity", "inscription", "First Chamber", "Costa Rica", "property", "Barra del Colorado Refuge", "inheritance", "possession", "cassation" ], "excerpt_es": "A pesar de que el casacionista titula el agravio como indebida valoración probatoria, esta Sala logra observar que lo se desprende del mismo es una indebida aplicación del precepto 455 del Código Civil en el cálculo de plazo de prescripción decenal. [Considera esta Sala que] al encontrarnos en la presente litis, en la discusión de un bien adquirido mediante informaciones posesorias, la publicidad registral, se da a partir de la inscripción del título de propiedad en el registro. Lo anterior en vista de que al darse en las informaciones posesorias un titulo originario, la propiedad no se encontraba previamente inscrita, lo cual impide que se de la publicidad registral indicada en el precepto 455 con la presentación del titulo ante el registro.\n\nDe la normativa mencionada [artículos 16 y 17 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias] se desprenden tres cuestiones de suma importancia. En primer lugar, el termino de los 3 años indicados en los articulo 16 y 17, es un plazo para tramitar la nulidad vía incidental, en el mismo expediente en el cual se declaró la información posesoria. Y en segundo lugar que dicho plazo empieza a computar desde la inscripción del titulo en el registro, que es cuando evidentemente tiene publicidad frente a terceros. En tercer lugar, transcurridos los 3 años de prescripción mencionados en el primer punto, se debe acudir a la vía declarativa para solicitar la nulidad de la información posesoria.", "excerpt_en": "Although the appellant titles the grievance as improper evidentiary assessment, this Chamber observes that it stems from an improper application of Article 455 of the Civil Code in calculating the ten-year statute of limitations. [This Chamber finds that] given we are in this dispute over a property acquired through possessory information proceedings, the public notice effect of registration occurs upon the inscription of the title in the registry. This is because in possessory information proceedings an original title is created, and the property was not previously registered, which prevents the public notice effect indicated in Article 455 from arising with the mere filing of the title before the registry.\n\nFrom the aforementioned regulations [Articles 16 and 17 of the Possessory Information Law] three critically important points emerge. First, the 3-year period indicated in Articles 16 and 17 is a statute of limitations for processing the annulment via an incidental procedure within the same case file in which the possessory information was declared. Second, that period commences from the registration of the title in the registry, which is when it evidently has public notice against third parties. Third, once the 3-year limitation period mentioned in the first point has elapsed, one must resort to the ordinary declaratory proceeding to request the annulment of the possessory information.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The First Chamber grants the cassation appeal and annuls the appealed judgment, finding the action was not time-barred, and remands the case for a new ruling on the merits.", "summary_es": "La Sala Primera acoge el recurso de casación y anula la sentencia recurrida al determinar que la acción no estaba prescrita, ordenando el reenvío del expediente al Tribunal de origen para que dicte nueva sentencia conforme a derecho." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The lower court's ruling declares that according to the procedural rule, the ten-year statute of limitations period begins to run from the filing of the title with the National Registry on April 2, 1998. However, this Chamber agrees with the appellant. For property acquired through possessory information proceedings, the public notice effect of registration arises upon the inscription of the property title in the registry.", "quote_es": "En sentencia se declara que de acuerdo a la norma de rito el plazo decenal para el cálculo de la prescripción inicia a partir de la presentación del título en el Registro Nacional siendo esta el 02 de abril de 1998. No obstante, considera esta Sala que lleva razón el casacionista, pues al encontrarnos en la presente litis, en la discusión de un bien adquirido mediante informaciones posesorias, la publicidad registral, se da a partir de la inscripción del título de propiedad en el registro." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "Accordingly, since the property at issue was registered on June 23, 1998, via a possessory information proceedings, the ten-year limitation period under Article 868 of the Civil Code would have expired on June 23, 2008. As the defendants were served prior to that date, the timely interruption of the limitation period through the judicial summons is established in the record, in accordance with Article 876 of the Civil Code.", "quote_es": "Por consiguiente, al haberse inscrito la propiedad objeto de esta litis el 23 de junio de 1998 mediante información posesoria, el plazo decenal de prescripción, según el precepto 868 del CC, se cumplía el 23 de junio de 2008; siendo que los demandados fueron notificados con anterioridad a dicha fecha, queda acreditado en autos la interrupción oportuna del plazo prescriptivo mediante el emplazamiento judicial, conforme lo dispone el articulo 876 del CC." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-10044", "citation": "Ley 139", "title_en": "Possessory Information Law", "title_es": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/07/1941", "year": "1941" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-10044", "citation": "Ley 139", "title_en": "Possessory Information Law", "title_es": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/07/1941", "year": "1941" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0004-1276236", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_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-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Documento PJEDITOR\n\n\n\nExp: 08-160054-0507-AG \n\nRes. 001864-F-S1-2024\n\n SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas catorce minutos del diecinueve de diciembre de dos mil veinticuatro.\n\n Proceso de conocimiento establecido en el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda por Alexander Garcia Alvarado y Minor Garcia Alvarado, representados por sus Apoderados Especiales Judiciales, Jorge Chaves Berrocal y Jose Gonzalez León contra el Estado, representado por la Procuradora General de la Republica Magda Rojas Chaves , Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, representado por su apoderado especial judicial Andrés Alvarado Ramírez, Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia S.A y Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, representados por Fabian Leandro Marín, Geiner Artavia Montenegro y Randall Artavia Montenegro, representados por Gustavo Rodríguez Murillo, y Mario Garcia Alvarado. Las personas físicas son mayores de edad. \n\nRedacta el Magistrado Rivas Loáiciga\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\n I.- El 28 de abril de 2008, Minor Garcia Alvarado y Alexander Garcia Alvarado, interponen demanda ordinaria ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito de la Zona Atlántica en contra de Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, basada en los siguientes hechos: indicó, son propietarios y poseedores de un terreno en La Aldea de Sarapiquí, de aproximadamente 28 hectáreas, la cual se encuentra rodeada del Ríos Gaspar y un brazo de este, conformando su naturaleza topográfica de una isla, nombre por el cual se le conoce en la zona. Alegó, dicho terreno es en su mayoría trabajable en el área de la agricultura y ganadería. Refirió, dicho fundo lo adquirió su padre hace más de 20 años (en 1985 aproximadamente), por compra verbal al señor Dulce Nombre Amador, quien junto con su hermano eran los propietarios. Refirió, desde entonces su familia ha trabajado la propiedad, con carácter de dueño, de buena fe, ininterrumpidamente y en forma pública. Señaló, jamás se han observado otros poseedores en dicha propiedad, menos los demandados. Adujo, también son propietarios poseedores de otra propiedad que colinda con La Isla, con el rio Gaspar de por medio, y es por esto que don Asdrúbal Artavia, nunca los previno de firmar como colindantes, como es lo propio cuando se titula una propiedad mediante Información Posesoria. Advirtió, este se caló de esa situación e incorporó como terreno suyo La Isla, el cual nunca ha hecho acto posesorio alguno, ni ha ejercido la empresa agraria, lo único que hizo fue someter su finca y parte de la Isla a incentivos forestales. Manifestó, nunca hubo rótulos, sino hasta el “año pasado”, los cuales fueron impugnados por vía interdictal, pues el señor Artavia, nunca ha manifestado actos posesorios alguno. Mencionó, en cierto momento el demandado Asdrúbal Artavia, los denuncio por usurpación y tala ilegal de madera, delitos de los cuales salieron libres. Arguyó, la demanda se dirigió contra Asdrúbal Artavia, por ser la persona que tituló la propiedad y luego la traspaso a Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A, a quien también representa y a los señores Greiner y Randall, ambos, Artavia Montenegro, por ser los últimos adquirientes, quienes nunca han ejercido actos posesorios sobre la finca. Indicó, el plano y la escritura deben rescindirse y modificarse parcialmente, en cuanto a la parte de la Isla objeto de la litis. Señaló, el demandado Asdrúbal Artavia, inscribió la titulación de La Isla en junio de 1998, iniciando las diligencias en 1993 mediante el plano H-117462-93. Argumentó, en dicho plano, el señor Artavia, incorporó de manera fraudulenta su propiedad, sin su consentimiento, valiéndose del hecho que, el terreno tiene una topografía de isla, mas el plano indicado no indica el brazo del Rio Gaspar, por lo cual incorpora dicho terreno como parte de su finca. Refirió, ahí nace el vicio que hace incurrir a la escritura en invalida e ineficaz, recayendo en esta la nulidad, pues el vicio se encuentra en la voluntad del demandado. Alegó, el hecho de haber poseído el terreno en litis por mas de dos décadas, como dueños, en forma publica y notoria, los hace acreedores de acudir a la usucapión agraria, para diligenciar la escrituración del terreno. Con base en los hechos mencionados y lo acordado en audiencia preliminar, solicitó en sentencia se declare: \"1- Que hemos ejercido posesión por más de dos décadas, sobre el terreno conocido como la Isla en el Gaspar de la Aldea de Sarapiquí, la cual actualmente forma parte de una escritura a nombre de Geiner y Randall Artavia Montenegro. Plano Catastrado N° H-117462-93 y matrícula folio real N° 161281001 y 002 (Pretensión ajustada en audiencia preliminar; véase la minuta y escúchese la audiencia) // 2- Que dicha finca ha sufrido dos traspasos, primero de Asdrúbal hacia una sociedad de él denominada AGROPECUARIA Asdrúbal ARTAVIA ARAYA S..A, el segundo traspaso fue de dicha sociedad hacia dos hijos del demandado Artavia Araya, sea que ha manejado a nivel familiar y se mantiene. // 3-La titulación realizada mediante información posesoria es nula e ineficaz y así debe declararse, para que la misma se modifique en forma parcial, por ende, se segregue nuestra parte del inmueble que es objeto de litis, que se conoce como La Isla. Dicha segregación que se solicita debe abarcar la totalidad del área que se conoce como la Isla, el cual mide aproximadamente 26 hectáreas. (Pretensión reformulada durante la audiencia preliminar. Véase la minuta y escúchese la audiencia).// 4- Que en virtud de lo anterior se declare mejor derechos de posesión, sobre el terreno en litis, en términos de declaración judicial, y se decrete que podemos Usucapir ese terreno a través de las diligencias correspondientes, por ser una propiedad sobre la cual hemos ejercido la posesión apta para usucapir cumpliendo en el tiempo necesario con todos y cada uno de los requisitos de ley, somos quienes trabajamos, explotamos y ejercemos actos posesorios agrarios, de buena fe, bajo el concepto de dueño, y en forma ininterrumpida, y solicitamos así se decrete. (Pretensión ajustada en audiencia preliminar; véase la minuta y escúchese la audiencia) //5- Se expida oficio al Registro público (sic), una fenecido (sic) este proceso para que se anule parcialmente -desde la titulación originaria hasta los traspasos posteriores y se solicita además, la anulación total del plano H-117462-93 y consecuentemente poder inscribir la nuestra. (Pretensión ajustada en audiencia preliminar; véase la minuta y escúchese la audiencia) //6- Desistida. // 7- Desistida. 8- Que se le condene al pago de ambas cosas de esta acción, por la evidente mala fe con que ha (sic) actuado los demandados Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner y Randall Artavia Montenegro, sin que exista solicitud de condena en costas contra el Estado y Sinac. (Pretensión ajustada en audiencia preliminar; véase la minuta y escúchese la audiencia) // 9- Desistida. 