{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1112949", "citation": "Res. 00813-2022 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Información posesoria no puede incluir derecho de vía público", "title_en": "Possessory information cannot include public right‑of‑way", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario anuló una sentencia que había aprobado una información posesoria sobre un terreno en Puriscal, porque el plano catastrado no respetaba el ancho mínimo de 14 metros de la calle pública colindante exigido por el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. La Procuraduría General de la República apeló la decisión de primera instancia, argumentando que parte del área a titular incorporaba bienes de dominio público (derecho de vía), los cuales son inalienables e imprescriptibles y, por tanto, no pueden ser objeto de posesión particular. El Tribunal constató que, según informes municipales, el camino vecinal tenía un ancho inferior al legal y que el plano representaba la calle con solo 11.20 metros, incumpliendo la norma. Con fundamento en jurisprudencia constitucional y agraria que declara que tales bienes están fuera del comercio y no pueden ser poseídos, el Superior declaró la nulidad de la sentencia por anticipada y otorgó a la promovente un plazo de dos meses para presentar un nuevo plano que respete el derecho de vía de 14 metros.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Tribunal annulled a judgment that had approved possessory information proceedings over a plot in Puriscal because the cadastral map did not respect the mandatory 14‑meter minimum width of the adjoining public road under Article 4 of the General Public Roads Law. The Attorney General's Office appealed, arguing that part of the area to be titled included public‑domain land (right‑of‑way), which is inalienable and imprescriptible and therefore cannot be privately possessed. The Tribunal confirmed, based on municipal reports, that the local road was narrower than the legal minimum and the map depicted it at only 11.20 meters. Relying on constitutional and agrarian case law holding that such assets are outside commerce and cannot be possessed, the court declared the judgment premature and annulled it, granting the claimant two months to file a new map that respects the 14‑meter right‑of‑way.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "23/08/2022", "year": "2022", "topic_ids": [ "property-and-titling" ], "primary_topic_id": "property-and-titling", "es_concept_hints": [ "información posesoria", "derecho de vía", "bienes demaniales", "caminos vecinales", "inalienabilidad", "imprescriptibilidad" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "información posesoria", "derecho de vía", "bien demanial", "calle pública", "ancho mínimo", "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "Tribunal Agrario", "nulidad de sentencia" ], "keywords_en": [ "possessory information", "right‑of‑way", "public domain", "public road", "minimum width", "General Public Roads Law", "Agrarian Tribunal", "annulment of judgment" ], "excerpt_es": "Conforme a lo expuesto por la Sala, basado en la normativa que regula los caminos públicos, entre ella la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, estima este Tribunal que los argumentos esgrimidos por el funcionario municipal que emitió el informe en referencia es suficiente para concluir, el camino público al que hace referencia el plano catastrado N° 1-2279555-2021, es un camino vecinal administrado por la Municipalidad de Puriscal que no respeta el ancho de vía pública, por lo que en consecuencia, estima el Tribunal que la sentencia emitida está viciada de nulidad por anticipada, debido a que en forma previa a su emisión, debe verificarse el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales establecidos, concretamente, el levantamiento de un nuevo plano catastrado dentro del plazo prudencial de dos meses contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, por parte de la promovente, que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros, disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área actual del inmueble pretendido titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá con la prueba constante en autos.", "excerpt_en": "Based on the case law governing public roads, including the General Public Roads Law, this Tribunal finds that the arguments put forward by the municipal official who issued the report are sufficient to conclude that the public road referenced in cadastral map No. 1‑2279555‑2021 is a local road managed by the Municipality of Puriscal that does not respect the public right‑of‑way width. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the judgment issued is vitiated by nullity as being premature, because before issuing judgment all legal requirements must be verified—specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral map within a reasonable period of two months from the finality of this resolution by the claimant, which respects a right‑of‑way of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property sought to be titled, with the warning that failure to comply will result in a decision based on the evidence on record.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Judgment annulled", "label_es": "Sentencia anulada", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Tribunal annulled the judgment approving the possessory information and ordered the claimant to submit a new cadastral map respecting the 14‑meter minimum width of the adjoining public road within two months.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario anuló la sentencia que aprobaba la información posesoria y ordenó a la promovente presentar un nuevo plano que respete el ancho mínimo de 14 metros de la calle pública colindante en un plazo de dos meses." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The right‑of‑way is public domain. No use or usufruct thereof may be granted to private parties under ordinary law. Consequently, its occupation does not qualify as legitimate, effective, or useful possession for purposes of adverse possession.", "quote_es": "El derecho de vía es de dominio público. No procede sobre éste uso o usufructo a favor de particulares en los términos del derecho común. Por ende, su ocupación no califica como posesión legítima, hábil o útil, para efectos de usucapir." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "Public‑domain goods cannot be validly possessed by private parties, because they are destined for a purpose of general utility.", "quote_es": "Los bienes pertenecientes al dominio público no pueden ser poseídos válidamente por los particulares, por estar afectados a una finalidad de utilidad general." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "The judgment issued is vitiated by nullity as being premature, because before its issuance all legal requirements must be verified—specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral map that respects a right‑of‑way of fourteen meters.", "quote_es": "La sentencia emitida está viciada de nulidad por anticipada, debido a que en forma previa a su emisión, debe verificarse el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales establecidos, concretamente, el levantamiento de un nuevo plano catastrado que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros." } ], "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-2107", "citation": "Ley 6734", "title_en": "Agrarian Jurisdiction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/03/1982", "year": "1982" }, { "id": "norm-38653", "citation": "Ley 5060", "title_en": "General Public Roads Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1972", "year": "1972" }, { "id": "norm-62555", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 34331", "title_en": "Regulation to the National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "29/11/2007", "year": "2007" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-87313", "citation": "Res. 02306-1991 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Revocation of street-vending permits requires due process", "title_es": "Revocación de permisos de ventas estacionarias debe respetar el debido proceso", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "06/11/1991", "year": "1991" }, { "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-2107", "citation": "Ley 6734", "title_en": "Agrarian Jurisdiction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/03/1982", "year": "1982" }, { "id": "norm-38653", "citation": "Ley 5060", "title_en": "General Public Roads Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1972", "year": "1972" }, { "id": "norm-62555", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 34331", "title_en": "Regulation to the National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "29/11/2007", "year": "2007" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-1112949", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": true, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "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-2107", "norm_num": "6734", "norm_name": "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/03/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38653", "norm_num": "5060", "norm_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "22/08/1972" }, { "doc_id": "norm-62555", "norm_num": "34331", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "29/11/2007" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "????????????????\n\n \n\nFirmar Documento \n\n \n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\nEXPN1 - 0\n\nPROCESO:\n\nACTIVIDAD JUDICIAL NO CONTENCIOSA\n\nPROMUEVE:\n\nTina Mar Sociedad Anónima\n\n \n\n \n\nVOTO N° 813-F-2022\n\n \n\nTRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las once horas treinta minutos del veintitrés de agosto de dos mil veintidós.-\n\nPROCESO NO CONTENCIOSO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovida por TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica CED1 - - , representada por su apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma la señora Leticia Herrera Mata, mayor, casada una vez, pensionada, vecina de Puriscal, cédula de identidad número CED2 - - . Intervienen en el proceso la PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por Yamileth Monestel Vargas, mayor, soltera, vecina de San Ramón de Alajuela, cédula de identidad número CED3 - - , en su condición de procuradora adjunta; y el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, cédula jurídica CED4 - - - , representado por Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz, mayor, casada, abogada, vecina de Alajuela, cédula de identidad número CED5 - - , en calidad de apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma. Actúa como apoderada especial judicial de la sociedad promovente, la licenciada Roxana Chavarría Azofeifa, colegiada dieciocho mil seiscientos treinta y cinco. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José.-\n\n Redacta el juez Darcía Carranza; y,\n\n CONSIDERANDO:\n\n I.- DETALLE DE ACTUACIONES: I.- La entidad gestionante TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, interpuso las presentes diligencias de información posesoria para que por medio de esta vía se proceda a inscribir en el Registro Público de la Propiedad el terreno que se describe así: \" terreno NATURALEZA: terreno de potrero, zona verde, casas, rancho y trapiche, SITUADO en [Dirección1] , [Dirección2] , [Dirección3] de la Provincia de San José, con una MEDIDA de trece mil cuatrocientos quince metros cuadrados; LINDA: al Norte: [Nombre1] , al Sur: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, Este: [Dirección4] con un frente a ella de ciento treinta y tres metros con cincuenta y siete centímetros lineales, Oeste: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, según consta en el Plano Catastrado SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO,\" (Ver expediente descargado en modo pdf, imágenes 3 a 7, y 27 a 28).-\n\n II.- La Procuraduría General de la República se apersonó al proceso en los términos que corren en expediente descargado en modo pdf imágenes 79 a 84; a su vez el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural lo hizo en imagen 74.-\n\n III.