{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1153033", "citation": "Res. 00286-2023 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Apelación por inadmisión contra orden de cancelar planos catastrados en información posesoria", "title_en": "Appeal against inadmission of order to cancel cadastral maps in possessory information proceeding", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario conoció de una apelación por inadmisión presentada por la parte promovente en un proceso de información posesoria. El Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos les había prevenido cancelar varios planos catastrados para evitar duplicidad de títulos, y había rechazado un recurso de apelación contra esa prevención. La mayoría del Tribunal admitió la apelación por inadmisión, considerando que la resolución que ordena cancelar planos catastrados sí es susceptible de apelación porque genera un efecto propio en el proceso, al imposibilitar su continuación. Sin embargo, la jueza Alpízar Rodríguez salvó el voto, señalando que la apelación por inadmisión procede únicamente cuando se deniega ilegalmente un recurso de apelación, pero que en este caso la resolución apelada no es apelable según el artículo 59 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, pues no pone fin al proceso ni es imposible de cumplir. La mayoría admitió el recurso y en su lugar admitió la apelación ordinaria contra la resolución que ordenó la cancelación de los planos.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court heard an appeal against the inadmission of an ordinary appeal filed by the petitioners in a possessory information proceeding. The Agrarian Court of San Carlos had ordered them to cancel several cadastral maps to avoid title duplication, and had rejected an appeal against that order. The majority of the Court admitted the inadmission appeal, holding that the order to cancel cadastral maps is appealable because it produces an independent effect in the proceeding, by making its continuation impossible. However, Judge Alpízar Rodríguez dissented, arguing that an inadmission appeal only lies when an appeal has been illegally denied, but that in this case the order was not appealable under Article 59 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, since it does not end the proceeding nor is impossible to comply with. The majority admitted the appeal and, in its place, admitted the ordinary appeal against the order to cancel the maps.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "14/04/2023", "year": "2023", "topic_ids": [ "property-and-titling" ], "primary_topic_id": "property-and-titling", "es_concept_hints": [ "apelación por inadmisión", "información posesoria", "planos catastrados", "duplicidad de títulos", "efectos propios", "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "artículo 59" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "apelación por inadmisión", "información posesoria", "planos catastrados", "cancelación de planos", "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "artículo 59", "duplicidad de títulos", "voto salvado", "tribunal agrario", "efectos propios" ], "keywords_en": [ "appeal against inadmission", "possessory information", "cadastral maps", "map cancellation", "Agrarian Jurisdiction Law", "article 59", "title duplication", "dissenting opinion", "agrarian court", "independent effects" ], "excerpt_es": "Al analizar este Tribunal lo decidido por el Juzgado de Instancia considera la resolución apelada si goza de tal remedio recursivo al generar un efecto propio en el proceso, imposibilitando la continuación del trámite del expediente, producto de la prevención que el Juzgado giró a las personas promovente con relación a acreditar la cancelación de una serie de planos catastrados, a saber los números A-1733352-2014, A-1659-1964, A-1853883-2015, A-983-1971, A-822263-2002 y A-764621-2022, que en apariencia modifican al plano objeto de inscripción.", "excerpt_en": "Upon analyzing the decision by the lower court, this Court finds that the appealed resolution does have such appellate remedy, as it produces an independent effect in the proceeding, making the continuation of the case impossible, due to the warning that the Court issued to the petitioners regarding accrediting the cancellation of a series of cadastral maps, namely numbers A-1733352-2014, A-1659-1964, A-1853883-2015, A-983-1971, A-822263-2002 and A-764621-2022, which apparently modify the map subject to registration.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Admits inadmission appeal", "label_es": "Admite apelación por inadmisión", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court admits the inadmission appeal and, in its place, admits the ordinary appeal against the resolution that ordered the cancellation of cadastral maps.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario admite la apelación por inadmisión y, en su lugar, admite el recurso de apelación ordinaria contra la resolución que ordenó cancelar planos catastrados." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Voto salvado de la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez", "quote_en": "The inadmission appeal is the procedural instrument that parties have to challenge resolutions that illegally deny an appeal.", "quote_es": "La apelación por inadmisión es el instrumento procesal que tienen las partes para impugnar resoluciones que deniegan ilegalmente un recurso de apelación." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "Upon analyzing the decision by the lower court, this Court finds that the appealed resolution does have such appellate remedy, as it produces an independent effect in the proceeding, making the continuation of the case impossible.", "quote_es": "Al analizar este Tribunal lo decidido por el Juzgado de Instancia considera la resolución apelada si goza de tal remedio recursivo al generar un efecto propio en el proceso, imposibilitando la continuación del trámite del expediente." }, { "context": "Voto salvado de la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez", "quote_en": "It does not put an end to the proceedings nor is it a formality that the party is unable to comply with, or at least there is no proof of such impossibility.", "quote_es": "No pone fin al proceso ni es un trámite que la parte esté imposibilitada de cumplir, o al menos no consta prueba de ello." } ], "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-12443", "citation": "Ley 7130", "title_en": "Code of Civil Procedure", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "16/08/1989", "year": "1989" }, { "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-38469", "citation": "Ley 6545", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/03/1981", "year": "1981" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-10044", "citation": "Ley 139", "title_en": "Possessory Information Law", "title_es": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/07/1941", "year": "1941" }, { "id": "norm-12443", "citation": "Ley 7130", "title_en": "Code of Civil Procedure", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "16/08/1989", "year": "1989" }, { "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-38469", "citation": "Ley 6545", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/03/1981", "year": "1981" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-1153033", "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-12443", "norm_num": "7130", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "16/08/1989" }, { "doc_id": "norm-2107", "norm_num": "6734", "norm_name": "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/03/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38469", "norm_num": "6545", "norm_name": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "25/03/1981" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Firmar Documento\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\n????????????????\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n17-000054-0298-AG - 2\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPROCESO:\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\nACTIVIDAD JUDICIAL NO CONTENCIOSA\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPROMUEVE:\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\nANALIVE GUTIERREZ QUESADA\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\nVOTO N° N° 2023000286 \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\nTRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las once horas quince minutos del catorce de abril de dos mil veintitrés.-\n\r\n\n APELACIÓN POR INADMISIÓN interpuesto dentro del PROCESO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovido por ANALIVE GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA, mayor, casada una vez, ama de casa, vecina de Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, cédula de identidad dos - doscientos noventa y seis - quinientos noventa y cuatro; MARÍA LUISA GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA, mayor, soltera, ama de casa, vecina de Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, cédula de identidad dos - trescientos sesenta y cinco - ciento treinta y cinco; y LUIS ÁNGEL GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA, mayor, casada una vez, agricultor, vecino de Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, cédula de identidad dos - trescientos treinta y nueve - ciento once. Intervienen como partes interesadas LA PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, cédula jurídica dos - cero cero cero cero - cuarenta y cinco mil quinientos veintidós, representada por su procuradora adjunta Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, mayor, soltera, abogada, vecina de Alajuela, cédula de identidad dos - cuatrocientos sesenta y seis - cero sesenta y cinco; y EL INSTITUTO DESARROLLO RURAL (INDER) cédula jurídica cuatro - cero cero cero cero - cero cuarenta y dos mil ciento cuarenta y tres - once, representada por su apoderada general judicial Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz, mayor, divorciada dos veces, abogada, vecina de San Ramón de Alajuela, cédula de identidad uno - quinientos noventa y ocho - ciento uno, carné veintiún mil trescientos cuarenta y dos. Actúa como apoderado especial judicial de la parte actora el licenciado Javier Alfaro Blanco, colegiado dos mil quinientos cuarenta y seis. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos. Conoce este Tribunal de la apelación por inadmisión contra la resolución de las nueve horas treinta y siete minutos del catorce de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés.\n\r\n\n Redacta el juez López Barrantes; y,\n\r\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\r\n\n I.- Mediante escrito visible en las imágenes 251 a 255 del expediente electrónico, descargado en su totalidad de forma ascedente, la parte titulante apela por inadmisión la resolución dictada por el Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos a las nueve horas con treinta y siete minutos del catorce de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés (imagen 247), en la cual se rechazó un recurso de apelación en contra de lo resuelto en esa Instancia a las catorce horas con cuarenta y dos minutos del ocho de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés (cuadro 241), decisión judicial que le previno a la parte promovente cancelar unos planos catrastrados a fin de evitar duplicidad de títulos.\n\r\n\n II.