10- Que se declare que el demandado nunca ha tenido, ni tiene derecho alguno sobre el bien en litigio y se le condene al pago de costas personales y procesales.” Asdrúbal Artavia Araya y Geiner Artavia Montenegro contestan negativamente la demanda e interponen las excepciones de cosa juzgada, falta de derecho, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, falta de la causa y litisconsorcio pasivo necesario. Geiner Artavia Montenegro interpone contrademanda en contra de Minor Garcia Alvarado y Alexander Garcia Alvarado, con fundamento en los siguientes hechos: indicó, ser el legítimo propietario de la finca inscrita en el partido de Heredia 161281-001, ubicada en Puerto Viejo de Heredia, la cual mide 1.784.1159,75 m2 y que se encuentra descrito en el plano de la provincia de Heredia 0117462-1993. Señaló, el terreno fue inscrito por su padre, el señor Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, mediante el trámite de información posesoria, en el juzgado de San Carlos, según expediente 219-1993, incluyéndose el terreno denominado La Isla. Advierte, el señor Mario Garcia, hermano de los actores, se opuso en el proceso de información posesoria, pero su padre logró demostrar su mejor derecho de posesión. Arguyó, los actores reconvenidos siempre han sabido que el terreno denominado la isla forma parte de su finca, supra mencionada, y aun así, de mala fe se introdujeron en el terreno en litigio. Adujo, han producido daños al ambiente en dicho terreno, al cambiar el uso de suelo, que era bosque. Mencionó, los actores reconvenidos, de mala fe han talado el bosque generando. Refirió, los actores reconvenidos han sido denunciados en reiteradas ocasiones por delitos de infracción a la ley forestal por talas que han realizado. Solicitando con base en los anteriores hechos: “• Se declare en sentencia que el terreno en litigio denominado como la isla forma parte de la finca debidamente inscrita en el registro público de la Propiedad el partido de Heredia 161281-001, que es terreno de montaña, ubicado en el distrito de Puerto Viejo de la Provincia de Heredia, y que se encuentra descrito en el plano de la provincia de Heredia 0117462-1993; • Solicito que en sentencia el señor juez declare que sobre el terreno en litigio denominado como la isla a los actores reconvenidos no les asiste ningún derecho de propiedad ni de posesión; • Se declare que los actores reconvenidos son poseedores de mala fe sobre el inmueble en litis; • Solicito se reivindique a mi favor el terreno en litis y se ordene la expulsión de los actores reconvenidos poniéndome en perfecta posesión del inmueble; • Se ordene la expulsión de cualquier otra persona que se encuentre en el inmueble así como de los animales que tengan los actores en el mismo; • Solicito se condene a ambos actores reconvenidos al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados y que se les condene al pago de ambas costas.”. Asimismo, solicita la condenatoria en daños y perjuicios. Los actores reconvenidos, contestaron negativamente la contrademanda. Mediante auto sentencia 74-08 emitida por el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, se acoge la excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario promovido por los demandados y se ordena a los actores entablar demanda en contra del Estado, al estar los terrenos en litis, dentro de un área declarada Refugio de Fauna Silvestre. La parte actora, interpone demanda contra el Estado basándose en los mismos hechos de la demanda inicial. El Estado contesta negativamente la demanda y opone las excepciones de cosa juzgada y falta de derecho. El día 26 de mayo de 2009, se ordenó la integración a la litis consorcio pasivo necesario a Mario García Alvarado, por lo cual los actores presentan demanda en su contra basado en los mismos hechos de la demanda inicial. Mediante auto de las 7:16 minutos del 27 de enero de 2010, se declaró rebelde al señor Mario Garcia Alvarado. El Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, dictó resolución N° 007-11 de las diez horas cuatro minutos del día 25 de enero de 2011, la cual acogió la cosa juzgada material y declaró sin lugar la demanda incoada por Alexander y Minor ambos García Alvarado y se les condenó al pago de las costas. Se declaró con lugar la reconvención de Geiner Artavia Montenegro contra los demandantes García Alvarado; ordenándose su desalojo de la denominada Isla. Inconformes con lo resuelto, los actores presentan recurso de apelación. El Tribunal Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, por resolución N° 1181-F-11 de las dieciséis horas cero minutos del día 26 de octubre de 2011, en relación con la apelación de la sentencia N° 007-11 reseñada supra, rechazó la solicitud de nulidad concomitante, revocó parcialmente la resolución apelada en cuanto acogió la excepción de cosa juzgada material sobre la pretensión de usucapión, rechazando la excepción de cosa juzgada en relación con la pretensión de usucapión, la cual rechazó por el fondo y acogió la excepción de falta de derecho sobre ese extremo. Los demandantes, formularon recurso de casación interpuesto, en fecha 10 de enero de 2012, en contra de la resolución de alzada. La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, dictó resolución N° 000959- F-S1-2013 de las nueve horas veinticinco minutos del día 1° de agosto de 2013, la cual anuló la sentencia recurrida, así como la del Juzgado y dispuso, en razón de tratarse el inmueble objeto de este litigio en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barra del Colorado, y haberse omitido la naturaleza del bien litigioso, constituye un inmueble afecto al dominio público, dispuso que la jurisdicción competente para conocer este proceso era la Contencioso Administrativa; por lo que dispuso la integración del Estado para la defensa de la demanialidad señalada. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo realizó audiencia preliminar el día 25 de marzo de 2014, readecuando el proceso al de esta jurisdicción y mediante resolución N° 666-2014 de las once horas treinta minutos del día 25 de marzo de 2014, se dispuso entre otros aspectos de trámite, la integración del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), el que contestó por escrito de fecha 8 de agosto de 2014. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo conformado por los jueces Paulo André Alonso Soto, Jonatán Canales Hernandez y la jueza Karla Madriz Martínez dispusieron en sentencia: “Se acoge la excepción de prescripción decenal. Por la forma en que se resuelve se omite pronunciamiento en cuanto al resto de excepciones. Se rechaza la demanda incoada por ALEXANDER GARCÍA ALVARADO Y MAINOR GARCÍA ALVARADO en contra de AGROPECUARIA ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA, GEINER ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, RANDALL ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, MARIO GARCÍA ALVARADO, EL ESTADO y el SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN. Además se tuvo como tercero interesado al BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA. En relación a la reconvención, se declara con lugar la misma en los siguientes términos: Con lugar esta pretensión, declarando que el terreno en litigio denominado como la isla forma parte de la finca debidamente inscrita en el registro público de la Propiedad el partido de Heredia 161281-001, que es terreno de montaña, ubicado en el distrito de Puerto Viejo de la Provincia de Heredia, y que se encuentra descrito en el plano de la provincia de Heredia 0117462-1993. // Se declara que a los demandantes y reconvenidos no les asiste ningún derecho de propiedad ni posesión sobre el terreno denominado \"La Isla\", ello conforme a la prueba documental y testimonial evacuada a los autos. // En razón de lo indicado, se declara que los actores reconvenidos son poseedores de mala fe sobre el inmueble en litis. // Se resuelve: Reivindicar a favor de los propietarios el terreno en litis y ordenar la expulsión de los actores reconvenidos poniéndose a los primeros, en perfecta posesión del inmueble. //Además, se resuelve que deberá expulsarse cualquier otra persona que al momento de la posesión se encuentre en la zona denominada \"La Isla\". //Se concede el pago de los daños y perjuicios que se acrediten en fase de ejecución de sentencia. //En relación a las costas, se condena en costas a la parte perdidosa a favor de los demandados; excepto en relación Randall Artavia Montenegro y Mario García Alvarado, y del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica -como tercero interesado- que deberán hacerse cargo de sus propias costas si las hubiere. En relación a la contrademanda, son las costas a cargo de los reconvenidos.” Inconformes con lo resuelto, los actores interponen recurso de casación, el cual consta de tres agravios, pues el titulado como primero es un resumen del caso. No obstante, la numeración dada se desprende de la redacción que el agravio titulado como segundo, que el recurrente reclama tres reclamos, el primero por indebida valoración de la prueba en cuanto a los hechos probados, el segundo por indebida aplicación de la norma en cuanto a la declaratoria de prescripción y el tercero, por indebida aplicación de la norma. Al versar sobre diversos temas, considera esta Sala que los mismo deben reconducirse, quedando un total de 5 motivos de casación por el fondo. \n\n II.- Por la forma en la que se resuelve, se va a conocer en primer lugar la segunda censura, referida a la indebida valoración probatoria respecto a la suspensión del plazo decenal de la prescripción. Destaca, el Tribunal en el hecho probado 13 indica que el señor Asdrúbal Artavia, presentó ante el Registro Nacional, la ejecutoria mediante la cual se aprobaron las diligencias de información posesoria al tomo: 452, Asiento 17428, el 2 de abril de 1995 y se inscribió el 23 de junio de 1998. Agrega, la presente demanda se presentó al juzgado Agrario el 28 de abril de 2008, la cual fue notificada a, Asdrúbal Artavia el 11 de mayo de 2008 y a los señores Randall y Geiner el 22 de junio de 2008, por consiguiente, el auto de emplazamiento de la demanda fue debidamente notificada, antes de la fecha de inscripción en el Registro Público. Señala, el fallo parte del criterio del precepto 455 del Código Civil, en cuanto indica que los títulos sujetos a inscripción que no están inscritos no perjudican a terceros sino desde la fecha de su presentación en el Registro, entonces el derecho a accionar se encuentra en el caso en concreto sobradamente prescrito. Considera, es necesario analizar el tipo de titulo del cual se esta hablando, pues en nuestra legislación la expresión Titulo tiene varias acepciones: la primera cuando sirve para expresar la causa o fundamento de una atribución, según los cánones 853 y 854 del CC; la segunda para designar el documento en que se contiene la atribución, como cuando el precepto 459 indica que en el registro de la Propiedad se inscribirán los títulos de dominio sobre inmuebles; y la tercera para determinar la naturaleza o alcance de la atribución patrimonial. Expone, en el Registro Publico no existe un Registro de Asientos propiamente, de manera que cuando un vehículo ingresa por primera vez al país, previo a cumplir con los requisitos, se anota el documento de escritura en el registro, para que este le asigne un numero de placa y se inscriba, mas esto no es visible ni surte efectos constitutivos de publicidad registral para terceros, sino a partir de la inscripción. Lo anterior en virtud de que no existe historial del mismo, por lo que es imposible para terceros tener acceso a su información, así como tampoco puede ser objeto de imputación registral. Considera, igual suerte corren los documentos que en materia de bienes inmuebles se anotan, y han sido adquiridos mediante el trámite de información posesoria, pues dicha anotación no tiene efectos constitutivos, sino solo declarativos. Recalca dicho asiento no tiene publicidad registral para terceros al no estar constituido o inscrito, de manera tal, que para terceros solo podrá afectados a partir de que dicha anotación sea debidamente procesada y calificada por el registro y se inscriba surgiendo a la vida jurídica registral a través de un folio real que es el numero asignado. Reitera, no existe antes de la inscripción un historial inscrito, es decir no hay forma como tercero de consultar dicha finca o su anotación mientras se lleva a cabo la inscripción definitiva en un documento como ese de información posesoria. Considera, cuando nuestra legislación indica títulos sujetos a inscripción donde si priva el principio de primero en tiempo, primero en derecho, seria bajo bienes que ya tienen inscripción definida a nombre de determinada persona, pues priva el derecho de quien gestione la primera anotación. Manifiesta, así las cosas, el punto de partida para los actores o un tercero, empieza a correr desde el 23 de junio de 1998, fecha en la cual quedó inscrito por primera vez el trámite de información posesoria y nació a la luz publica registral. Señala, al realizarse la notificación del demandado antes de dicha fecha, no se estaría ante un caso de prescripción, pues esta se encuentra debidamente interrumpida. \n\n III.- A pesar de que el casacionista titula el agravio como indebida valoración probatoria, esta Sala logra observar que lo se desprende del mismo es una indebida aplicación del precepto 455 del Código Civil en el cálculo de plazo de prescripción decenal. En sentencia se declara que de acuerdo a la norma de rito el plazo decenal para el cálculo de la prescripción inicia a partir de la presentación del titulo en el Registro Nacional siendo esta el 02 de abril de 1998. No obstante, considera esta Sala que lleva razón el casacionista, pues al encontrarnos en la presente litis, en la discusión de un bien adquirido mediante informaciones posesorias, la publicidad registral, se da a partir de la inscripción del título de propiedad en el registro. Lo anterior en vista de que al darse en las informaciones posesorias un titulo originario, la propiedad no se encontraba previamente inscrita, lo cual impide que se de la publicidad registral indicada en el precepto 455 con la presentación del titulo ante el registro. Del mismo modo, para el análisis el computo del plazo de la prescripción en el caso en concreto, es menester traer a colación los artículos 16 y 17 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, los cuales fueron mencionados en la sentencia cuestionada y si bien no fueron alegados expresamente por el recurrente, se subsumen en la tesis propuesta de que el computo de la prescripción en este caso inicia con la inscripción registral. El precepto 16 de la dicha ley indica: \"La propiedad que se adquiera por la presente ley, queda definitivamente consolidada para terceros a los tres años, los cuales se contarán a partir del día de la inscripción del respectivo título en el Registro Público, ya que se limita a ese plazo la prescripción negativa de la acción de terceros a quienes pueda afectar.”. Por su parte el numeral 17 dice: \"ARTÍCULO 17.