- La jueza Andrea Ruiz Ramírez, del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, mediante sentencia número 2022000141 de las quince horas dieciséis minutos del trece de julio de dos mil veintidós se, resolvió: \"POR TANTO: De conformidad con la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 del 14 de julio de 1941 y sus reformas, se aprueban estas diligencias de Información Posesoria, en la cual han intervenido como partes la Procuraduría General de la República y el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural. Proceda el Registro Público de la Propiedad a inscribir a nombre de TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica CED6 , representada por su Apoderada Generalísima sin límite de suma la señora [Nombre2] , mayor, casada una vez, pensionada, vecina de Puriscal, Mercedes Sur, Alto la Palma, cédula de identidad CED7 , libre de gravámenes, cargas reales, condueños y sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho, el terreno NATURALEZA: terreno de potrero, zona verde, casas, rancho y trapiche, SITUADO en Alto La Palma, [Dirección2] , Cantón Cuarto Puriscal de la Provincia de San José, con una MEDIDA de trece mil cuatrocientos quince metros cuadrados; LINDA: al Norte: [Nombre1] , al Sur: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, Este: [Dirección4] con un frente a ella de ciento treinta y tres metros con cincuenta y siete centímetros lineales, Oeste: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, según consta en el Plano Catastrado SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO. La promovente adquirió el terreno en el año dos mil siete, por medio de compraventa a la empresa Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima, cédula jurídica CED8 , trasmitiendo la posesión ejercida en forma pública, pacífica a título de dueña que ejerció por más de seis años sobre el terreno. Posesión que había adquirido por desde el año dos mil uno del señor del [Nombre3] quien a su vez lo poseyó como dueño por más de treinta años. Desde que la sociedad promovente adquirió el terreno ha ejercido una posesión pública, pacífica en calidad de dueño por más de diez años que en unión con la posesión transmitida por la sociedad Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima y del señor [Nombre4] . En dicha materialidad ha ejercido actos posesorios agrarios reales y efectivos, a título de dueño, y en forma continua, consistentes mantenimiento de linderos, colocación de cercas de posteria mixta, limpieza y chapea de la finca, siembra de productos agrícolas, construcción de un rancho, una casa y mantenimiento de un trapiche, así como reforestación del yurro que atraviesa la finca El inmueble fue estimado en la suma de trece millones cuatrocientos quince mil colones, al igual que las presentes diligencias. El edicto relativo salió publicado en el Boletín Judicial número cincuenta del día quince de marzo del dos mil veintidós. El fundo está fuera de cualquier área silvestre protegida y se han ejercido los actos posesorios cumpliendo con el uso conforme del suelo. Declararon como testigos [Nombre5] cédula de identidad CED9 , [Nombre6] cédula de identidad CED10 , [Nombre7] cédula de identidad CED11 . El inmueble queda afecto a las reservas en cuanto a los derechos de vía de las calles públicas que dispone los artículos cuatro de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y diecinueve, inciso a, de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. El área contigua a las corrientes es área de protección, según el artículo 33, inciso b), de la Ley Forestal N° 7575 y queda prohibida la corta o eliminación de árboles. El cauce y las aguas de esa corriente son de dominio público ( Ley de Aguas, artículos 1, inciso IV, y 3, inciso III). Las aguas superficiales y subterráneas existentes en el inmueble (pozos, etc), son de dominio público estatal y no forman parte de la finca ( Ley de Aguas, artículos 1, inciso a y b, y 3, inciso III y Código de Minería, artículo 4),\" (Ver expediente descargado en modo pdf, imágenes 153 a 160).-\n\n IV.- La Procuradora adjunta la licenciada Yamileth Monestel Vargas, formuló recurso de apelación contra la sentencia dictada teniendo como fundamento principal de sus agravios, el no cumplimiento del ancho mínimo de la calle pública por lo que se estaría titulando parte de un bien demanial. Dice: \"... La resolución recurrida aprobó las diligencias a pesar de que hay prueba en el expediente de que el bien a titular incorpora, tanto en la materialidad como en el plano, porciones del derecho de vía de la calle municipal colindante, bien de dominio público Sobre el que no cabe posesión particular: Del informe n° Oficio PSAM-047-2022 del Municipalidad de Puriscal, que consta en autos, se extrae que el terreno a titular graficado en el plano n° SJ-1-2279555-2021, colinda, frente a vértices del 12 al 28, con calle pública municipal, cuyo ancho de derecho de vía es de 14 metros de ancho y del informe n° UT-IN- 114-BIS-2022, del mismo ayuntamiento se desprende: “En la inspección se ubica el predio, que colinda al Este con calle pública que corresponde a un camino vecinal [Dirección5], que comunica La Palma con Quivel, mismo que se encuentra transitable para todo tipo de vehículo con superficies en lastre (4.0 metros promedio) y una pequeña losa en concreto hidráulico (5.0 metros), el camino tiene un ancho promedio de 10.50 metros. Esto considerando que modificaron recientemente dicha cerca, lo que permite contar con un ancho del 5.25 metros del centro del camino, cuenta con servicios básicos de electricidad y agua. De acuerdo con el plano Catastrado SJ-1-2279555-2021 el camino se referencia con un ancho de 11.20 metros”. Asimismo, se aprecia en el polígono del plano base de las diligencias que no cumple con el ancho de 14 metros señalado por el ayuntamiento El plano transgrede normas de orden público, en tanto añade indebidamente a un inmueble particular un bien de carácter inalienable e imprescriptible (artículos 2 y 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 2, 4 y 5 de la Ley de Construcciones; 235, inciso 33 de la Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres, 261 y 262 del Código Civil y resoluciones números 2306-91 de 14:45 hrs. del 6 de noviembre de 1991 y 1245 de 12:06 del 8 de mayo de 1992 de la Sala Constitucional). La sentencia recurrida aprobó las diligencias y tuvo por probada la posesión del titulante sobre el terreno, sin tomar en cuenta lo externado por el ayuntamiento y tuvo por acreditada posesión sobre áreas de dominio público, lo que es contrario a derecho. Los bienes pertenecientes al dominio público no pueden ser poseídos válidamente por los particulares, por estar afectados a una finalidad de utilidad general:“Artículo 262.- Las cosas públicas están fuera del comercio; y no podrán entrar en él, mientras legalmente no se disponga así, separándolas del uso público a que estaban destinadas.” (Código Civil). El derecho de vía es de dominio público. No procede sobre éste uso o usufructo a favor de particulares en los términos del derecho común. Por ende, su ocupación no califica como posesión legítima, hábil o útil, para efectos de usucapir. (Arts. 2 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 4 y 5 de la Ley de Construcciones, 833/1949; 2°, inciso 43 de la Ley 9078/2012; Código Civil, arts. 261 y 262). En este sentido, cabe citar varios antecedentes y normativa: 1) SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencia 4115/2010, reiterada en la 16381/2010 y 568/2015: “Entre los bienes que son calificados como demaniales, se encuentra el derecho de vía, que debe ser entendido como el conjunto de franjas de terreno, cuya finalidad es la construcción o ampliación de obras públicas para la circulación o tránsito de vehículos, o bien, para obras relacionadas con la seguridad, ornato y uso peatonal. Precisamente, por ser un bien demanial, el derecho de vía no es susceptible de posesión por parte de particulares”. 2) “…el inmueble ocupado por el recurrente, al tratarse de un bien demanial, se encuentra excluido del régimen de la propiedad ordinaria, lo que implica la existencia de un régimen jurídico propio, singular y privativo, regulado por el Derecho administrativo”. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencias 139/2010, 9014/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 7919/2011, 11443/2014, 12863/2014 y 20890/2014). 3) Está “terminantemente prohibido construir, edificar, vender, cultivar, o ejercer cualquier forma de ocupación, en los derechos de vía de los caminos públicos, así como ejercer todo tipo de posesión permanente o de simple tenencia de estos, salvo las excepciones prevista en este reglamento. (art. 6°; Decreto 29253). 4) La inalienabilidad de los bienes demaniales imposibilita su traspaso y posesión en los términos del Derecho privado. Múltiples resoluciones de la SALA CONSTITUCIONAL reafirman que los bienes de dominio público \"no pueden ser objeto de posesión privada\". Votos 480-90, 2306-91, 2557-91, 98-92, 1055-92, 1207-93, 5399-93, 5976-93, 220-94, 914- 94, 1763-94, 2767-94, 3793-94, 6785-94, 4619-94, 6079-94, 422-96, 31445-96, 3227-96, 4815-96, 5026-94, 623-98, 7294-98, 00790-2001, entre muchas. 5) La naturaleza de la propiedad privada es incompatible con la naturaleza de los bienes demaniales, regido por el Derecho Administrativo. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencias 454/2006, 2408/2007, 3113/2009 y 8596/2013, entre varias). “Por dominio público se entiende el conjunto de bienes sujeto a un régimen jurídico especial y distinto al que rige el dominio privado, que además de pertenecer o estar bajo la administración de personas jurídicas públicas, están afectados o destinados a fines de utilidad pública y que se manifiesta en el uso directo o indirecto que toda persona pueda hacer de ellos”. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencias 2306/1991, 3145/1996 y 3667/2003. TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN CUARTA, sentencia 33-2012, entre otras). 6) Los bienes públicos están destinados a un uso común, fuera del comercio de los hombres, de servir al interés público. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencias 2306/1991, 7053/2005, 16281/2008, 8762/2009, 9777/2009, 9930/2009, 10108/2009, 11063/2009, 11254/2009, 11516/2009, 12936/2009, 14283/2009, 14376/2009, 14385/2009, 139/2010, 3584/2010, 4115/2010, 4212/2010, 4540/2010, 4646/2010, 5334/2010, 5455/2010, 6381/2010, 9014/2010, 9514/2010, 9533/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 13629/2010, 14859/2010, 14860/2010, 16381/2010, 17195/2010, 17195/2010, 7017/2011, 890/2014, 11433/2014 y 12863/2014). “Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión” privada. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, sentencias 877/2009, 3091/2009, 4199/2009, 14597/2009, 10271/2010, 14859/2010, 6381/2010, 568/2015, etc.). 7) Es ilícita la incorporación de áreas de dominio público, destinadas al uso común a terrenos privados, o ampliar la cabida de estos a expensas y en detrimento de aquellas. “En reiterada jurisprudencia este Tribunal ha señalado que por sus especiales características, los denominados bienes demaniales no son susceptibles de apropiación por los particulares, debido a que los mismos se encuentran sujetos a un fin público determinado, tal y como se indicó en la sentencia número 2002-11216”. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL sentencias 14860/2010, 16381/2010 y 568/2015). Asimismo, diversas resoluciones dictadas en la jurisdicción agraria son acordes en que el derecho de vía no es parte de los terrenos a titular y su incorporación causa la sentencia que se dicte en perjuicio de ese bien demanial. Al respecto, se citan del Tribunal Agrario, los votos 208-F-10 y 0309-F-10: “Se decreta que, por colindar la finca al rumbo [Dirección6] con calle pública, el derecho de vía es de catorce metros, de conformidad con el artículo cuatro de la Ley de Caminos Públicas y diecinueve incisos a) de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y que debe ser respetado. Área que, por ser dominio público, no es parte del fundo a inscribir”. (énfasis suplido). “X- Observa este Tribunal, algunos aspectos no prevenidos por el a quo que se citan de seguido y que constituyen requisitos de este trámite. El plano aportado para rectificación visible a folio primero, grafica dos calles públicas con un ancho de doce metros cuadrados, debido considerarse la preceptuado en el artículo 4º de la Ley de Caminos Públicos que reza: \"El ancho de las carreteras y de los caminos vecinales será el que indique los Departamentos Técnicos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, sin que pueda ser menor de veinte metros para las primeras y de catorce metros para los segundos.