- En materia recursiva la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria posee su propio régimen. El ordinal 60 en lo de interés remite al capítulo de la ley laboral. El punto en cuestión radica determinar en cuáles casos ha de emplearse la reforma a tal cuerpo laboral amparado bajo ley 9343, el cual entró en vigor a partir del 26 de julio de 2017. La sección transitoria ofrece varios supuestos para el empleo. Empero, este tribunal ha analizado considerando estas estipulaciones, lo que acontece con el instituto de la apelación por inadmisión. En la reforma procesal laboral se contempla en el numeral 599 en cuanto señala, los efectos de la apelación, la apelación adhesiva y la apelación por inadmisión se regirán por lo dispuesto en la legislación procesal civil. También resulta de especial interés indicar en los asuntos que se encontraban en trámite para el 26 de julio de 2017, cuáles son las normas de empleo del rito civil concernientes a la apelación por inadmisión puesto que las novísimas reglas procesales contienen diferencias sustanciales tocante a la formalidad, plazo de interposición, oficina para presentar la gestión, sanción procesal por conducta maliciosa del gestionante. Como se está en un momento de transición de dos cuerpos normativos procesales de empleo supletoria a la materia agraria, se ha analizado los alcances de las normas transitorias. Además, conscientes de la necesidad de criterios claros, precisos de parte de esta sección del tribunal, es que se ha concluido, producto del estudio de las normas supracitadas se estima lo proporcional y razonable es emplear el procedimiento contemplado en el artículo 68 del Código Procesal Civil Ley 9342 de manera supletoria por la remisión del artículo 599 del Código de Trabajo número 9343 (ver Voto de esta sede número 547-F-2019 del 18 de julio de 2019).\n\r\n\n III.- Estima esta instancia se han cumplido las formalidades del recurso y éste se ha intepuesto en el plazo de los tres días. Ahora bien, sobre las resoluciones que gozan de recurso de apelación la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria contempla en el ordinal 59 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria cuáles asuntos tienen tal remedio de impugnación. De la letra de ese precepto legal se extraen los siguientes: 1. las sentencias; 2. las resoluciones que declaren con lugar las defensas previas; 3. o, que en cualquier forma pongan fin a los procedimientos, por hacer imposible su continuación o reiteración; también procederá el recurso en los casos expresamente admitidos en la presente ley. 4. Por jurisprudencia constitucional (ver Votos otos 300 de 21.07.1990 y 1112 de 25.02.1994 de la Sala Constitucional) la cual es vinculante de conformidad con el artículo 13 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, también son recurribles por esa vía las decisiones judiciales con efectos propios, en respeto a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 2, 8, 25 y 29 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (o \"Pacto de San José de Costa Rica\", Ley 4534). En el presente asunto la parte titulante apela por inadmisión la resolución de las la resolución dictada por el Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos a las nueve horas con treinta y siete minutos del catorce de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés (imagen 247), en la cual se rechazó un recurso de apelación en contra de lo resuelto en esa Instancia a las catorce horas con cuarenta y dos minutos del ocho de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés (cuadro 241), decisión judicial que le previno a la parte promovente cancelar unos planos catrastrados a fin de evitar duplicidad de títulos. Al analizar este Tribunal lo decidido por el Juzgado de Instancia considera la resolución apelada si goza de tal remedio recursivo al generar un efecto propio en el proceso, imposibilitando la continuación del trámite del expediente, producto de la prevención que el Juzgado giró a las personas promovente con relación a acreditar la cancelación de una serie de planos catastrados, a saber los números A-1733352-2014, A-1659-1964, A-1853883-2015, A-983-1971, A-822263-2002 y A-764621-2022, que en apariencia modifican al plano objeto de inscripción.\n\r\n\n IV.- De acuerdo a lo expuesto, artículos 6, 26, 59 y 60 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, 599 del Código de Trabajo, y 68 del Código Procesal Civil, deberá de admitirse el recurso de apelación por inadmisión interpuesto por la parte demandada en contra de la resolución dictada por el Juzgado a las nueve horas treinta y siete minutos del catorce de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés. En su lugar, se admite el recurso de apelación planteado por la personas titulantes en contra de la resolución de las catorce horas con cuarenta y dos minutos del ocho de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés.\n\r\n\n V.- Voto salvado de la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez: La suscrita jueza Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez suscribe, pero no comparte, el voto de la mayoría, en cuanto acoge un recurso de apelación por inadmisión contra la resolución que denegó tuviese apelación ordinaria la decisión de ordenar cancelar planos catastrados que se modifican por el plano base del proceso de información posesorio. La apelación por inadmisión es el instrumento procesal que tienen las partes para impugnar resoluciones que deniegan ilegalmente un recurso de apelación (artículos 60 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria y 583 del Código Procesal Civil 7130, aplicado supletoriamente por la fecha de inicio del proceso principal). Es un recurso de carácter extraordinario y procede cuando se ha denegado, ilegalmente, un recurso de apelación. En el presente caso, lo que fue objeto de apelación carece de apelación, conforme lo dispone el numeral 59 de la Ley de Jurisdicción. No pone fin al proceso ni es un trámite que la parte esté imposibilita de cumplir, o al menos no consta prueba de ello. La cancelación de planos catastrados que no deban existir por ésta esté tramitando procesos de información posesorio con base en uno que modifica o deja sin efecto los anteriores es una orden legítima, necesaria para la seguridad jurídica, que tiene su fundamento en los numerales 2, 11 Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 2, 3, y 18 Ley Catastro Nacional y 55, 71, 86 a 90 de su Reglamento (éste último contiene las reglas y trámites para la cancelación de planos catastrados). La parte recurrente tampoco ha demostrado que exista alguna imposibilidad legal para cumplir con lo ordenado en la resolución del 5 de enero 2022, que le impida entonces continuar con el proceso, posibilidad ante lo cual podría valorarse si se trata de una resolución con efectos propios. Lo que manifiesta es que lo ordenado es una “carga tediosa” y considera es un requisito no regulado en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Por ende, conforme a lo que consta en el proceso hasta el momento, procede confirmar la resolución del 14 de febrero 2023 que denegó la apelación ordinaria y declarar sin lugar la presente apelación por inadmisión.