- En cualquier tiempo en que, no habiendo transcurrido todavía los tres años a que se refiere el artículo anterior, se demostrare que el título posesorio se ha levantado contra las leyes vigentes, podrá el Juez decretar en el expediente original, y mediante los trámites de los incidentes, la nulidad absoluta del título y de su respectiva inscripción en el Registro, y librará la ejecutoria correspondiente para que esa Oficina cancele el asiento. Transcurrido el término de tres años de la inscripción del título, toda acción deberá decidirse en juicio declarativo\". De la normativa mencionada, la cual es norma especifica de los procesos de informaciones posesorias, se desprende que los plazos para alegar la nulidad de un titulo adquirido mediante informaciones posesorias, ya sea dentro del mismo expediente o en juicio declarativo, corren a partir de su inscripción en el registro público. De estos preceptos se desprenden tres cuestiones de suma importancia. En primer lugar, el termino de los 3 años indicados en los articulo 16 y 17, es un plazo para tramitar la nulidad vía incidental, en el mismo expediente en el cual se declaró la información posesoria. Y en segundo lugar que dicho plazo empieza a computar desde la inscripción del titulo en el registro, que es cuando evidentemente tiene publicidad frente a terceros. En tercer lugar, transcurridos los 3 años de prescripción mencionados en el primer punto, se debe acudir a la vía declarativa para solicitar la nulidad de la información posesoria. En este sentido, el precepto 868 del CC, establece que todo derecho y su correspondiente acción prescriben por 10 años y el precepto 455 del mismo cuerpo normativo, aplicable al caso concreto, indica, que dicho plazo se computa a partir de su publicación en el registro. (En este sentido ver sentencias 545 de las 10 horas, 20 minutos del 14 de mayo de 2015 y 2615 de las 15 horas 58 minutos del 12 de noviembre de 2020 de esta Sala Primera). De conformidad con lo anterior, al tratarse el presente caso de una solicitud de nulidad de una información posesoria y demostración de un mejor derecho en vía declarativa, y según consta a folio 1018 del expediente electrónico, el inmueble matrícula 161281-000 del partico de Heredia, este derecho fue inscrito en el registro público el 23 de junio de 1998, teniendo como causa adquisitiva una información posesoria. Y la demanda incoada por los actores fue presentada el día 28 de abril del 2008, ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, a saber, proceso ordinario tramitado bajo el expediente 08-160054-507-AG, en contra de Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner y Randall, ambos hermanos de apellidos Artavia Montenegro. Dicha demanda fue notificada a Asdrúbal Artavia Araya el 16 de mayo de 2008 y a los codemandados Geiner y Randall, ambos Artavia Montenegro el 22 de junio de 2008. Por consiguiente, al haberse inscrito la propiedad objeto de esta litis el 23 de junio de 1998 mediante información posesoria, el plazo decenal de prescripción, según el precepto 868 del CC, se cumplía el 23 de junio de 2008; siendo que los demandados fueron notificados con anterioridad a dicha fecha, queda acreditado en autos la interrupción oportuna del plazo prescriptivo mediante el emplazamiento judicial, conforme lo dispone el articulo 876 del CC. Por lo anterior expuesto, se acoge el agravio.\n\n IV.- En consecuencia, se anulará la sentencia impugnada. No habiendo conocido el Tribunal sobre el fondo, al haber acogido la excepción de prescripción que oportunamente se opuso y no pudiendo esta Sala resolver en única instancia, en virtud de los principios del debido proceso y derecho de defensa, entre otros principios de índole procesal, se ordenará el reenvió del expediente al Tribunal, para que dicte de nuevo sentencia según en derecho corresponda.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\n Se declara con lugar el recurso planteado. Se anula la sentencia recurrida. Se ordena el reenvío del expediente al Tribunal de origen, para que proceda a dictar nueva sentencia según en derecho corresponda. KIQUESADA\n\n \n\n\n3QQZOH9XRM461\nLUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A\n\n \n\n\nAVS5KKNWF8M61\nIRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A\n\n \n\n\nDXJE5QEHHQI61\nCARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A\n\n\n72MUBZ0J53861\nIGNACIO JOSE MONGE DOBLES - MAGISTRADO/A\n\n \n\n\nJAMOWXJTPSU61\nJORGE LEIVA POVEDA - MAGISTRADO/A\n\n \n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "**HAVING CONSIDERED**\n\n**I.-** On April 28, 2008, Minor Garcia Alvarado and Alexander Garcia Alvarado filed an ordinary lawsuit before the Agrarian Court of the Second Circuit of the Atlantic Zone against Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A. and Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, based on the following facts: they indicated they are owners and possessors of a parcel of land in La Aldea de Sarapiquí, of approximately 28 hectares, which is surrounded by the Gaspar River and a branch of it, its topographic nature forming an island, the name by which it is known in the area. They alleged that said land is mostly workable for agriculture and livestock. They stated that their father acquired said property more than 20 years ago (approximately in 1985), by verbal purchase from Mr. Dulce Nombre Amador, who, together with his brother, were the owners. They stated that since then, their family has worked the property, in the capacity of owner, in good faith, uninterruptedly, and publicly. They pointed out that other possessors have never been observed on said property, least of all the defendants. They argued that they are also owner-possessors of another property bordering La Isla, with the Gaspar River in between, and it is for this reason that Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia never warned them against signing as adjacent landowners, as is proper when a property is titled through an Information Posesoria. They warned that he took advantage of this situation and incorporated La Isla as his own land, on which he has never performed any possessory act nor exercised the agrarian enterprise; the only thing he did was subject his farm and part of La Isla to forest incentives. They stated there were never any signs, until \"last year,\" which were challenged through an interdict action, as Mr. Artavia has never demonstrated any possessory acts. They mentioned that at a certain point, the defendant Asdrúbal Artavia reported them for usurpation and illegal logging, crimes of which they were acquitted. They argued that the lawsuit was filed against Asdrúbal Artavia, for being the person who titled the property and then transferred it to Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., which he also represents, and against Messrs. Greiner and Randall, both Artavia Montenegro, for being the latest acquirers, who have never exercised possessory acts over the property. They indicated that the survey plan and the deed must be partially rescinded and modified, with respect to the part of La Isla that is the object of the litigation. They pointed out that the defendant Asdrúbal Artavia registered the titling of La Isla in June 1998, initiating the proceedings in 1993 by means of survey plan H-117462-93. They argued that, in said survey plan, Mr. Artavia fraudulently incorporated their property, without their consent, taking advantage of the fact that the land has the topography of an island, but the indicated survey plan does not show the branch of the Gaspar River, which is how he incorporated said land as part of his property. They stated that herein lies the defect that renders the deed invalid and ineffective, nullity being applicable to it, as the defect lies in the will of the defendant. They alleged that the fact of having possessed the land in dispute for more than two decades, as owners, in a public and notorious manner, entitles them to resort to agrarian usucapion (usucapión agraria), to process the deeding of the land. Based on the mentioned facts and what was agreed upon in the preliminary hearing, they requested in the judgment that the following be declared: \"1- That we have exercised possession for more than two decades over the land known as la Isla in the Gaspar of La Aldea de Sarapiquí, which currently forms part of a deed in the name of Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro. Cadastral Survey Plan No. H-117462-93 and property registration folio number 161281001 and 002 (Claim adjusted in preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 2- That said property has undergone two transfers, first from Asdrúbal to a company of his called AGROPECUARIA ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA S.A., and the second transfer was from said company to two sons of the defendant Artavia Araya, meaning it has been handled within the family and remains so. // 3- The titling carried out through información posesoria is null and ineffective and must be declared so, so that it is partially modified, and therefore, our part of the real estate that is the object of the litigation, known as La Isla, be segregated. Said requested segregation must cover the entire area known as la Isla, which measures approximately 26 hectares. (Claim reformulated during the preliminary hearing. See the minutes and listen to the hearing). // 4- That by virtue of the foregoing, a better right of possession be declared over the land in litigation, in terms of a judicial declaration, and it be decreed that we may acquire said land through usucapion (usucapir) via the corresponding proceedings, as it is a property over which we have exercised possession suitable for usucapion, having fulfilled over the necessary time each and every one of the legal requirements; we are the ones who work, exploit, and exercise agrarian possessory acts, in good faith, under the concept of owner, and uninterruptedly, and we request that it be so decreed. (Claim adjusted in preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 5- An official letter be issued to the Public Registry (sic), once this process is concluded (sic), so that the partial annulment is carried out - from the original titling to the subsequent transfers - and the total annulment of survey plan H-117462-93 is also requested, and consequently, ours can be registered. (Claim adjusted in preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 6- Withdrawn. // 7- Withdrawn. // 8- That the defendants Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro be ordered to pay both costs of this action [costas], due to the evident bad faith with which they have (sic) acted, without there being a request for a costs award against the State and SINAC. (Claim adjusted in preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 9- Withdrawn. 10- That it be declared that the defendant has never had, nor has any right whatsoever to the asset in litigation, and he be ordered to pay personal and procedural costs [costas personales y procesales].\" Asdrúbal Artavia Araya and Geiner Artavia Montenegro answer the lawsuit in the negative and raise the exceptions of res judicata (cosa juzgada), lack of right (falta de derecho), lack of standing to sue and be sued (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), lack of cause of action (falta de la causa), and necessary passive joinder of parties (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario). Geiner Artavia Montenegro files a counterclaim against Minor Garcia Alvarado and Alexander Garcia Alvarado, based on the following facts: he indicated he is the legitimate owner of the property registered in the Heredia district [partido] 161281-001, located in Puerto Viejo de Heredia, which measures 1,784,115.75 m² and which is described in the survey plan for the province of Heredia 0117462-1993. He pointed out that the land was registered by his father, Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, through the información posesoria proceeding, in the court of San Carlos, under case file 219-1993, including the land called La Isla. He warns that Mr. Mario Garcia, brother of the plaintiffs, opposed the información posesoria process, but his father managed to prove his better right of possession. He argued that the counterclaim defendants have always known that the land called la isla forms part of his property, aforementioned, and even so, in bad faith they entered the land in litigation. He argued that they have caused environmental damage to said land, by changing the land use (uso de suelo), which was forest (bosque). He mentioned that the counterclaim defendants, in bad faith, have logged the forest, causing damage. He stated that the counterclaim defendants have been reported on multiple occasions for crimes of violation of the Ley Forestal for logging they have carried out. Requesting based on the above facts: \"• Let it be declared in the judgment that the land in litigation called la isla forms part of the property duly registered in the Public Property Registry, Heredia district [partido] 161281-001, which is mountain land, located in the district of Puerto Viejo of the Province of Heredia, and which is described in the survey plan for the province of Heredia 0117462-1993; • I request that in the judgment the judge declares that the counterclaim defendants have no right of ownership or possession over the land in litigation called la isla; • Let it be declared that the counterclaim defendants are possessors in bad faith over the real estate in litigation; • I request that the land in litigation be reivindicated (reivindique) in my favor and the expulsion of the counterclaim defendants be ordered, placing me in perfect possession of the real estate; • Let the expulsion of any other person found on the real estate be ordered, as well as of the animals that the plaintiffs may have on it; • I request that both counterclaim defendants be ordered to pay the damages caused and that they be ordered to pay both costs [costas].