\" (Ley General de Caminos Públicos número 5060 del 22 de agosto de 1972). (…) . En uso de las facultades dadas a esta instancia para corregir procedimientos que pudieran causar indefensión y en aras de procurar economía procesal, por resultar anticipada la sentencia recurrida, deberá ordenarse anular la sentencia impugnada, para que sean acreditados a los autos los documentos requeridos para emitir resolución final. Deberá prevenirse, previo a emitir sentencia, la promovente deba aportar un nuevo plano que respete el ancho legal de la vía pública, otorgándose un plazo de dos meses. Caso contrario se resolverá con la documentación que conste en autos. POR TANTO: Se anula la sentencia”. (énfasis suplido) III) La resolución apelada aprobó la titulación a pesar de la falta de cumplimiento de requisitos: II) La información posesoria es un trámite para comprobar la consolidación de la propiedad y observancia de los requisitos de la Ley. El ajuste del plano al ordenamiento es uno de esos requisitos (ver artículo 2° de esa Ley). Por el principio de concordancia catastro registral, el plano catastrado debe ajustarse a la realidad del terreno, y en el caso eso no se da. Lo propio era prevenir la presentación de un nuevo plano que excluyera el derecho de vía o en su defecto rechazar las diligencias. En virtud de lo anterior, solicito tener por interpuesto el recurso de apelación contra la sentencia n° 2022000141, de las 15:16 horas del 13 de julio del 2022, remitir el expediente al Superior para su conocimiento y dictado de resolución improbatoria de las diligencias, en tanto por su medio se pretende la inscripción de bienes de dominio público sobre los que no cabe posesión particular...\". (ver memorial de apelación agregado a la bandeja de escritos del escritorio virtual el 29/072022 a las 11:59:57)\n\n V. La apelación con nulidad concomitante es interpuesta por la licenciada la licenciada Yamileth Monestel Vargas en su condición de Procuradora Adjunta contra la sentencia dictada, en lo medular se muestra disconforme por cuanto se está titulando un fundo sin respetar el ancho mínimo de catorce metros que debe tener la calle pública por lo que considera debe rechazarse pues se estaría inscribiendo parte de terreno demanial que no podría titularse. En su único agravio, la representante del Estado alega que en el plano que representa el inmueble a titular no se respeta el ancho de vía pública establecido por el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. En efecto, dicha norma dispone que los caminos vecinales deben tener un ancho de 14 metros; no obstante, en este caso, en el aludido plano se señala dicho ancho es de apenas 8 metros en el camino que sirve de colindancia por los rumbos [Dirección7] . Lo anterior significa que se está irrespetando el derecho de vía pública y que parte del área del aludido camino se está incorporando al área que representa el inmueble a titular. En el proceso se recibió Oficio UT-IN-114-BIS-2022 emitido por el inspector de la Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial Danilo Castro Aguilar de la Municipalidad de Puriscal, del 27 de mayo de 2022, en el que se hizo constar: “En la inspección se ubica el predio, que colinda al Este con calle pública que corresponde a un camino vecinal [Dirección5], que comunica La Palma con Quivel, mismo que se encuentra transitable para todo tipo de vehículo con superficies en lastre (4.0 metros promedio) y una pequeña losa en concreto hidráulico (5.0 metros), el camino tiene un ancho promedio de 10.50 metros. Esto considerando que modificaron recientemente dicha cerca, lo que permite contar con un ancho del 5.25 metros del centro del camino, cuenta con servicios básicos de electricidad y agua. De acuerdo con el plano Catastrado SJ-1-2279555-2021 el camino se referencia con un ancho de 11.20 metros”. De lo anteriormente expuesto resulta claro y contundente lo indicado en cuanto a que no se cumple con el ancho mínimo de la calle pública. Tal y como lo indica el informe dicho, revisado el plano catastrado N° 1-2279555-2021, se logra determinar claramente la calle pública tiene una medida total de once metros veinte centímetros por lo que no se cumple con la medida mínima que esta debe tener conforme a la normativa supracitada. Es importante señalar que la Sala Constitucional en voto 2306 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 6 de noviembre de 1991, refiriéndose a las características de las calles públicas, señaló: \"... las vías públicas, que son terrenos de dominio público, por definirlo así expresamente, la Ley de Construcciones en sus artículos 4, 5 y 6; el artículo 28 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, artículos 44 y siguientes de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, en relación con los artículos 261 y 262 del Código Civil y el inciso 14 del artículo 121 y 174 de la Constitución Política.- El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público.- Son los llamados bienes dominicales, bienes dominicales, bienes o cosas públicas o bienes públicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres.- Es decir, afectados por su propia naturaleza y vocación.- En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa.- Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio.- Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al aprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad. ... En los casos en que se pretenda ejercer la ocupación por las vías de hecho, ya sea en forma pacífica o mediante hechos de fuerza, bien puede la Administración desalojarlos por la misma vía, sin que sea necesario acudir a expediente alguno, ni a reglas del debido proceso, incluyendo la facultad de retirar los bienes de los sitios públicos ocupados, a reserva de ser devueltos a sus propietarios, salvo los artículos perecederos, los que por razones de protección de la salud pública, pueden ser destruidos si llegan a constituir un peligro para ese bien superior.- En general, ningún derecho fundamental se puede entender vulnerado, si se trata de conservar la naturaleza y el uso de los bienes públicos; el trabajo, el libre comercio, la propiedad y el patrimonio objetivo de las personas y todos los demás derechos, no pueden imponerse ilegítimamente por sobre y contra el interés general, gravando los bienes del Estado que conforman el demanio.\" Conforme a lo expuesto por la Sala, basado en la normativa que regula los caminos públicos, entre ella la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, estima este Tribunal que los argumentos esgrimidos por el funcionario municipal que emitió el informe en referencia es suficiente para concluir, el camino público al que hace referencia el plano catastrado N° 1-2279555-2021, es un camino vecinal administrado por la Municipalidad de Puriscal que no respeta el ancho de vía pública, por lo que en consecuencia, estima el Tribunal que la sentencia emitida está viciada de nulidad por anticipada, debido a que en forma previa a su emisión, debe verificarse el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales establecidos, concretamente, el levantamiento de un nuevo plano catastrado dentro del plazo prudencial de dos meses contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, por parte de la promovente, que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros, disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área actual del inmueble pretendido titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá con la prueba constante en autos. (en el mismo sentido puede verse voto de este Tribunal N° 442-F-2010 de la 09:20 horas del 20/05/2020).\n\nVI. Por lo expuesto, con fundamento en los artículos 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política, numeral 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 6, 26, 54 y 79 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, 34 inciso e) del Reglamento de la Ley de Catastro Nacional, 4 de la Ley de Caminos Públicos, se le concede a la parte promovente un plazo de dos meses, para que presente un nuevo plano que contemple el ancho mínimo de la calle pública según corresponda Por ende, se declara la nulidad de la sentencia al haber sido emitida en forma anticipada.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nSe anula la sentencia. Se le concede a la parte promovente un plazo de dos meses, para que presente un nuevo plano que contemple el ancho mínimo de la calle pública según corresponda.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n???????????????\n\n8DYVOUYZMWM61\n\n[Nombre8] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n???????????????\n\nR68R950FZ7A61\n\n[Nombre9] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\n???????????????\n\nH9TCQRAWG0461\n\n[Nombre10] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nEXP: EXPN1\n\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección8] , , [Dirección9] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]", "body_en_text": "**VOTO N° 813-F-2022**\n\n**TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.-** At eleven hours thirty minutes on the twenty-third of August of two thousand twenty-two.-\n\n**NON-CONTENTIOUS POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING** brought by **TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**, legal identification number CED1 - - , represented by its general attorney-in-fact without limit of sum, Mrs. Leticia Herrera Mata, of legal age, married once, retired, resident of Puriscal, identity card number CED2 - - . Appearing in the proceeding are the **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by Yamileth Monestel Vargas, of legal age, single, resident of San Ramón de Alajuela, identity card number CED3 - - , in her capacity as assistant procurator; and the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL**, legal identification number CED4 - - - , represented by Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Alajuela, identity card number CED5 - - , in her capacity as general attorney-in-fact without limit of sum. Licensed attorney Roxana Chavarría Azofeifa, bar association number eighteen thousand six hundred thirty-five, acts as special judicial attorney for the petitioning entity. Processed before the Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José.-\n\nJudge Darcía Carranza writes; and,\n\n**CONSIDERING:**\n\n**I.- DETAIL OF PROCEDURAL ACTIONS:** I.- The petitioning entity TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, filed these possessory information proceedings so that, through this means, the following described property may be registered in the Public Property Registry: \"property NATURE: pasture land, green area, houses, ranch, and sugar mill, LOCATED at [Dirección1] , [Dirección2] , [Dirección3] of the Province of San José, with an AREA of thirteen thousand four hundred fifteen square meters; BOUNDS: to the North: [Nombre1] , to the South: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, East: [Dirección4] with a frontage onto it of one hundred thirty-three meters and fifty-seven linear centimeters, West: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, as shown on Cadastral Plan SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO,\" (See file downloaded in pdf mode, images 3 to 7, and 27 to 28).-\n\nII.- The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the proceeding under the terms found in the file downloaded in pdf mode, images 79 to 84; in turn, the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural did so in image 74.-\n\nIII.