\" Likewise, he requests an award for damages. The counterclaim defendants answered the counterclaim in the negative. By means of auto sentencia 74-08 issued by the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, the exception of necessary passive joinder (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) raised by the defendants is upheld, and the plaintiffs are ordered to file a lawsuit against the State, as the lands in litigation are within an area declared a Refugio de Fauna Silvestre. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the State based on the same facts as the initial lawsuit. The State answers the lawsuit in the negative and raises the exceptions of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and lack of right (falta de derecho). On May 26, 2009, the joinder to the necessary passive joinder (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) of Mario García Alvarado was ordered, for which the plaintiffs file a lawsuit against him based on the same facts as the initial lawsuit. By means of an order at 7:16 a.m. on January 27, 2010, Mr. Mario Garcia Alvarado was declared in default (rebelde). The Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone issued Resolution No. 007-11 at ten hours and four minutes on January 25, 2011, which upheld material res judicata (cosa juzgada material) and dismissed the lawsuit filed by Alexander and Minor, both García Alvarado, and they were ordered to pay costs [costas]. The counterclaim of Geiner Artavia Montenegro against the plaintiffs García Alvarado was granted; their eviction from the so-called Isla was ordered. Disagreeing with the resolution, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Agrarian Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by Resolution No. 1181-F-11 at sixteen hours zero minutes on October 26, 2011, in relation to the appeal of judgment No. 007-11 described supra, rejected the concomitant request for nullity, partially revoked the appealed resolution insofar as it upheld the exception of material res judicata (cosa juzgada material) regarding the usucapion (usucapión) claim, rejecting the exception of res judicata in relation to the usucapion claim, which it rejected on the merits and upheld the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) on that point. The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal on January 10, 2012, against the appellate court's resolution. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued Resolution No. 000959-F-S1-2013 at nine hours and twenty-five minutes on August 1, 2013, which annulled the appealed judgment, as well as that of the Trial Court, and ordered, because the real estate subject to this litigation is in the Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre), and the nature of the litigious asset having been omitted, it constitutes a real estate asset subject to the public domain, ordered that the competent jurisdiction to hear this case was the Contentious-Administrative Court; therefore, it ordered the joinder of the State for the defense of the indicated public domain status (demanialidad). The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on March 25, 2014, readjusting the process to that of this jurisdiction, and through Resolution No. 666-2014 at eleven hours and thirty minutes on March 25, 2014, it was ordered, among other procedural aspects, the joinder of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), which answered by writing dated August 8, 2014. The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, composed of judges Paulo André Alonso Soto, Jonatán Canales Hernandez, and judge Karla Madriz Martínez, ordered in the judgment: \"The ten-year statute of limitations exception (excepción de prescripción decenal) is upheld. Due to the manner in which this is resolved, a ruling on the remaining exceptions is omitted. The lawsuit filed by ALEXANDER GARCÍA ALVARADO AND MAINOR GARCÍA ALVARADO against AGROPECUARIA ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA, GEINER ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, RANDALL ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, MARIO GARCÍA ALVARADO, THE STATE, and the SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN is rejected. Furthermore, BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA was considered an interested third party. In relation to the counterclaim, it is granted in the following terms: This claim is granted, declaring that the land in litigation called la isla forms part of the property duly registered in the Public Property Registry, Heredia district [partido] 161281-001, which is mountain land, located in the district of Puerto Viejo of the Province of Heredia, and which is described in the survey plan for the province of Heredia 0117462-1993. // It is declared that the plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants have no right of ownership or possession whatsoever over the land called \"La Isla,\" this in accordance with the documentary and testimonial evidence produced in the case file. // For the reason indicated, it is declared that the counterclaim defendant plaintiffs are possessors in bad faith over the real estate in dispute. // It is resolved: To reivindicate (Reivindicar) the land in litigation in favor of the owners and order the expulsion of the counterclaim defendant plaintiffs, placing the former in perfect possession of the real estate. // Furthermore, it is resolved that any other person who, at the time of taking possession, is found in the area called \"La Isla\" must be expelled. // Payment of the damages that are proven in the judgment execution phase is granted. // Regarding costs [costas], the losing party is ordered to pay costs in favor of the defendants; except in relation to Randall Artavia Montenegro and Mario García Alvarado, and Banco Nacional de Costa Rica - as an interested third party - who shall bear their own costs, if any. In relation to the counterclaim, costs [costas] shall be borne by the counterclaim defendants.\" Disagreeing with the resolution, the plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal, which consists of three grievances, as the one titled first is a summary of the case. However, the numbering given is evident from the wording that the grievance titled as second, in which the appellant makes three claims: the first for improper assessment of evidence regarding the proven facts, the second for improper application of the law regarding the declaration of statute of limitations (prescripción), and the third for improper application of the law. As they deal with different issues, this Chamber considers that they must be reorganized, resulting in a total of 5 cassation grounds on the merits.\n\n**II.-** Due to the manner in which it is resolved, the second objection will be addressed first, regarding the improper assessment of evidence concerning the suspension of the ten-year statute of limitations period (plazo decenal de la prescripción). The appellant highlights that the Tribunal, in proven fact 13, indicates that Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia presented to the National Registry the final judgment (ejecutoria) by which the información posesoria proceedings were approved, in volume: 452, Entry 17428, on April 2, 1995, and it was registered on June 23, 1998. He adds that the present lawsuit was filed with the Agrarian Court on April 28, 2008, which was served on Asdrúbal Artavia on May 11, 2008, and on Messrs. Randall and Geiner on June 22, 2008; therefore, the order for service of process for the lawsuit was duly served before the date of registration in the Public Registry. He points out that the judgment is based on the criterion of precept 455 of the Civil Code, insofar as it indicates that titles subject to registration that are not registered do not affect third parties except from the date of their presentation in the Registry; thus, the right to sue is, in this specific case, amply barred by the statute of limitations. He considers it necessary to analyze the type of title being discussed, as in our legislation the expression Title has several meanings: first, when it serves to express the cause or basis of an entitlement, according to canons 853 and 854 of the CC; second, to designate the document containing the entitlement, as when precept 459 indicates that titles of ownership over real estate shall be registered in the Property Registry; and third, to determine the nature or scope of the patrimonial entitlement. He explains that in the Public Registry, there is no Registry of Entries [Asientos] as such, so when a vehicle enters the country for the first time, prior to meeting the requirements, the deed document is noted in the registry so that it can be assigned a license plate number and be registered, but this is not visible nor does it produce the constitutive effects of registry publicity for third parties until the registration occurs. The foregoing by virtue of the fact that there is no history of it, making it impossible for third parties to access its information, nor can it be subject to registry attribution. He considers that documents related to real estate that are noted and have been acquired through the información posesoria process suffer the same fate, as said notation does not have constitutive effects, but only declarative ones. He emphasizes that said entry does not have registry publicity for third parties as it is not constituted or registered, in such a way that third parties can only be affected once said notation is duly processed and qualified by the registry and is registered, emerging into the registry's legal life through a real folio number which is the assigned number. He reiterates that before registration, there is no registered history, meaning there is no way for a third party to consult said property or its notation while the definitive registration of a document like that of the información posesoria is being carried out. He considers that when our legislation indicates titles subject to registration, where the principle of first in time, first in right does prevail, this would be for assets that already have a defined registration in the name of a specific person, as the right of whoever initiates the first notation prevails. He states that, things being so, the starting point for the plaintiffs or a third party begins to run from June 23, 1998, the date on which the información posesoria process was registered for the first time and came into the public registry light. He points out that the defendant having been served before said date, this would not be a case of statute of limitations (prescripción), as it was duly interrupted.\n\n**III.-** Although the cassation appellant titles the grievance as improper assessment of evidence, this Chamber observes that what is apparent from it is an improper application of precept 455 of the Civil Code in the calculation of the ten-year statute of limitations period (plazo de prescripción decenal). The judgment declares that, according to the procedural rule, the ten-year period for the calculation of the statute of limitations begins from the presentation of the title in the National Registry, this being April 2, 1998. However, this Chamber considers that the cassation appellant is correct, because in the present litigation, dealing with the discussion of an asset acquired through informaciones posesorias, registry publicity takes effect from the registration of the title of ownership in the registry. The foregoing in view of the fact that, as in informaciones posesorias an original title is given, the property was not previously registered, which prevents the registry publicity indicated in precept 455 from taking effect with the presentation of the title before the registry. Similarly, for the analysis of the computation of the statute of limitations period in this specific case, it is necessary to bring up articles 16 and 17 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which were mentioned in the questioned judgment and, although not expressly alleged by the appellant, are subsumed into the proposed thesis that the computation of the statute of limitations in this case begins with the registry registration. Precept 16 of said law indicates: \"The property acquired under this law shall be definitively consolidated for third parties after three years, which shall be counted from the date of the registration of the respective title in the Public Registry, as the negative statute of limitations of the action of third parties who may be affected is limited to that period.\" For its part, numeral 17 states: \"ARTICLE 17.- At any time when, the three years referred to in the previous article not having yet elapsed, it is proven that the possessory title was obtained contrary to the laws in force, the Judge may decree, in the original case file, and through the procedures for incidents, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding final judgment so that that Office cancels the entry. After the term of three years from the registration of the title has elapsed, any action must be decided in a declaratory judgment.\" From the mentioned regulations, which are specific rules for informaciones posesorias processes, it is clear that the deadlines to claim the nullity of a title acquired through informaciones posesorias, whether within the same case file or in a declaratory judgment, run from its registration in the public registry. Three matters of utmost importance emerge from these precepts. First, the term of 3 years indicated in articles 16 and 17 is a period to process the nullity via an incidental route, in the same case file in which the información posesoria was declared. And second, that said period begins to be computed from the registration of the title in the registry, which is when it evidently has publicity against third parties. Third, after the 3 years of statute of limitations (prescripción) mentioned in the first point have elapsed, one must resort to the declaratory route to request the nullity of the información posesoria. In this sense, precept 868 of the CC establishes that every right and its corresponding action prescribe in 10 years, and precept 455 of the same regulatory body, applicable to the specific case, indicates that said period is computed from its publication in the registry. (In this regard, see judgments 545 at 10:20 a.m. on May 14, 2015, and 2615 at 3:58 p.m. on November 12, 2020, of this First Chamber). In accordance with the foregoing, as the present case involves a request for the nullity of an información posesoria and the demonstration of a better right via the declaratory route, and as stated on folio 1018 of the electronic case file, the real estate registration number 161281-000 of the Heredia district [partido], this right was registered in the public registry on June 23, 1998, having an información posesoria as its acquisition cause. And the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was presented on April 28, 2008, before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, namely, an ordinary process processed under case file 08-160054-507-AG, against Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner and Randall, both siblings with the surnames Artavia Montenegro. Said lawsuit was served on Asdrúbal Artavia Araya on May 16, 2008, and on the co-defendants Geiner and Randall, both Artavia Montenegro, on June 22, 2008. Consequently, the property subject to this litigation having been registered on June 23, 1998, through información posesoria, the ten-year statute of limitations period (plazo decenal de prescripción), according to precept 868 of the CC, expired on June 23, 2008; given that the defendants were served before said date, the timely interruption of the statute of limitations period through the judicial service of process is proven in the case file, as provided by article 876 of the CC. For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is upheld.\n\n**IV.-** Consequently, the challenged judgment shall be annulled. The Tribunal not having ruled on the merits, having upheld the statute of limitations exception that was timely raised, and this Chamber being unable to resolve in a single instance, by virtue of the principles of due process and the right of defense, among other procedural principles, the referral (reenvío) of the case file to the Tribunal shall be ordered, so that it may issue a new judgment as corresponds in law.\n\n**THEREFORE**\n\nThe appeal filed is granted. The appealed judgment is annulled. The referral (reenvío) of the case file to the Tribunal of origin is ordered, so that it may proceed to issue a new judgment as corresponds in law.\n\nExp: 08-160054-0507-AG\n\nRes. 001864-F-S1-2024\n\n**SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.** San José, at nine hours fourteen minutes on the nineteenth of December of two thousand twenty-four.\n\nOrdinary proceeding established in the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda by **Alexander Garcia Alvarado and Minor Garcia Alvarado**, represented by their Special Judicial Agents, Jorge Chaves Berrocal and Jose Gonzalez León against the **State**, represented by the General Prosecutor of the Republic Magda Rojas Chaves, **Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación**, represented by its special judicial agent Andrés Alvarado Ramírez, **Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia S.A and Asdrúbal Artavia Araya**, represented by Fabian Leandro Marín, Geiner Artavia Montenegro and Randall Artavia Montenegro, represented by Gustavo Rodríguez Murillo, and Mario Garcia Alvarado. The natural persons are of legal age.\n\n**Drafted by Magistrate Rivas Loáiciga**\n\n**CONSIDERANDO**\n\n**I.-** On April 28, 2008, Minor Garcia Alvarado and Alexander Garcia Alvarado, filed an ordinary lawsuit before the Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito de la Zona Atlántica against Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, based on the following facts: they indicated, they are owners and possessors of a land in La Aldea de Sarapiquí, of approximately 28 hectares, which is surrounded by the Gaspar River and a branch of it, constituting its topographic nature of an island, the name by which it is known in the area. They alleged, said land is mostly workable in the area of agriculture and livestock. They stated, said property was acquired by their father more than 20 years ago (approximately in 1985), by verbal purchase from Mr. Dulce Nombre Amador, who together with his brother were the owners. They stated, since then their family has worked the property, in the capacity of owner, in good faith, uninterruptedly and publicly. They pointed out, they have never observed other possessors on said property, least of all the defendants. They also argued, they are owner-possessors of another property that borders La Isla, with the Gaspar river in between, and it is for this reason that Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia never warned them to sign as bordering parties, as is proper when a property is titled through Possessory Information. They warned, he took advantage of that situation and incorporated La Isla as his own land, over which he has never performed any possessory act, nor has he exercised the agrarian enterprise, the only thing he did was subject his farm and part of the Isla to forestry incentives. They stated, there were never titles, until the “last year”, which were challenged by means of an interdictory proceeding, since Mr. Artavia has never manifested any possessory acts. They mentioned, at a certain moment the defendant Asdrúbal Artavia, denounced them for usurpation and illegal logging, crimes of which they were acquitted. They argued, the lawsuit was directed against Asdrúbal Artavia, for being the person who titled the property and then transferred it to Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A, which he also represents and against Messrs. Greiner and Randall, both, Artavia Montenegro, for being the last acquirers, who have never exercised possessory acts over the farm. They indicated, the survey plan (plano) and the deed must be rescinded and partially modified, regarding the part of the Isla object of the litigation. They pointed out, the defendant Asdrúbal Artavia, registered the titling of La Isla in June 1998, starting the proceedings in 1993 through the survey plan H-117462-93.\n\nArgued that, in said plan, Mr. Artavia fraudulently incorporated his property, without his consent, taking advantage of the fact that the land has an island topography, but the indicated plan does not show the arm of the Gaspar River, for which reason it incorporates said land as part of his farm. He stated that therein lies the defect that causes the deed to be invalid and ineffective, rendering it null, since the defect lies in the will of the defendant. He alleged that having possessed the land in dispute for more than two decades, as owners, publicly and notoriously, entitles them to resort to agrarian usucapion (usucapión agraria), to process the deed of the land. Based on the aforementioned facts and what was agreed in the preliminary hearing, he requested that the judgment declare: \"1- That we have exercised possession for more than two decades over the land known as the Isla in the Gaspar of the Aldea de Sarapiquí, which currently forms part of a deed in the name of Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro. Cadastral Plan N° H-117462-93 and real property registration number N° 161281001 and 002 (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 2- That said property has undergone two transfers, first from Asdrúbal to a company of his called AGROPECUARIA Asdrúbal ARTAVIA ARAYA S.A., the second transfer was from said company to two sons of the defendant Artavia Araya, meaning it has been managed within the family and remains so. // 3-The titling carried out via possessory information is null and ineffective and must be declared so, so that it is partially modified, therefore, our portion of the property that is the object of the dispute, known as La Isla, be segregated. Said requested segregation must encompass the entirety of the area known as the Isla, which measures approximately 26 hectares. (Claim reformulated during the preliminary hearing. See the minutes and listen to the hearing).// 4- That by virtue of the foregoing, superior possession rights be declared over the land in dispute, in terms of a judicial declaration, and it be decreed that we can usucapt (Usucapir) that land through the corresponding proceedings, as it is a property over which we have exercised possession suitable for usucapion (usucapir), having fulfilled in the necessary time each and every one of the legal requirements, we are the ones who work, exploit and carry out agrarian possessory acts, in good faith, under the concept of owner, and uninterruptedly, and we request it be so decreed. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) //5- That a letter be issued to the Public Registry (sic), once this process is concluded (sic), for the purpose of partially annulling -from the original titling to the subsequent transfers, and the total annulment of plan H-117462-93 is also requested, and consequently, to be able to register our plan. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) //6- Withdrawn. // 7- Withdrawn. 8- That they be ordered to pay the costs of this action, due to the evident bad faith with which the defendants Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro have acted, without there being a request for condemnation of costs against the State and Sinac. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 9- Withdrawn. 10- That it be declared that the defendant has never had, nor does he have any right over the property in litigation, and he be ordered to pay personal and procedural costs.\" Asdrúbal Artavia Araya and Geiner Artavia Montenegro answered the lawsuit negatively and filed the defenses of res judicata (cosa juzgada), lack of right, lack of active and passive standing (legitimación), lack of cause of action, and failure to join a necessary party (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario). Geiner Artavia Montenegro filed a counterclaim against Minor Garcia Alvarado and Alexander Garcia Alvarado, based on the following facts: he indicated that he is the legitimate owner of the property registered in the Heredia district 161281-001, located in Puerto Viejo de Heredia, which measures 1,784,115.75 m² and is described in Heredia province plan 0117462-1993. He pointed out that the land was registered by his father, Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, through the possessory information (información posesoria) process, in the San Carlos court, according to case file 219-1993, including the land called La Isla. He noted that Mr. Mario Garcia, brother of the plaintiffs, opposed the possessory information process, but his father managed to prove his superior right of possession. He argued that the counterclaim defendants have always known that the land called La Isla is part of his property, mentioned above, and even so, in bad faith they entered the land in dispute. He alleged that they have caused environmental damage to said land, by changing the land use (uso de suelo), which was forest. He mentioned that the counterclaim defendants, in bad faith, have felled the forest. He stated that the counterclaim defendants have been reported on repeated occasions for crimes of violation of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) due to felling they have carried out. Requesting based on the foregoing facts: \"• That it be declared in judgment that the land in dispute called La Isla forms part of the property duly registered in the Public Registry of Property, Heredia district 161281-001, which is mountainous land, located in the Puerto Viejo district of the Heredia Province, and which is described in Heredia province plan 0117462-1993; • I request that in judgment the judge declare that the counterclaim defendants have no property right or possession right over the land in dispute called La Isla; • That it be declared that the counterclaim defendants are possessors in bad faith over the property in litigation; • I request that the land in litigation be revindicated (reivindique) in my favor and that the eviction (expulsión) of the counterclaim defendants be ordered, putting me in perfect possession of the property; • That the eviction (expulsión) of any other person found on the property be ordered, as well as of the animals that the plaintiffs have on it; • I request that both counterclaim defendants be ordered to pay the damages (daños y perjuicios) caused, and that they be ordered to pay both sets of costs.\" Likewise, he requests condemnation for damages (daños y perjuicios). The counterclaim defendants answered the counterclaim negatively. By judgment 74-08 issued by the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, the defense of failure to join a necessary party (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) raised by the defendants was upheld, and the plaintiffs were ordered to file a lawsuit against the State, as the lands in dispute are within an area declared a Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Fauna Silvestre). The plaintiff party files a lawsuit against the State based on the same facts as the initial lawsuit. The State answers the lawsuit negatively and raises the defenses of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and lack of right. On May 26, 2009, the joinder of Mario García Alvarado as a necessary party (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) was ordered, for which reason the plaintiffs file a lawsuit against him based on the same facts as the initial lawsuit. By order at 7:16 a.m. on January 27, 2010, Mr. Mario Garcia Alvarado was declared in default. The Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone issued resolution N° 007-11 at ten hours four minutes on January 25, 2011, which upheld the material res judicata (cosa juzgada material) and declared the lawsuit filed by Alexander and Minor, both García Alvarado, to be without merit, and they were ordered to pay costs.