- Judge Andrea Ruiz Ramírez, of the Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, by judgment number 2022000141 at fifteen hours sixteen minutes on the thirteenth of July of two thousand twenty-two, resolved: \"THEREFORE: In accordance with the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, these Possessory Information proceedings, in which the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural have participated as parties, are approved. The Public Property Registry shall proceed to register in the name of TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number CED6 , represented by its General Attorney-in-Fact without limit of sum, Mrs. [Nombre2] , of legal age, married once, retired, resident of Puriscal, Mercedes Sur, Alto la Palma, identity card number CED7 , free of liens, encumbrances, co-owners, and without prejudice to third parties with better rights, the property NATURE: pasture land, green area, houses, ranch, and sugar mill, LOCATED in Alto La Palma, [Dirección2] , Cantón Cuarto Puriscal of the Province of San José, with an AREA of thirteen thousand four hundred fifteen square meters; BOUNDS: to the North: [Nombre1] , to the South: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, East: [Dirección4] with a frontage onto it of one hundred thirty-three meters and fifty-seven linear centimeters, West: Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, as shown on Cadastral Plan SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO. The petitioner acquired the property in the year two thousand seven, through a purchase-sale from the company Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number CED8 , transferring the possession exercised publicly, peacefully, and under title of owner, which had been exercised for more than six years over the property. Possession that had been acquired since the year two thousand one from Mr. [Nombre3] who in turn possessed it as owner for more than thirty years. Since the petitioning entity acquired the property, it has exercised public, peaceful possession as owner for more than ten years, which, together with the possession transferred by the entity Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima and by Mr. [Nombre4] . On said materiality, it has exercised real and effective agrarian possessory acts, under title of owner, and continuously, consisting of boundary maintenance, placement of mixed-post fencing, cleaning and slashing of the farm, planting of agricultural products, construction of a ranch, a house, and maintenance of a sugar mill, as well as reforestation of the stream that crosses the farm. The property was valued at the sum of thirteen million four hundred fifteen thousand colones, as were these proceedings. The corresponding edict was published in the Boletín Judicial number fifty on the fifteenth of March of two thousand twenty-two. The property is outside any protected wildlife area, and the possessory acts have been exercised in compliance with the land-use conformity (uso conforme del suelo). [Nombre5] , identity card number CED9 , [Nombre6] , identity card number CED10 , [Nombre7] , identity card number CED11 , testified as witnesses. The property remains subject to the reservations regarding the public road right-of-way rights established by articles four of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and nineteen, subsection a, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The area adjacent to watercourses is a protection area, according to article 33, subsection b), of the Ley Forestal N° 7575, and the cutting or elimination of trees is prohibited. The channel and waters of that watercourse are in the public domain (Ley de Aguas, articles 1, subsection IV, and 3, subsection III). The surface and underground waters existing on the property (wells, etc.) are state public domain and are not part of the farm (Ley de Aguas, articles 1, subsections a and b, and 3, subsection III, and Código de Minería, article 4),\" (See file downloaded in pdf mode, images 153 to 160).-\n\nIV.- The Assistant Procurator, licensed attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas, filed an appeal against the issued judgment, having as the principal basis for her grievances the failure to comply with the minimum width of the public road, whereby part of a demanial good would be being titled. She states: \"... The appealed resolution approved the proceedings even though there is proof in the file that the property to be titled incorporates, both in materiality and on the plan, portions of the right-of-way of the adjoining municipal road, a public domain good over which private possession is not possible: From report No. Oficio PSAM-047-2022 from the Municipalidad de Puriscal, which appears in the record, it is extracted that the property to be titled, depicted on plan No. SJ-1-2279555-2021, adjoins, along vertices 12 to 28, a municipal public road, whose right-of-way width is 14 meters wide, and from report No. UT-IN- 114-BIS-2022, from the same local government, it is noted: 'At the inspection, the property is located, which adjoins to the East a public road corresponding to a local road (camino vecinal) [Dirección5], that connects La Palma with Quivel, itself which is passable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (4.0 meters average) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that said fence was recently modified, which allows for a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Plan SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters.' Likewise, it is observed in the polygon of the base plan for the proceedings that it does not comply with the 14-meter width indicated by the local government. The plan transgresses public order norms, insofar as it unduly adds to a private property an inalienable and imprescriptible good (articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 2, 4, and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 235, subsection 33 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres, 261 and 262 of the Código Civil, and resolutions numbers 2306-91 at 14:45 hrs. on November 6, 1991, and 1245 at 12:06 on May 8, 1992, of the Sala Constitucional). The appealed judgment approved the proceedings and deemed the possession of the titleholder over the property as proven, without considering what was expressed by the local government, and deemed possession over public domain areas as accredited, which is contrary to law. Goods belonging to the public domain cannot be validly possessed by private individuals, as they are intended for a purpose of general utility: 'Article 262.- Public things are outside of commerce; and they may not enter it, while this is not legally provided for, separating them from the public use to which they were destined.' (Código Civil). The right-of-way is of public domain. Use or usufruct in favor of private individuals under the terms of common law is not applicable to it. Therefore, its occupation does not qualify as legitimate, suitable, or useful possession for the purposes of usucapion. (Arts. 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones, 833/1949; 2°, subsection 43 of Ley 9078/2012; Código Civil, arts. 261 and 262). In this sense, it is pertinent to cite several precedents and regulations: 1) SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgment 4115/2010, reiterated in 16381/2010 and 568/2015: 'Among the goods that are classified as demanial is the right-of-way, which must be understood as the set of strips of land, whose purpose is the construction or expansion of public works for the circulation or transit of vehicles, or for works related to safety, ornamentation, and pedestrian use. Precisely, because it is a demanial good, the right-of-way is not susceptible to possession by private parties.' 2) '...the property occupied by the appellant, as it involves a demanial good, is excluded from the ordinary property regime, which implies the existence of a singular, private, and exclusive legal regime, regulated by Administrative Law.' (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgments 139/2010, 9014/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 7919/2011, 11443/2014, 12863/2014, and 20890/2014). 3) It is 'strictly prohibited to construct, build, sell, cultivate, or exercise any form of occupation, in the rights-of-way of public roads, as well as to exercise any type of permanent possession or simple tenure thereof, except for the exceptions provided in this regulation.' (art. 6°; Decreto 29253). 4) The inalienability of demanial goods makes their transfer and possession under the terms of Private Law impossible. Multiple resolutions of the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL reaffirm that public domain goods 'cannot be the object of private possession'. Votos 480-90, 2306-91, 2557-91, 98-92, 1055-92, 1207-93, 5399-93, 5976-93, 220-94, 914- 94, 1763-94, 2767-94, 3793-94, 6785-94, 4619-94, 6079-94, 422-96, 31445-96, 3227-96, 4815-96, 5026-94, 623-98, 7294-98, 00790-2001, among many. 5) The nature of private property is incompatible with the nature of demanial goods, governed by Administrative Law. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgments 454/2006, 2408/2007, 3113/2009, and 8596/2013, among several). 'Public domain is understood as the set of goods subject to a special legal regime, distinct from that governing private domain, which, in addition to belonging to or being under the administration of public legal persons, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and which is manifested in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them.' (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgments 2306/1991, 3145/1996, and 3667/2003. TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN CUARTA, judgment 33-2012, among others). 6) Public goods are destined for common use, outside the commerce of men, to serve the public interest. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgments 2306/1991, 7053/2005, 16281/2008, 8762/2009, 9777/2009, 9930/2009, 10108/2009, 11063/2009, 11254/2009, 11516/2009, 12936/2009, 14283/2009, 14376/2009, 14385/2009, 139/2010, 3584/2010, 4115/2010, 4212/2010, 4540/2010, 4646/2010, 5334/2010, 5455/2010, 6381/2010, 9014/2010, 9514/2010, 9533/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 13629/2010, 14859/2010, 14860/2010, 16381/2010, 17195/2010, 17195/2010, 7017/2011, 890/2014, 11433/2014, and 12863/2014). 'As they are outside of commerce, these goods cannot be the object of private' possession. (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL, judgments 877/2009, 3091/2009, 4199/2009, 14597/2009, 10271/2010, 14859/2010, 6381/2010, 568/2015, etc.). 7) The incorporation of public domain areas, destined for common use, into private properties, or expanding the capacity of these at the expense and to the detriment of those, is unlawful. 'In reiterated jurisprudence, this Tribunal has indicated that due to their special characteristics, so-called demanial goods are not susceptible to appropriation by private parties, because they are subject to a specific public purpose, as indicated in judgment number 2002-11216.' (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL judgments 14860/2010, 16381/2010, and 568/2015). Likewise, various resolutions issued in the agrarian jurisdiction agree that the right-of-way is not part of the properties to be titled and its incorporation renders the judgment issued in prejudice of that demanial good. In this regard, the following votes from the Tribunal Agrario are cited, 208-F-10 and 0309-F-10: 'It is decreed that, because the farm adjoins in the [Dirección6] direction with a public road, the right-of-way is fourteen meters, in accordance with article four of the Ley de Caminos Públicas and nineteen, subsection a) of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and that it must be respected. An area which, being public domain, is not part of the property to be registered.' (emphasis supplied). 'X- This Tribunal observes some aspects not foreseen by the a quo that are cited below and that constitute requirements for this proceeding. The plan provided for rectification, visible on folio one, depicts two public roads with a width of twelve square meters, which must consider the provision in article 4 of the Ley de Caminos Públicos which states: \"The width of highways and local roads (caminos vecinales) shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, without it being less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter.\" (Ley General de Caminos Públicos number 5060 of August 22, 1972). (...) . Using the powers granted to this instance to correct procedures that could cause defenselessness and for the sake of ensuring procedural economy, as the appealed judgment was premature, it must be ordered to annul the contested judgment, so that the documents required to issue a final resolution are accredited in the record. The petitioner must be warned, prior to issuing judgment, that it must provide a new plan that respects the legal width of the public road, granting a period of two months. Otherwise, it will be resolved with the documentation that appears in the record. THEREFORE: The judgment is annulled.' (emphasis supplied) III) The appealed resolution approved the titling despite the failure to meet requirements: II) Possessory information is a proceeding to verify the consolidation of property and observance of the Law's requirements. The adjustment of the plan to the legal system is one of those requirements (see article 2 of that Law). By the principle of cadastral-registry concordance, the cadastral plan must conform to the reality of the land, and in this case, that is not so. The proper course was to warn for the submission of a new plan that excluded the right-of-way, or failing that, to reject the proceedings. By virtue of the foregoing, I request that the appeal be deemed filed against judgment No. 2022000141, at 15:16 hours on July 13, 2022, to remit the file to the Superior for its knowledge and issuance of a resolution denying the proceedings, insofar as the registration of public domain goods over which private possession is not possible is intended through it...