\n\nThe counterclaim by Geiner Artavia Montenegro against the plaintiffs García Alvarado was granted; their eviction from the so-called Island was ordered. Disagreeing with the decision, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Agrarian Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by resolution N° 1181-F-11 of sixteen hours zero minutes on October 26, 2011, regarding the appeal of judgment N° 007-11 noted above, rejected the concomitant nullity request, partially overturned the appealed ruling insofar as it upheld the exception of res judicata (cosa juzgada material) on the claim for usucaption (usucapión), rejecting the exception of res judicata (cosa juzgada) regarding the claim for usucaption (usucapión), which it rejected on the merits and upheld the exception of lack of right on that point. The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal (recurso de casación) on January 10, 2012, against the appellate ruling. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued resolution N° 000959-F-S1-2013 at nine hours twenty-five minutes on August 1, 2013, which annulled the appealed judgment, as well as that of the Trial Court, and ordered, because the property subject to this litigation is in the Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge, and the nature of the litigious property had been omitted, that it constitutes a property subject to public domain (dominio público), that the competent jurisdiction to hear this case was the Contentious-Administrative Court; therefore, it ordered the inclusion of the State for the defense of the indicated public ownership. The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on March 25, 2014, re-adapting the process to this jurisdiction's procedure and, through resolution N° 666-2014 at eleven hours thirty minutes on March 25, 2014, ordered, among other procedural aspects, the inclusion of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), which responded in a written submission dated August 8, 2014. The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, composed of judges Paulo André Alonso Soto, Jonatán Canales Hernandez, and Judge Karla Madriz Martínez, ruled in the judgment: “The exception of ten-year prescription (prescripción decenal) is upheld. Due to the manner of resolution, a pronouncement on the remaining exceptions is omitted. The claim filed by ALEXANDER GARCÍA ALVARADO AND MAINOR GARCÍA ALVARADO against AGROPECUARIA ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA, GEINER ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, RANDALL ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, MARIO GARCÍA ALVARADO, THE STATE and the NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS is rejected. Furthermore, BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA was considered an interested third party. Regarding the counterclaim, it is granted in the following terms: This claim is granted, declaring that the disputed land called the island is part of the property duly registered in the Public Property Registry of the Heredia registry district 161281-001, which is mountainous land, located in the district of Puerto Viejo in the Province of Heredia, and which is described in the Heredia province map 0117462-1993. // It is declared that the plaintiffs and counter-defendants have no right of property or possession over the land called \"La Isla\", in accordance with the documentary and testimonial evidence presented in the case file. // By reason of the foregoing, it is declared that the plaintiff counter-defendants are possessors in bad faith on the property in litigation. // It is resolved: To restore possession (Reivindicar) to the owners of the land in litigation and to order the eviction of the plaintiff counter-defendants, placing the former in perfect possession of the property. // Additionally, it is resolved that any other person who at the time of taking possession is in the area called \"La Isla\" must be evicted. // The payment of damages (daños y perjuicios) proven in the judgment enforcement phase is granted. // Regarding legal costs (costas), the losing party is ordered to pay costs to the defendants; except for Randall Artavia Montenegro and Mario García Alvarado, and Banco Nacional de Costa Rica -as an interested third party- who must bear their own costs if any. Regarding the counterclaim, the costs are the responsibility of the counter-defendants.” Disagreeing with the decision, the plaintiffs file a cassation appeal (recurso de casación), which consists of three grievances, since the one titled as first is a summary of the case. However, the numbering given is derived from the drafting that the grievance titled as second, in which the appellant raises three complaints, the first for improper evidentiary assessment regarding the proven facts, the second for improper application of the rule regarding the declaration of prescription (prescripción), and the third, for improper application of the rule. As they deal with various issues, this Chamber considers that they must be reorganized, resulting in a total of 5 grounds for cassation (casación) on the merits.\n\nII.- Due to the manner of resolution, the second censure will be heard first, referring to the improper evidentiary assessment regarding the suspension of the ten-year period for prescription (prescripción). The Tribunal notes, in proven fact 13, that Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia presented to the National Registry the final judgment approving the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) in Volume: 452, Entry 17428, on April 2, 1995, and it was registered on June 23, 1998. It adds, this claim was filed with the Agrarian Court on April 28, 2008, which was notified to Asdrúbal Artavia on May 11, 2008, and to Mr. Randall and Mr. Geiner on June 22, 2008; consequently, the order of summons for the claim was duly notified prior to the registration date in the Public Registry. It points out that the judgment is based on the criteria of Article 455 of the Civil Code, insofar as it indicates that titles subject to registration that are not registered do not affect third parties except from the date of their presentation to the Registry; therefore, the right to sue is, in this specific case, amply prescribed.\n\nIt is necessary to analyze the type of title being discussed, since in our legislation the expression \"Title\" has several meanings: the first, when it serves to express the cause or basis of an attribution, according to canons 853 and 854 of the CC; the second, to designate the document in which the attribution is contained, as when precept 459 indicates that property ownership titles (títulos de dominio) over real estate shall be registered in the Property Registry; and the third, to determine the nature or scope of the patrimonial attribution. It explains that in the Public Registry there is not properly a Registry of Entries, so when a vehicle enters the country for the first time, prior to meeting the requirements, the deed document is annotated in the registry so that it assigns a license plate number and registers it, but this is not visible nor does it have constitutive effects of registry publicity for third parties, but rather only from the registration (inscripción) onwards. The foregoing is due to the fact that there is no history of it, making it impossible for third parties to access its information, nor can it be subject to registry imputation. It considers that the same fate befalls documents that are annotated regarding real estate acquired through possessory information proceedings (trámite de información posesoria), since said annotation (anotación) does not have constitutive effects, but only declarative ones. It emphasizes that said entry does not have registry publicity for third parties since it is not constituted or registered, such that third parties can only be affected from the moment said annotation is duly processed and qualified by the registry and is registered, emerging into legal registry life through a real folio (folio real) which is the assigned number. It reiterates that there is no registered history before the registration, meaning there is no way for a third party to consult said property or its annotation while the definitive registration is carried out in a document such as a possessory information.\n\nIt considers that when our legislation indicates titles subject to registration where the principle of first in time, first in right prevails, it would be under properties that already have a defined registration in the name of a specific person, since the right of whoever manages the first annotation prevails. It states that, this being the case, the starting point for the plaintiffs or a third party began to run on June 23, 1998, the date on which the possessory information proceeding was first registered and came into public registry light. It points out that, since the defendant was notified before said date, this would not be a case of prescription (prescripción), as it was duly interrupted.\n\n**III.-** Although the appellant entitles the grievance as improper evidentiary assessment, this Chamber observes that what emerges from it is an improper application of precept 455 of the Civil Code in the calculation of the ten-year prescription period (plazo de prescripción decenal). The judgment declares that according to the procedural rule, the ten-year period for calculating the prescription begins from the presentation of the title (título) before the National Registry, this being April 2, 1998. However, this Chamber considers that the appellant is correct, since in the present dispute, discussing a property acquired through possessory information, the registry publicity arises from the registration of the property ownership title in the registry. This is because, since possessory information proceedings yield an original title (titulo originario), the property was not previously registered, which prevents the registry publicity indicated in precept 455 from occurring with the presentation of the title before the registry. Likewise, for the analysis of the computation of the prescription period in the specific case, it is necessary to bring up Articles 16 and 17 of the Law of Possessory Information, which were mentioned in the questioned judgment and, although not expressly alleged by the appellant, are subsumed within the proposed thesis that the computation of the prescription in this case begins with the registry registration. Precept 16 of said law indicates: \"*The property acquired under this law is definitively consolidated for third parties after three years, which shall be counted from the date of the registration of the respective title in the Public Registry, since the negative prescription of the action by third parties who may be affected is limited to that period.*\" For its part, numeral 17 states: \"*ARTICLE 17.- At any time when the three years referred to in the previous article have not yet elapsed, if it is demonstrated that the possessory title was established against the laws in force, the Judge may decree, in the original file and through incident procedures, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding execution order for that Office to cancel the entry. Once the three-year term from the registration of the title has elapsed, any action must be decided in declarative proceedings.*\" From the aforementioned regulations, which are specific norms for possessory information processes, it is evident that the deadlines for alleging the nullity of a title acquired through possessory information, whether within the same file or in declarative proceedings, run from its registration in the public registry.\n\nThree extremely important issues emerge from these precepts. Firstly, the 3-year term indicated in articles 16 and 17 is a period to process nullity via incidental proceedings (nulidad vía incidental), within the same file in which the possessory information was declared. And secondly, said period begins to run from the registration of the title in the registry, which is when it evidently has publicity against third parties. Thirdly, once the 3 years of prescription mentioned in the first point have elapsed, one must resort to the declarative proceedings (vía declarativa) to request the nullity of the possessory information. In this sense, precept 868 of the CC establishes that all rights and their corresponding actions prescribe in 10 years, and precept 455 of the same normative body, applicable to the specific case, indicates that said period is computed from its publication in the registry. (In this sense, see judgments 545 of 10:20 a.m. on May 14, 2015, and 2615 of 3:58 p.m. on November 12, 2020, from this First Chamber). In accordance with the foregoing, since the present case involves a request for nullity of a possessory information and demonstration of a better right in declarative proceedings, and as recorded on folio 1018 of the electronic file, for the real estate property registration number 161281-000 of the Heredia district, this right was registered in the public registry on June 23, 1998, having as its acquisition cause a possessory information. And the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was presented on April 28, 2008, before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, namely, an ordinary proceeding processed under file 08-160054-507-AG, against Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, and Geiner and Randall, both brothers with the surnames Artavia Montenegro. Said lawsuit was notified to Asdrúbal Artavia Araya on May 16, 2008, and to the co-defendants Geiner and Randall, both Artavia Montenegro, on June 22, 2008. Consequently, since the property subject to this dispute was registered on June 23, 1998, through possessory information, the ten-year prescription period, according to precept 868 of the CC, would have been completed on June 23, 2008; given that the defendants were notified prior to that date, the timely interruption of the prescriptive period through judicial summons is credited in the record, as provided for in Article 876 of the CC.\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the grievance is upheld.\n\nIV.- Consequently, the appealed judgment will be annulled. As the Trial Court did not rule on the merits, having upheld the exception of statute of limitations (prescripción) that was timely raised, and this Chamber cannot resolve the matter as a single instance, by virtue of the principles of due process (debido proceso) and right of defense (derecho de defensa), among other principles of a procedural nature, the case file will be remanded (reenvío) to the Trial Court so that it may issue a new judgment in accordance with applicable law.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe appeal filed is granted. The appealed judgment is annulled.\n\nThe case file is ordered to be returned to the court of origin, so that it may proceed to issue a new judgment as legally appropriate. QIUESADA\n\nIGNACIO JOSE MONGE DOBLES - MAGISTRADO/A\n\nJORGE LEIVA POVEDA - MAGISTRADO/A\n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr\n\n---\n\nEn sentencia se declara de acuerdo con el precepto 455 del Código Civil, que el plazo decenal para el cálculo de la prescripción inicia a partir de la presentación del título en el Registro Nacional.\n\nThis Chamber considers that, when discussing a property acquired through possessory information proceedings (información posesoria), the publicity of the registry occurs upon the registration of the title of ownership in the registry. Since possessory information proceedings give rise to an original title, the property was not previously registered, which prevents the registry publicity indicated in the aforementioned provision from occurring. Similarly, for the analysis of the computation of the limitation period (prescripción), articles 16 and 17 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias apply, which are subsumed under the thesis regarding the commencement of the computation of the limitation period with the registry registration. The following can be deduced from these provisions: 1) Three years is a limitation period for pursuing the nullity (nulidad) via ancillary proceedings, within the same case file in which the possessory information was declared. 2) Said period begins to run from the registration of the title in the registry, which is evidently when it has publicity with respect to third parties. 3) Once these years have elapsed, one must resort to the declaratory proceeding (vía declarativa) to request the nullity of the possessory information. In this sense, provision 868 of the Civil Code establishes that every right and its corresponding action prescribe (prescriben) at 10 years, which is computed from its publication in the registry (ordinal 455 ibidem). See resolutions 545-2015 and 2615-2020 of the First Chamber. As the present case involves a request for the nullity of a possessory information and demonstration of a better right in the declaratory proceeding, since this property was registered in June 1998 through possessory information, the ten-year limitation period (prescripción) was fulfilled in June 2008 (rule 868 ibidem); given that the defendants were notified prior to said date, thereby accrediting the timely interruption of the limitation period (plazo prescriptivo) through the judicial summons (mandate 876 ibidem). Therefore, the appealed judgment is annulled. As the Tribunal did not rule on the merits, having upheld the defense of limitation (excepción de prescripción) that was timely raised, and since this Chamber cannot resolve in a single instance, by virtue of the principles of due process and the right of defense, the referral of the case file back to the Tribunal is ordered so that it may issue a new judgment in accordance with the law (voto 1864-F-2024).\n\n…he argued, the lawsuit was directed against Asdrúbal Artavia, for being the person who titled the property and then transferred it to Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., whom he also represents, and against Messrs. Greiner and Randall, both Artavia Montenegro, for being the last acquirers, who have never exercised possessory acts over the farm. He indicated that the plan and the deed must be rescinded and partially modified, with respect to the part of the Island that is the subject of the litigation. He pointed out that the defendant Asdrúbal Artavia registered the title of The Island in June 1998, starting the proceedings in 1993 through plan H-117462-93. He argued that, in said plan, Mr. Artavia fraudulently incorporated his property, without his consent, taking advantage of the fact that the terrain has an island topography, but the indicated plan does not show the arm of the Gaspar River, for which reason it incorporates said terrain as part of his farm. He referred that herein lies the defect that renders the deed invalid and ineffective, with nullity falling upon it, since the defect lies in the will of the defendant. He alleged that the fact of having possessed the land in litigation for more than two decades, as owners, in a public and notorious manner, makes them creditors to resort to agrarian usucapion (usucapión agraria), to process the deed of the land. Based on the mentioned facts and what was agreed upon in the preliminary hearing, he requested that the judgment declare: \"1- That we have exercised possession for more than two decades, over the land known as the Island in the Gaspar of the Village of Sarapiquí, which currently forms part of a deed in the name of Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro. Cadastral Plan No. H-117462-93 and real estate folio registration number No. 161281001 and 002 (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 2- That said farm has undergone two transfers, first from Asdrúbal to a company of his called AGROPECUARIA Asdrúbal ARTAVIA ARAYA S.A., the second transfer was from said company to two sons of the defendant Artavia Araya, meaning it has been handled at the family level and is maintained. // 3- The titling carried out through possessory information (información posesoria) is null and ineffective and should be declared as such, so that it may be partially modified, and consequently, our part of the property that is the subject of the litigation, known as The Island, be segregated. Said segregation that is requested must encompass the entirety of the area known as the Island, which measures approximately 26 hectares. (Claim reformulated during the preliminary hearing. See the minutes and listen to the hearing). // 4- That by virtue of the foregoing, better rights of possession be declared, over the land in litigation, in terms of a judicial declaration, and it be decreed that we can Usucapt (Usucapir) that land through the corresponding proceedings, as it is a property over which we have exercised possession suitable for usucapion (usucapir), fulfilling in the necessary time each and every one of the legal requirements, we are the ones who work, exploit, and exercise agrarian possessory acts, in good faith, under the concept of owner, and in an uninterrupted manner, and we request that it be decreed as such. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 5- That a letter be issued to the Public Registry (Registro Público), once this process is concluded, so that it may be partially annulled - from the original titling to the subsequent transfers, and the total annulment of plan H-117462-93 is also requested, and consequently be able to register ours. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 6- Waived. // 7- Waived. 8- That they be condemned to pay the costs of this action, due to the evident bad faith with which the defendants Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner and Randall Artavia Montenegro have acted, without there being a request for an award of costs against the State and SINAC. (Claim adjusted in the preliminary hearing; see the minutes and listen to the hearing) // 9- Waived. 10- That it be declared that the defendant has never had, nor has any right over the property in litigation and that he be condemned to pay personal and procedural costs.\"\n\nAsdrúbal Artavia Araya and Geiner Artavia Montenegro answer the lawsuit negatively and interpose the exceptions of res judicata (cosa juzgada), lack of right, lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), lack of cause of action (falta de la causa), and necessary passive joinder of parties (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario). Geiner Artavia Montenegro files a counterclaim against Minor Garcia Alvarado and Alexander Garcia Alvarado, based on the following facts: he indicated that he is the legitimate owner of the farm registered in the Heredia district 161281-001, located in Puerto Viejo de Heredia, which measures 1,784,1159.75 m2 and is described in the plan of the province of Heredia 0117462-1993. He pointed out that the land was registered by his father, Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, through the possessory information (información posesoria) procedure, in the court of San Carlos, according to file 219-1993, including the land called The Island. He warns that Mr. Mario Garcia, brother of the plaintiffs, opposed the possessory information process, but his father managed to demonstrate his better right of possession. He argued that the counterclaim defendants have always known that the land called the island forms part of his farm, supra mentioned, and even so, in bad faith they entered the land in litigation. He adduced that they have caused environmental damage to said land, by changing the land-use (cambio de uso del suelo), which was forest. He mentioned that the counterclaim defendants, in bad faith, have felled the forest. He referred that the counterclaim defendants have been reported on repeated occasions for crimes of violation of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) for fellings they have carried out. Requesting based on the foregoing facts: \"• That it be declared in the judgment that the land in litigation called the island forms part of the farm duly registered in the Public Registry of Property, the Heredia district 161281-001, which is mountainous terrain, located in the district of Puerto Viejo of the Province of Heredia, and which is described in the plan of the province of Heredia 0117462-1993; • I request that in the judgment the judge declare that over the land in litigation called the island, the counterclaim defendants are not entitled to any right of ownership or possession; • That it be declared that the counterclaim defendants are possessors in bad faith over the property in litigation; • I request that the land in litigation be reivindicated in my favor and the expulsion of the counterclaim defendants be ordered, placing me in perfect possession of the property; • That the expulsion of any other person who is on the property be ordered, as well as the animals that the plaintiffs may have on it; • I request that both counterclaim defendants be condemned to pay the damages and losses caused and that they be condemned to pay both costs.\" Likewise, he requests an award for damages and losses. The counterclaim defendants answered the counterclaim negatively. By means of judgment-auto 74-08 issued by the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, the exception of necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) promoted by the defendants is upheld and it is ordered that the plaintiffs file a lawsuit against the State, as the lands in litigation are within an area declared a Wildlife Refuge. The plaintiff party files a lawsuit against the State based on the same facts as the initial lawsuit. The State answers the lawsuit negatively and raises the exceptions of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and lack of right.\n\nOn May 26, 2009, the joinder of Mario García Alvarado as a necessary passive co-litigant (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) was ordered, for which the plaintiffs filed a claim against him based on the same facts as the initial claim. By order issued at 7:16 a.m. on January 27, 2010, Mr. Mario García Alvarado was declared in default (rebelde). The Agrarian Court (Juzgado Agrario) of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone issued resolution No. 007-11 at ten hours and four minutes on January 25, 2011, which upheld the substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material) and dismissed the claim filed by Alexander and Minor, both García Alvarado, and ordered them to pay costs. The counterclaim (reconvención) of Geiner Artavia Montenegro against the plaintiffs García Alvarado was granted; ordering their eviction (desalojo) from the so-called Island. Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiffs filed an appeal (recurso de apelación). The Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Agrario) of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by resolution No. 1181-F-11 at sixteen hours and zero minutes on October 26, 2011, regarding the appeal of judgment No. 007-11 outlined above, rejected the concomitant nullity request, partially revoked the appealed resolution insofar as it upheld the exception of substantive res judicata regarding the claim for adverse possession (usucapión), rejecting the exception of res judicata in relation to the adverse possession claim, which it dismissed on the merits and upheld the exception of lack of right on that point. The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal (recurso de casación) on January 10, 2012, against the appellate decision. The First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice issued resolution No. 000959-F-S1-2013 at nine hours and twenty-five minutes on August 1, 2013, which annulled the appealed judgment, as well as that of the Court, and ordered, because the property subject to this litigation is in the Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge, and the nature of the litigious property had been omitted—it constitutes a property affected by public domain (dominio público)—that the competent jurisdiction to hear this case was the Contentious-Administrative jurisdiction; therefore, it ordered the joinder of the State for the defense of the indicated public ownership. The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on March 25, 2014, adapting the process to that jurisdiction, and through resolution No. 666-2014 at eleven hours and thirty minutes on March 25, 2014, it was ordered, among other procedural aspects, the joinder of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), which responded by writing dated August 8, 2014. The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, composed of judges Paulo André Alonso Soto, Jonatán Canales Hernández, and judge Karla Madriz Martínez, ordered in judgment: \"The exception of ten-year prescripción (prescripción decenal) is upheld. Due to the manner in which this is resolved, a ruling on the remaining exceptions is omitted. The claim filed by ALEXANDER GARCÍA ALVARADO AND MAINOR GARCÍA ALVARADO against AGROPECUARIA ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ASDRÚBAL ARTAVIA ARAYA, GEINER ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, RANDALL ARTAVIA MONTENEGRO, MARIO GARCÍA ALVARADO, THE STATE and the SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN is dismissed. Furthermore, BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA was considered as an interested third party. In relation to the counterclaim, it is granted in the following terms: This claim is granted, declaring that the disputed land called the island forms part of the farm duly registered in the Public Property Registry of the Heredia district under number 161281-001, which is forest land (terreno de montaña), located in the district of Puerto Viejo in the Province of Heredia, and which is described in the Heredia province plan 0117462-1993. // It is declared that the plaintiffs and counter-defendants have no ownership or possession rights over the land called \"La Isla,\" in accordance with the documentary and testimonial evidence entered into the record. // Based on the foregoing, it is declared that the plaintiff counter-defendants are possessors in bad faith of the property in litigation. // It is resolved: To grant replevin (Reivindicar) in favor of the owners of the land in litigation and order the expulsion of the plaintiff counter-defendants, placing the former in perfect possession (posesión) of the property. // Additionally, it is resolved that any other person who, at the time of taking possession, is in the area called \"La Isla\" must be expelled. // The payment of damages (daños y perjuicios) that are proven in the judgment enforcement phase is granted. // Regarding costs, the losing party is ordered to pay costs in favor of the defendants; except with respect to Randall Artavia Montenegro and Mario García Alvarado, and the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica -as an interested third party- who must bear their own costs if any. In relation to the counterclaim, costs are to be borne by the counter-defendants.\" Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal, which consists of three grievances, as the one titled as the first is a summary of the case. However, the numbering given is inferred from the wording, because the grievance titled as the second, in which the appellant claims three grounds: the first for improper evaluation of the evidence regarding the proven facts, the second for improper application of the rule regarding the declaration of prescripción, and the third for improper application of the rule. As they relate to various issues, this Chamber considers that they must be reconfigured, leaving a total of 5 cassation grounds on the merits.\n\nII.- Due to the manner in which this is resolved, the second censure will be heard first, referring to the improper evidentiary evaluation regarding the suspension of the ten-year prescripción period. The Tribunal points out in proven fact 13 that Mr. Asdrúbal Artavia filed with the National Registry the enforceable judgment (ejecutoria) by which the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) were approved, in volume: 452, Entry 17428, on April 2, 1995, and it was registered on June 23, 1998. It adds that the present lawsuit was filed with the Agrarian Court on April 28, 2008, which was served on Asdrúbal Artavia on May 11, 2008, and on Messrs. Randall and Geiner on June 22, 2008; consequently, the summons order for the lawsuit was duly served before the date of registration in the Public Registry.\n\nIt points out that the ruling is based on the criterion of precept 455 of the Civil Code, in that it indicates that titles subject to registration (títulos sujetos a inscripción) that are not registered do not affect third parties except from the date of their filing with the Registry; therefore, the right to bring action in the specific case is more than time-barred. It considers it necessary to analyze the type of title being discussed, since in our legislation the expression Title has several meanings: the first when it serves to express the cause or basis of an attribution, according to canons 853 and 854 of the CC; the second to designate the document containing the attribution, as when precept 459 indicates that titles of domain over real estate will be registered in the Property Registry; and the third to determine the nature or scope of the patrimonial attribution.\n\nIt explains that in the Public Registry there is no Registry of Entries proper, so when a vehicle first enters the country, prior to fulfilling the requirements, the deed document is noted in the registry for it to assign a license plate number and be registered, but this is not visible nor does it have constitutive effects of registry publicity for third parties, except from the registration. The foregoing by virtue of the fact that there is no history of the same, making it impossible for third parties to access its information, nor can it be subject to registry imputation. It considers that the same fate befalls documents noted in real estate matters that have been acquired through the possessory information (información posesoria) proceeding, since said notation does not have constitutive effects, but only declaratory ones. It emphasizes that said entry has no registry publicity for third parties as it is not constituted or registered, in such a way that for third parties it can only affect them from the moment said notation is duly processed and qualified by the registry and is registered, emerging into legal registry life through a real folio (folio real), which is the assigned number. It reiterates that before registration there is no registered history, meaning there is no way for a third party to consult said property or its notation while the definitive registration is being carried out on a document such as that of possessory information.\n\nIt considers that when our legislation indicates titles subject to registration where the principle of first in time, first in right does prevail, it would be regarding assets that already have a defined registration in the name of a specific person, since the right of whoever manages the first notation prevails. It states, thus, that the starting point for the plaintiffs or a third party begins to run from June 23, 1998, the date on which the possessory information proceeding was first registered and came into public registry light. It indicates that upon notification of the defendant before said date, this would not be a case of statute of limitations (prescripción), since it is duly interrupted.\n\n**III.-** Despite the appellant on cassation titling the grievance as improper evidentiary assessment, this Chamber can observe that what emerges from it is an improper application of precept 455 of the Civil Code in the calculation of the decennial statute of limitations period. The judgment declares that according to the procedural rule, the decennial period for calculating the statute of limitations begins from the filing of the title with the National Registry, this being April 2, 1998. However, this Chamber considers the appellant on cassation is correct, because in the current dispute, in the discussion of an asset acquired through possessory information, registry publicity occurs upon the registration of the title of property in the registry. The foregoing in view of the fact that, since possessory information constitutes an original title, the property was not previously registered, which prevents the registry publicity indicated in precept 455 from occurring with the filing of the title before the registry. Likewise, for the analysis of the computation of the statute of limitations period in the specific case, it is necessary to bring up articles 16 and 17 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which were mentioned in the questioned judgment and, although they were not expressly alleged by the appellant, they subsume into the proposed thesis that the computation of the statute of limitations in this case begins with the registry registration. Precept 16 of said law states: \"*The property acquired under this law is definitively consolidated for third parties at three years, which shall be counted from the day of* ***the registration of the respective title in the Public Registry***, *since the negative statute of limitations for the action of third parties who may be affected is limited to that period.*\" For its part, numeral 17 states: \"*ARTICLE 17.- At any time when, the three years referred to in the previous article not yet having elapsed, it is demonstrated that the possessory title was raised against the laws in force, the Judge may decree in the original file, and through the procedures of incidents, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding order so that that Office cancels the entry.* ***Once the term of three years from the registration of the title has elapsed, any action must be decided in a declaratory judgment***.\" From the aforementioned regulations, which are specific norms for possessory information processes, it is evident that the deadlines to allege the nullity of a title acquired through possessory information, whether within the same file or in a declaratory judgment, run from its registration in the public registry.\n\nFrom these precepts, three matters of utmost importance emerge. First, the 3-year term indicated in articles 16 and 17 is a period to process *nullity via incidental motion* (nulidad vía incidental), in the same file in which the possessory information was declared. And second, said period begins to compute from the registration of the title in the registry, which is when it evidently has publicity vis-à-vis third parties. Third, after the 3 years of statute of limitations mentioned in the first point have elapsed, one must resort to the declaratory proceeding to request the nullity of the possessory information. In this sense, precept 868 of the CC establishes that every right and its corresponding action prescribe after 10 years and precept 455 of the same regulatory body, applicable to the specific case, indicates that said period is computed from its publication in the registry. (In this sense, see judgments 545 at 10:20 a.m. on May 14, 2015, and 2615 at 3:58 p.m. on November 12, 2020, of this First Chamber). In accordance with the foregoing, since this case involves a request for nullity of a possessory information and demonstration of a better right via declaratory proceeding, and as stated on folio 1018 of the electronic file, the property registration number 161281-000 of the Heredia district, this right was **registered in the public registry on June 23, 1998**, having a possessory information as its acquisition cause. And the claim filed by the plaintiffs was presented on April 28, 2008, before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, namely, an ordinary proceeding processed under file 08-160054-507-AG, against Agropecuaria Asdrúbal Artavia Araya S.A., Asdrúbal Artavia Araya, Geiner and Randall, both brothers with the surnames Artavia Montenegro. Said claim was notified to Asdrúbal Artavia Araya on **May 16, 2008** and to the co-defendants Geiner and Randall, both Artavia Montenegro, on **June 22, 2008**.\n\nConsequently, since the property that is the subject of this litigation was registered on **23 de junio de 1998** by means of possessory information, the ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) period, according to precept 868 of the CC, would have been fulfilled on **23 de junio de 2008**; given that the defendants were served notice prior to that date, the timely interruption of the prescriptive period through judicial summons is accredited in the case file, as provided in article 876 of the CC. For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is upheld.\n\n**IV.-** Consequently, the appealed judgment shall be annulled. The Court not having ruled on the merits, having upheld the statute of limitations exception that was timely raised, and this Chamber being unable to resolve the matter in sole instance, by virtue of the principles of due process and right of defense, among other procedural principles, the case file shall be remanded to the Court, so that it may issue a new judgment as legally appropriate.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe appeal filed is granted. The appealed judgment is annulled.\n\nThe case file is ordered to be remitted to the Court of origin, so that it may proceed to issue a new judgment in accordance with the law.\nKIQUESADA\n\n| | | |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|   | ![Signature]()\n**3QQZOH9XRM461**\nLUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A |   |\n| ![Signature]()\n**AVS5KKNWF8M61**\nIRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A |   | ![Signature]()\n**DXJE5QEHHQI61**\nCARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A |\n\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" }