\". (see appeal brief added to the filing tray of the virtual desktop on 07/29/2022 at 11:59:57)\n\nV. The appeal with concomitant nullity is filed by licensed attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas in her capacity as Assistant Procurator against the issued judgment. Fundamentally, she disagrees because a property is being titled without respecting the minimum width of fourteen meters that the public road must have, for which reason she considers it must be rejected, as part of demanial land that could not be titled would be registered. In her sole grievance, the State representative alleges that the plan representing the property to be titled does not respect the public road width established by article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Indeed, said norm provides that local roads (caminos vecinales) must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, in the aforementioned plan, said width is indicated as barely 8 meters on the road that serves as a boundary along the [Dirección7] headings. The foregoing means that the public right-of-way is being disrespected and that part of the area of the aforementioned road is being incorporated into the area representing the property to be titled. In the proceeding, Official communication UT-IN-114-BIS-2022 was received, issued by the inspector of the Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial, Danilo Castro Aguilar, from the Municipalidad de Puriscal, dated May 27, 2022, in which it was recorded: 'At the inspection, the property is located, which adjoins to the East a public road corresponding to a local road (camino vecinal) [Dirección5], that connects La Palma with Quivel, itself which is passable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (4.0 meters average) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that said fence was recently modified, which allows for a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Plan SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters.' From the foregoing, what is indicated regarding the non-compliance with the minimum width of the public road is clear and conclusive. As the aforementioned report indicates, upon reviewing cadastral plan No. 1-2279555-2021, it is possible to clearly determine that the public road has a total measurement of eleven meters twenty centimeters, so the minimum measurement it must have according to the supra-cited regulations is not met. It is important to note that the Sala Constitucional, in vote 2306 at 14 hours 45 minutes on November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: '... public roads, which are public domain land, as expressly defined by the Ley de Construcciones in its articles 4, 5, and 6; article 28 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, articles 44 and following of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, in relation to articles 261 and 262 of the Código Civil and subsection 14 of article 121 and 174 of the Constitución Política.- The public domain is composed of goods that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called dominical goods, dominical goods, public goods, or public things, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are destined for public use and subjected to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these goods belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, are affected by the service they provide, and which is invariably essential by virtue of express norm.- Characteristic features of these goods are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover the domain.- As they are outside commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right of use can be acquired, although not a right of property. ... In cases where occupation by de facto means is intended, whether peacefully or through acts of force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without needing to resort to any proceedings, nor to due process rules, including the power to remove goods from occupied public sites, subject to being returned to their owners, except for perishable items, which, for reasons of public health protection, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be understood to have been violated, if it is a matter of preserving the nature and use of public goods; work, free trade, property, and the objective assets of persons and all other rights cannot be illegitimately imposed over and against the general interest, encumbering the State's goods that form the demanio.' In accordance with what was stated by the Sala, based on the regulations governing public roads, including the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, this Tribunal considers that the arguments put forth by the municipal official who issued the referenced report are sufficient to conclude that the public road referenced by cadastral plan No. 1-2279555-2021 is a local road (camino vecinal) administered by the Municipalidad de Puriscal that does not respect the public road width, for which reason, consequently, this Tribunal considers that the issued judgment is vitiated by nullity as premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the surveying of a new cadastral plan within a reasonable period of two months from the finality of this resolution, by the petitioner, that respects the right-of-way with a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in the event of non-compliance, it will be resolved with the evidence on record. (in the same sense, see vote of this Tribunal No. 442-F-2010 at 09:20 hours on 05/20/2020).\n\nVI. Based on the foregoing, on the basis of articles 45 and 50 of the Constitución Política, numeral 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 6, 26, 54, and 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, 34 subsection e) of the Reglamento de la Ley de Catastro Nacional, 4 of the Ley de Caminos Públicos, the petitioning party is granted a period of two months to present a new plan that contemplates the minimum width of the public road as appropriate. Therefore, the nullity of the judgment is declared, it having been issued prematurely.\n\n**THEREFORE:**\n\nThe judgment is annulled. The petitioning party is granted a period of two months to present a new plan that contemplates the minimum width of the public road as appropriate.\n\nThe **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by Yamileth Monestel Vargas, of legal age, single, resident of San Ramón de Alajuela, identity card number CED3 - - , in her capacity as deputy prosecutor; and the **INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL**, legal ID number CED4 - - , represented by Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Alajuela, identity card number CED5 - - , in her capacity as unlimited general power of attorney, are involved in the proceeding. The attorney Roxana Chavarría Azofeifa, Bar Association number eighteen thousand six hundred thirty-five, acts as the special judicial representative of the petitioner company. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José.-\n\nJudge **Darcía Carranza** writes; and,\n\n​ **CONSIDERANDO:**\n\n**I.- DETAIL OF PROCEEDINGS: I.-** The petitioning entity **TINA MAR SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**, filed these possessory information proceedings so that, through this means, the following described land may be registered in the Public Property Registry: \" *land* ***NATURE:** *pasture land, green zone, houses, ranch and sugar mill,* ***LOCATED*** *in [Dirección1] , [Dirección2] , [Dirección3] of the Province of San José, with a* ***SURVEY AREA*** *of thirteen thousand four hundred fifteen square meters;* ***BOUNDED:** *to the* ***North:** *[Nombre1] , to the* ***South:** *Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima,* ***East*** *: [Dirección4] with a frontage along it of one hundred thirty-three meters and fifty-seven linear centimeters* ***, West:** *Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, as recorded in Cadastral Map* ***SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO,*** *\"* (See file downloaded in PDF mode, images 3 to 7, and 27 to 28).-\n\n**II.-** The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the process under the terms found in the file downloaded in PDF mode, images 79 to 84; the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural did so in image 74.-\n\n**III.-** Judge Andrea Ruiz Ramírez, of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by judgment number 2022000141 of fifteen hours sixteen minutes on the thirteenth of July of two thousand twenty-two, resolved: **\"** **POR TANTO** **:** *Pursuant to the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, these Possessory Information proceedings are approved, in which the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural have participated as parties. The Public Property Registry shall proceed to register in the name of* ***TINA MAR SOCIED ANÓNIMA*** *, legal ID number CED6 , represented by its Unlimited General Power of Attorney, Mrs.* ***[Nombre2]*** *, of legal age, married once, retired, resident of Puriscal, Mercedes Sur, Alto la Palma, identity card number CED7 , free of encumbrances (gravámenes), real burdens (cargas reales), co-owners (condueños), and without prejudice to third parties with better right, the property* ***NATURE:** *pasture land, green zone, houses, ranch and sugar mill,* ***LOCATED*** *in Alto La Palma, [Dirección2] , Fourth Puriscal Canton of the Province of San José, with a* ***SURVEY AREA*** *of thirteen thousand four hundred fifteen square meters;* ***BOUNDED:** *to the* ***North:** *[Nombre1] , to the* ***South:** *Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima,* ***East*** *: [Dirección4] with a frontage along it of one hundred thirty-three meters and fifty-seven linear centimeters* ***, West:** *Inversiones M H M Sociedad Anónima, as recorded in Cadastral Map* ***SJ-DOS DOS SIETE NUEVE CINCO CINCO CINCO-DOS MIL VEINTIUNO.*** *The petitioner acquired the land in the year two thousand seven, through a sale and purchase from the company Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima, legal ID number CED8 , transmitting the possession exercised publicly, peacefully, and as owner, which it had exercised for more than six years over the land. Possession which it had acquired since the year two thousand one from Mr. [Nombre3] who in turn possessed it as owner for more than thirty years. Since the petitioning company acquired the land, it has exercised public, peaceful possession as owner for more than ten years, which, together with the possession transferred by the company Inversiones H.M.H. Sociedad Anónima and Mr. [Nombre4] . In said materiality, it has carried out real and effective agrarian possessory acts, as owner, and continuously, consisting of maintenance of boundaries, installation of mixed-material post fences, cleaning and clearing of the farm, planting of agricultural products, construction of a ranch, a house, and maintenance of a sugar mill (trapiche), as well as reforestation of the stream that crosses the farm. The property was valued at the sum of thirteen million four hundred fifteen thousand colones, as were these proceedings. The related edict was published in the Judicial Bulletin number fifty of the fifteenth of March of two thousand twenty-two. The property is outside any protected wild area, and possessory acts have been exercised in compliance with the proper land use. The following testified as witnesses: [Nombre5] identity card CED9 , [Nombre6] identity card CED10 , [Nombre7] identity card CED11 . The property remains subject to the reservations regarding the rights of way of public roads provided for in articles four of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and nineteen, subsection a, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The area adjacent to the watercourses is a protection area, according to article 33, subsection b), of the Forest Law No. 7575, and the cutting or elimination of trees is prohibited. The streambed and the waters of this watercourse are public domain (Ley de Aguas, articles 1, subsection IV, and 3, subsection III). The surface and groundwater existing on the property (wells, etc.) are state public domain and are not part of the farm (Ley de Aguas, articles 1, subsection a and b, and 3, subsection III and Mining Code, article 4)* *,\"* (See file downloaded in PDF mode, images 153 to 160).-\n\n**IV.-** The Deputy Prosecutor, attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas, filed an appeal against the issued judgment, having as the main basis for her grievances the non-compliance with the minimum width of the public road, meaning part of a demanial asset would be titled. She states: \"... *The appealed resolution approved the proceedings even though there is evidence in the file that the property to be titled incorporates, both in materiality and in the map, portions of the right-of-way of the adjacent municipal road, a public domain asset over which private possession cannot be held: From report no. Officio PSAM-047-2022 of the Municipality of Puriscal, which is on record, it is extracted that the land to be titled, plotted in map no. SJ-1-2279555-2021, borders, along vertices 12 to 28, with a municipal public road, whose right-of-way width is 14 meters wide, and from report no. UT-IN- 114-BIS-2022, from the same local government, the following is inferred: “During the inspection, the property is located, which borders on the East with a public road that corresponds to a neighborhood road [Dirección5], which connects La Palma with Quivel, the same being passable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (4.0 meters average) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that they recently modified said fence, which allows for a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Map SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters”. Likewise, it is observed in the polygon of the base map of the proceedings that it does not comply with the 14-meter width indicated by the local government. The map violates public order norms, as it unduly adds an inalienable and imprescriptible asset to a private property (articles 2 and 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 2, 4 and 5 of the Construction Law; 235, subsection 33 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres, 261 and 262 of the Civil Code and resolutions numbers 2306-91 of 14:45 hrs. of November 6, 1991 and 1245 of 12:06 of May 8, 1992 of the Constitutional Chamber). The appealed judgment approved the proceedings and considered the title holder's possession of the land as proven, without considering what was stated by the local government and considered possession over public domain areas as accredited, which is contrary to law. Assets belonging to the public domain cannot be validly possessed by individuals, as they are allocated to a purpose of general utility: “Article 262.- Public things are outside of commerce; and they may not enter into it, while it is not legally so provided, separating them from the public use to which they were destined.” (Civil Code). The right-of-way is public domain. No use or usufruct in favor of individuals in terms of common law applies to it. Therefore, its occupation does not qualify as legitimate, suitable, or useful possession for usucapion (adverse possession) purposes. (Arts. 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 4 and 5 of the Construction Law, 833/1949; 2nd, subsection 43 of Law 9078/2012; Civil Code, arts. 261 and 262). In this sense, it is worth citing several precedents and regulations: 1) CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgment 4115/2010, reiterated in 16381/2010 and 568/2015: “Among the assets that are classified as demanial is the right-of-way, which must be understood as the set of land strips, whose purpose is the construction or expansion of public works for the circulation or transit of vehicles, or for works related to safety, ornamentation, and pedestrian use. Precisely, because it is a demanial asset, the right-of-way is not susceptible to possession by private individuals”. 2) “…the property occupied by the appellant, being a demanial asset, is excluded from the ordinary property regime, which implies the existence of a specific, singular, and exclusive legal regime, regulated by Administrative Law”. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgments 139/2010, 9014/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 7919/2011, 11443/2014, 12863/2014 and 20890/2014). 3) It is* *“strictly prohibited to construct, build, sell, cultivate, or exercise any form of occupation, on the rights-of-way of public roads, as well as to exercise any type of permanent possession or simple tenancy of these, except for the exceptions provided in this regulation. (art. 6°; Decreto 29253). 4) The inalienability of demanial assets makes their transfer and possession in terms of private Law impossible. Multiple resolutions of the CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER reaffirm that public domain assets \"cannot be the object of private possession\". Votos 480-90, 2306-91, 2557-91, 98-92, 1055-92, 1207-93, 5399-93, 5976-93, 220-94, 914- 94, 1763-94, 2767-94, 3793-94, 6785-94, 4619-94, 6079-94, 422-96, 31445-96, 3227-96, 4815-96, 5026-94, 623-98, 7294-98, 00790-2001, among many. 5) The nature of private property is incompatible with the nature of demanial assets, governed by Administrative Law. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgments 454/2006, 2408/2007, 3113/2009 and 8596/2013, among several). “Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special and distinct legal regime from that which governs private domain, which in addition to belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and which is manifested in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them”. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgments 2306/1991, 3145/1996 and 3667/2003. CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, FOURTH SECTION, judgment 33-2012, among others). 6) Public assets are destined for common use, outside the commerce of men, to serve the public interest. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgments 2306/1991, 7053/2005, 16281/2008, 8762/2009, 9777/2009, 9930/2009, 10108/2009, 11063/2009, 11254/2009, 11516/2009, 12936/2009, 14283/2009, 14376/2009, 14385/2009, 139/2010, 3584/2010, 4115/2010, 4212/2010, 4540/2010, 4646/2010, 5334/2010, 5455/2010, 6381/2010, 9014/2010, 9514/2010, 9533/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 13629/2010, 14859/2010, 14860/2010, 16381/2010, 17195/2010, 17195/2010, 7017/2011, 890/2014, 11433/2014 and 12863/2014). “As they are outside of commerce, these assets cannot be the object of private” possession. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER, judgments 877/2009, 3091/2009, 4199/2009, 14597/2009, 10271/2010, 14859/2010, 6381/2010, 568/2015, etc.). 7) The incorporation of public domain areas, destined for common use, into private lands, or expanding the area of the latter at the expense and to the detriment of the former, is illicit. “In reiterated jurisprudence, this Tribunal has indicated that due to their special characteristics, so-called demanial assets are not susceptible to appropriation by private individuals, because they are subject to a determined public purpose, as indicated in judgment number 2002-11216”. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER judgments 14860/2010, 16381/2010 and 568/2015). Likewise, various resolutions issued in the agrarian jurisdiction are in agreement that the right-of-way is not part of the lands to be titled and its incorporation renders null the judgment issued to the detriment of that demanial asset. In this regard, the following are cited from the Agrarian Tribunal, votes 208-F-10 and 0309-F-10: “It is decreed that, because the farm borders to the [Dirección6] direction with a public road, the right-of-way is fourteen meters, in accordance with article four of the Ley de Caminos Públicas and nineteen subsection a) of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and must be respected. An area that, being public domain, is not part of the property to be registered”. (emphasis supplied). “X- This Tribunal observes some aspects not prevented by the lower court that are mentioned below and that constitute requirements of this procedure. The map provided for rectification, visible on folio one, plots two public roads with a width of twelve square meters, consideration must be given to the provisions of article 4 of the Ley de Caminos Públicos which states: \"The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Public Works and Transportation, without it being able to be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter.\" (Ley General de Caminos Públicos number 5060 of August 22, 1972). (…) . Using the powers given to this instance to correct procedures that could cause defenselessness and for the sake of ensuring procedural economy, as the appealed judgment is premature, it must be ordered to annul the challenged judgment, so that the documents required to issue a final resolution are accredited to the record. It must be warned, prior to issuing judgment, that the petitioner must provide a new map that respects the legal width of the public road, granting a period of two months. Otherwise, the matter will be resolved with the documentation on record. POR TANTO: The judgment is annulled”. (emphasis supplied) III) The appealed resolution approved the titling despite the lack of fulfillment of requirements: II) The possessory information is a procedure to verify the consolidation of ownership and observance of the requirements of the Law. The adjustment of the map to the ordinance is one of those requirements (see article 2 of that Law). Due to the principle of cadastral-registry concordance, the cadastral map must conform to the reality of the land, and in this case, that is not happening. The proper course was to order the presentation of a new map that excluded the right-of-way or, failing that, to reject the proceedings. By virtue of the foregoing, I request that the appeal be deemed filed against judgment no. 2022000141, of 15:16 hours on July 13, 2022, that the file be sent to the Superior Court for its consideration and issuance of a resolution rejecting the proceedings, insofar as through it the registration of public domain assets over which private possession cannot be held is intended...*\" (see appeal brief added to the filings tray of the virtual desktop on 07/29/2022 at 11:59:57)\n\n**V.** The appeal with concomitant nullity is filed by attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas in her capacity as Deputy Prosecutor against the issued judgment, in essence, she disagrees because a property is being titled without respecting the minimum width of fourteen meters that the public road must have, therefore she considers it must be rejected as part of demanial land that could not be titled would be registered. In her sole grievance, the State's representative claims that the map representing the property to be titled does not respect the public road width established by article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Indeed, said norm provides that neighborhood roads must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, in the aforementioned map, said width is indicated as being barely 8 meters on the road that serves as the boundary along the [Dirección7] directions. This means that the public right-of-way is being disrespected and that part of the area of the said road is being incorporated into the area that the property to be titled represents.\n\nDuring the process, Official Letter UT-IN-114-BIS-2022 issued by inspector Danilo Castro Aguilar of the Technical Road Management Unit of the Municipality of Puriscal, dated May 27, 2022, was received, in which it was stated: “In the inspection, the property is located, which borders to the East with a public road that corresponds to a local road (camino vecinal) [Dirección5], which connects La Palma with Quivel, the same being passable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (average 4.0 meters) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that they recently modified said fence, which allows for a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Map SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters”. From the foregoing, what is indicated regarding the fact that the minimum width of the public road is not met is clear and conclusive. As the referenced report indicates, upon reviewing Cadastral Map N° 1-2279555-2021, it is clearly determined that the public road has a total measurement of eleven meters and twenty centimeters, therefore the minimum measurement that it must have in accordance with the aforementioned regulations is not met. It is important to note that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in vote 2306 of 2:45 p.m. on November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: “... public roads, which are lands of the public domain, as expressly defined in Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones); Article 28 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), Articles 44 and following of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), in relation to Articles 261 and 262 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) and subsection 14 of Article 121 and 174 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política).- The public domain is composed of goods that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called demanial goods, public goods or things, or public assets, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these goods belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of express regulation.- Characteristic notes of these goods are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law and administrative action replaces interdicts to recover ownership.- As they are outside commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right of use can be acquired, though not a right to property. ... In cases where occupation by means of self-help is attempted, whether peacefully or through acts of force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without the need to resort to any proceeding, nor to rules of due process, including the power to remove goods from occupied public sites, subject to being returned to their owners, except for perishable items, which, for reasons of protecting public health, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be understood to be violated, if it is a matter of preserving the nature and use of public goods; work, free commerce, the property and objective patrimony of individuals and all other rights, cannot be illegitimately imposed above and against the general interest, encumbering the State's goods that make up the demanio.” In accordance with what was stated by the Chamber, based on the regulations that govern public roads, among them the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), this Court considers that the arguments put forward by the municipal official who issued the report in reference are sufficient to conclude that the public road to which Cadastral Map N° 1-2279555-2021 refers is a local road (camino vecinal) administered by the Municipality of Puriscal that does not respect the width of the public right-of-way (vía pública), and therefore, consequently, the Court considers that the issued judgment is vitiated by premature nullity, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the drawing up of a new cadastral map within a reasonable period of two months from the finality of this resolution, by the petitioner, that respects the road right-of-way (derecho de vía) with a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved based on the evidence present in the case file. (in the same sense, see vote of this Court N° 442-F-2010 of 09:20 hours on 05/20/2020).\n\n**VI.** For the foregoing reasons, based on Articles 45 and 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), numeral 11 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), 6, 26, 54 and 79 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), 34 subsection e) of the Regulation of the National Cadastre Law (Reglamento de la Ley de Catastro Nacional), 4 of the Law of Public Roads (Ley de Caminos Públicos), a period of two months is granted to the petitioner to present a new map that considers the minimum width of the public road as applicable. Therefore, the nullity of the judgment is declared for having been issued prematurely.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nThe judgment is annulled. A period of two months is granted to the petitioner to present a new map that considers the minimum width of the public road as applicable.\n\n| | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| | ![]() | |\n| ???????????????
8DYVOUYZMWM61
[Nombre8] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ![]() |\n| ???????????????
R68R950FZ7A61
[Nombre9] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ???????????????
H9TCQRAWG0461
[Nombre10] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: EXPN1\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección8] , [Dirección9] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3].\n\n[...] Based on the ruling of the Chamber, grounded in the regulations governing public roads, including the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), this Tribunal finds that the arguments put forth by the municipal official who issued the report in question are sufficient to conclude that the public road referenced in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) No. 1-2279555-2021 is a neighborhood road administered by the Municipality of Puriscal that does not respect the public right-of-way width. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the judgment rendered is vitiated by premature nullity, since prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral map (plano catastrado) within a reasonable period of two months from the finality of this decision, by the petitioner, which respects the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, thereby proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved based on the evidence in the record. (see, in the same sense, vote of this Tribunal No. 442-F-2010 of 09:20 hours on 20/05/2020).\"\n\n[Public Limited Company] and Mr. [Nombre4]. In said materiality, he has exercised real and effective agrarian possessory acts, as owner, and continuously, consisting of boundary maintenance, placement of mixed-post fencing, cleaning and clearing (limpieza y chapea) of the farm, planting of agricultural products, construction of a ranch, a house, and maintenance of a sugarcane mill (trapiche), as well as reforestation of the stream (yurro) that crosses the farm. The property was valued at the sum of thirteen million four hundred fifteen thousand colones, as were these proceedings. The related edict was published in Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number fifty of the fifteenth of March of two thousand twenty-two. The property is outside any protected wild area, and the possessory acts have been exercised in compliance with the lawful use of the land. Witnesses included [Nombre5], identity card CED9, [Nombre6], identity card CED10, [Nombre7], identity card CED11. The property is subject to reservations regarding the rights-of-way of public roads as provided by articles four of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) and nineteen, subsection a, of the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). The area adjacent to the watercourses is a protection area, according to article 33, subsection b), of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575, and the cutting or elimination of trees is prohibited. The channel and the waters of that watercourse are in the public domain (Water Law (Ley de Aguas), articles 1, subsection IV, and 3, subsection III). The surface and underground waters existing on the property (wells, etc.) are state public domain property and do not form part of the farm (Water Law (Ley de Aguas), articles 1, subsections a and b, and 3, subsection III and Mining Code (Código de Minería), article 4),\" (See file downloaded in pdf format, images 153 to 160).-\n\n**IV.-** The Deputy Procurator, licensed attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas, filed an appeal against the judgment issued, with the main basis of her grievances being the failure to comply with the minimum width of the public road, meaning that part of a public domain asset (bien demanial) is being titled. She states: \"... The appealed resolution approved the proceedings despite there being evidence in the file that the property to be titled incorporates, both in its materiality and on the map, portions of the right-of-way of the adjoining municipal road, a public domain asset over which no private possession is possible: From report No. PSAM-047-2022 of the Municipalidad de Puriscal, which appears in the record, it is extracted that the land to be titled, drawn on map No. SJ-1-2279555-2021, borders, along vertices from 12 to 28, with a municipal public road, whose right-of-way width is 14 meters wide, and from report No. UT-IN-114-BIS-2022, from the same municipality, the following is extracted: \"In the inspection, the property is located, which borders the East with a public road that corresponds to a neighborhood road (camino vecinal) [Dirección5], which connects La Palma with Quivel, the same which is drivable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (4.0 meters average) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that said fence was recently modified, which allows having a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Map SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters.\" Likewise, it is observed in the polygon of the base map of the proceedings that it does not comply with the 14-meter width indicated by the municipality. The map violates public order norms, as it unduly adds an inalienable and imprescriptible asset to private property (articles 2 and 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos); 2, 4, and 5 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones); 235, subsection 33 of the Law of Transit by Land Public Routes (Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres), 261 and 262 of the Civil Code and resolutions numbers 2306-91 at 14:45 hrs. of November 6, 1991, and 1245 at 12:06 of May 8, 1992, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)). The appealed judgment approved the proceedings and considered the applicant's possession of the land to be proven, without taking into account what was stated by the municipality and considered possession over public domain areas to be accredited, which is contrary to law. Assets belonging to the public domain cannot be validly possessed by private individuals, as they are affected by a purpose of general utility: \"Article 262.- Public things are outside of commerce; and they may not enter into it, while it is not legally ordered so, separating them from the public use to which they were destined.\" (Civil Code). The right-of-way is in the public domain. Use or usufruct in favor of private individuals under the terms of common law does not proceed over it. Therefore, its occupation does not qualify as legitimate, effective, or useful possession for purposes of adverse possession (usucapir). (Arts. 2 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), 4 and 5 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), 833/1949; 2°, subsection 43 of Law 9078/2012; Civil Code, arts. 261 and 262). In this regard, several precedents and regulations should be cited: 1) CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgment 4115/2010, reiterated in 16381/2010 and 568/2015: \"Among the assets that are classified as demanial, is the right-of-way, which must be understood as the set of land strips, whose purpose is the construction or expansion of public works for circulation or transit of vehicles, or, for works related to safety, ornamentation, and pedestrian use. Precisely, because it is a demanial asset, the right-of-way is not susceptible to possession by private individuals.\" 2) \"…the property occupied by the appellant, being a demanial asset, is excluded from the regime of ordinary property, which implies the existence of its own, singular, and exclusive legal regime, regulated by Administrative Law.\" (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgments 139/2010, 9014/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 7919/2011, 11443/2014, 12863/2014 and 20890/2014). 3) It is \"strictly prohibited to build, erect, sell, cultivate, or exercise any form of occupation, in the rights-of-way of public roads, as well as to exercise any type of permanent possession or simple tenancy of these, except for the exceptions provided in this regulation. (art. 6°; Decree 29253). 4) The inalienability of demanial assets makes their transfer and possession under the terms of Private Law impossible. Multiple resolutions of the CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL) reaffirm that public domain assets \"cannot be the object of private possession.\" Votos 480-90, 2306-91, 2557-91, 98-92, 1055-92, 1207-93, 5399-93, 5976-93, 220-94, 914-94, 1763-94, 2767-94, 3793-94, 6785-94, 4619-94, 6079-94, 422-96, 31445-96, 3227-96, 4815-96, 5026-94, 623-98, 7294-98, 00790-2001, among many. 5) The nature of private property is incompatible with the nature of demanial assets, governed by Administrative Law. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgments 454/2006, 2408/2007, 3113/2009 and 8596/2013, among several). \"By public domain is understood the set of assets subject to a special legal regime, different from that which governs private domain, which, in addition to belonging to or being under the administration of public legal persons, are affected or destined for purposes of public utility and which manifests itself in the direct or indirect use that any person can make of them.\" (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgments 2306/1991, 3145/1996 and 3667/2003. CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, FOURTH SECTION, judgment 33-2012, among others). 6) Public assets are destined for common use, outside of commerce among men, to serve the public interest. (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgments 2306/1991, 7053/2005, 16281/2008, 8762/2009, 9777/2009, 9930/2009, 10108/2009, 11063/2009, 11254/2009, 11516/2009, 12936/2009, 14283/2009, 14376/2009, 14385/2009, 139/2010, 3584/2010, 4115/2010, 4212/2010, 4540/2010, 4646/2010, 5334/2010, 5455/2010, 6381/2010, 9014/2010, 9514/2010, 9533/2010, 10271/2010, 11731/2010, 12400/2010, 13629/2010, 14859/2010, 14860/2010, 16381/2010, 17195/2010, 17195/2010, 7017/2011, 890/2014, 11433/2014 and 12863/2014). \"As they are outside of commerce, these assets cannot be the object of private possession.\" (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL), judgments 877/2009, 3091/2009, 4199/2009, 14597/2009, 10271/2010, 14859/2010, 6381/2010, 568/2015, etc.). 7) The incorporation of public domain areas, destined for common use, into private lands is unlawful, as is expanding the capacity of these at the expense and to the detriment of the former. \"In reiterated jurisprudence, this Tribunal has indicated that, due to their special characteristics, the so-called demanial assets are not susceptible to appropriation by private individuals, because they are subject to a specific public purpose, as indicated in judgment number 2002-11216.\" (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL) judgments 14860/2010, 16381/2010 and 568/2015). Likewise, various resolutions issued in agrarian jurisdiction concur that the right-of-way is not part of the lands to be titled, and its incorporation causes the judgment issued to be to the detriment of that demanial asset. In this regard, the following are cited from the Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Agrario), votes 208-F-10 and 0309-F-10: \"It is decreed that, because the farm borders the direction [Dirección6] with a public road, the right-of-way is fourteen meters, in accordance with article four of the Public Roads Law (Ley de Caminos Públicas) and nineteen, subsection a) of the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) and must be respected. An area that, being public domain, is not part of the property to be registered.\" (emphasis supplied). \"X- This Tribunal observes some aspects not foreseen by the court of first instance (a quo) which are cited below and which constitute requirements of this procedure. The map provided for rectification, visible on folio one, depicts two public roads with a width of twelve square meters, the provisions of article 4 of the Law of Public Roads (Ley de Caminos Públicos) must be considered, which reads: \"The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes), and may not be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter.\" (General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) number 5060 of August 22, 1972). (…). Using the powers granted to this instance to correct procedures that could cause defenselessness (indefensión), and in the interest of securing procedural economy, as the appealed judgment was premature, it should be ordered to annul the contested judgment, so that the documents required to issue a final resolution are accredited to the record. It must be ordered (prevenirse), prior to issuing judgment, that the applicant must provide a new map that respects the legal width of the public road, granting a period of two months. Otherwise, a resolution will be made with the documentation existing in the record. THEREFORE (POR TANTO): The judgment is annulled.\" (emphasis supplied) III) The appealed resolution approved the titling despite the failure to comply with requirements: II) The possessory information (información posesoria) is a proceeding to verify the consolidation of property and observance of the requirements of the Law. The adjustment of the map to the legal system is one of those requirements (see article 2° of that Law). By the principle of registry-cadastral concordance, the cadastral map must conform to the reality of the land, and in this case, that does not occur. The proper course was to order (prevenir) the presentation of a new map that excluded the right-of-way or, failing that, to reject the proceedings. By virtue of the foregoing, I request that the appeal against judgment No. 2022000141, of 15:16 hours on July 13, 2022, be deemed filed, remitting the file to the Superior Court for its consideration and for issuance of a resolution denying the proceedings, as through them the registration of public domain assets over which no private possession is possible is sought...\" (see appeal brief added to the electronic filing tray of the virtual desktop on 07/29/2022 at 11:59:57)\n\n**V.** The appeal with concomitant nullity is filed by licensed attorney Yamileth Monestel Vargas, in her capacity as Deputy Procurator, against the judgment issued; in its core, she disagrees because a property is being titled without respecting the minimum width of fourteen meters that the public road must have, for which reason she considers it must be rejected as part of a demanial land (terreno demanial) that could not be titled would be registered. In her sole grievance, the State's representative alleges that the map representing the property to be titled does not respect the public road width established by article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos). Indeed, said norm provides that neighborhood roads (caminos vecinales) must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, in the aforementioned map, it is indicated that said width is barely 8 meters on the road that serves as the boundary for the directions [Dirección7]. This means that the public right-of-way is being disrespected and that part of the area of the aforementioned road is being incorporated into the area that represents the property to be titled. In the process, Official Letter (Oficio) UT-IN-114-BIS-2022 issued by the inspector of the Technical Road Management Unit (Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial), Danilo Castro Aguilar, of the Municipalidad de Puriscal, dated May 27, 2022, was received, in which it was recorded: \"In the inspection, the property is located, which borders the East with a public road that corresponds to a neighborhood road (camino vecinal) [Dirección5], which connects La Palma with Quivel, the same which is drivable for all types of vehicles with ballast surfaces (4.0 meters average) and a small hydraulic concrete slab (5.0 meters), the road has an average width of 10.50 meters. This considering that said fence was recently modified, which allows having a width of 5.25 meters from the center of the road, it has basic electricity and water services. According to Cadastral Map SJ-1-2279555-2021, the road is referenced with a width of 11.20 meters.\" From the foregoing, it is clear and forceful what is indicated regarding the failure to comply with the minimum width of the public road. As the report indicates, upon reviewing cadastral map No. 1-2279555-2021, it is possible to clearly determine that the public road has a total measurement of eleven meters twenty centimeters, so it does not comply with the minimum measurement that it must have according to the aforementioned regulations. It is important to point out that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in vote (voto) 2306 of 14 hours 45 minutes of November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: \"... public roads, which are lands of public domain, as expressly defined by the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) in its articles 4, 5, and 6; article 28 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), articles 44 and following of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), in relation to articles 261 and 262 of the Civil Code and subsection 14 of article 121 and 174 of the Political Constitution.- The public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called dominical assets, demanial assets, public things or public assets, which do not belong individually to private individuals and which are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside of commerce among men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm.- Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to liens under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover the domain.- As they are outside of commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a right to property. ... In cases where occupation is intended by act of possession (vías de hecho), whether peacefully or through acts of force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without needing to resort to any file, nor to rules of due process, including the power to remove goods from occupied public sites, reserving the right to return them to their owners, except perishable items, which, for reasons of public health protection, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be considered to have been violated, if it is about preserving the nature and use of public assets; work, free trade, property, and the objective assets of individuals and all other rights cannot be illegitimately imposed over and against the general interest, encumbering the assets of the State that make up the public domain (demanio).\" Pursuant to what was stated by the Chamber, based on the regulations governing public roads, among them the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), this Tribunal considers that the arguments put forward by the municipal official who issued the report in reference are sufficient to conclude that the public road referred to by cadastral map No. 1-2279555-2021 is a neighborhood road (camino vecinal) administered by the Municipalidad de Puriscal that does not respect the public road width, for which reason, consequently, the Tribunal considers that the judgment issued is vitiated by nullity as premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the drawing up of a new cadastral map within the prudential period of two months from the finality of this resolution, by the applicant, which respects the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, a resolution will be made with the evidence existing in the record.\n\n(in the same vein, see ruling of this Court No. 442-F-2010 of 09:20 hours on 20/05/2020).

VI. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to articles 45 and 50 of the Constitución Política, numeral 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 6, 26, 54 and 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, 34 subsection e) of the Reglamento de la Ley de Catastro Nacional, 4 of the Ley de Caminos Públicos, the petitioner is granted a term of  two months to submit a new plan (plano) that contemplates the minimum width of the  public street as applicable.  Therefore, the judgment is declared null as it was rendered prematurely.

POR TANTO:

The judgment is annulled.  The petitioner is granted a term of  two months to submit a new plan (plano) that  contemplates the minimum width of the  public street as applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

\"\"

 

\"\"

???????????????

8DYVOUYZMWM61

[Nombre8]   - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

\"\"

???????????????

R68R950FZ7A61

[Nombre9]    - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

 

???????????????

H9TCQRAWG0461

[Nombre10]   - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

 

 

 

 

EXP: EXPN1

II Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección8] ,     , [Dirección9]  de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]

 

 

 

\"" }