\n\r\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\r\n\n Se admite el recurso de apelación por inadmisión interpuesto por la parte promovente en contra de la resolución dictada por el Juzgado a las nueve horas treinta y siete minutos del catorce de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés. En su lugar, se admite el recurso de apelación planteado por dicha parte en contra de la resolución de las catorce horas con cuarenta y dos minutos del ocho de febrero del año dos mil veintitrés. La jueza Alpízar Rodríguez salva el voto.\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n???????????????\n\r\n\nXHROS8LYTPQ61\n\r\n\nGEISON LOPEZ BARRANTES - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n???????????????\n\r\n\nUBTSVIETF6861\n\r\n\nMARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n???????????????\n\r\n\nFGTGZRXZIH461\n\r\n\nRUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n\r\n\nEXP: 17-000054-0298-AG\n\r\n\nII Circuito Judicial San José, 4º piso, edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Calle Blancos de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: 2247-9093. Fax: 2280-6317 ó 2280-8381. Correo electrónico: tagrario-sgdoc@poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "**VOTO No. 2023000286**\n\n**AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.-** At eleven hours fifteen minutes on the fourteenth of April, two thousand twenty-three.-\n\n**APPEAL AGAINST DENIAL OF LEAVE TO APPEAL (APELACIÓN POR INADMISIÓN)** filed within the **POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING (PROCESO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA)** initiated by **ANALIVE GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, married once, homemaker, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - two hundred ninety-six - five hundred ninety-four; **MARÍA LUISA GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, single, homemaker, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - three hundred sixty-five - one hundred thirty-five; and **LUIS ÁNGEL GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - three hundred thirty-nine - one hundred eleven. Appearing as interested parties are **THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC (PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA)**, legal identification number two - zero zero zero zero - forty-five thousand five hundred twenty-two, represented by its deputy attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Alajuela, identity card number two - four hundred sixty-six - zero sixty-five; and **THE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, INDER)** legal identification number four - zero zero zero zero - zero forty-two thousand one hundred forty-three - eleven, represented by its general judicial representative Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz, of legal age, twice divorced, attorney, resident of San Ramón de Alajuela, identity card number one - five hundred ninety-eight - one hundred one, bar card number twenty-one thousand three hundred forty-two. Acting as special judicial representative of the plaintiff is attorney Javier Alfaro Blanco, bar association number two thousand five hundred forty-six. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos. This Tribunal hears the appeal against denial of leave to appeal (apelación por inadmisión) against the decision of nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three.\n\nDrafted by Judge López Barrantes; and,\n\n**WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO):**\n\n**I.-** By brief visible in images 251 to 255 of the electronic case file, downloaded in its entirety in ascending order, the titleholders appeal against denial of leave to appeal the decision issued by the Agrarian Court of San Carlos at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (image 247), in which an appeal against the decision of that Instance at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (box 241) was rejected, a judicial decision that warned the petitioners to cancel certain cadastral plots (planos catastrados) in order to avoid duplication of titles.\n\n**II.-** In matters of appeals, the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction possesses its own regime. Article 60, in what is of interest, refers to the chapter of the labor law. The point in question lies in determining in which cases the reform to such labor body, under Law 9343, which came into force on July 26, 2017, must be used. The transitional section offers several scenarios for its use. However, this tribunal has analyzed, considering these stipulations, what happens with the institute of the appeal against denial of leave to appeal (apelación por inadmisión). In the labor procedural reform, it is contemplated in Article 599 insofar as it indicates that the effects of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and the appeal against denial of leave to appeal shall be governed by the provisions of the civil procedural legislation. It is also of particular interest to indicate, for matters that were pending as of July 26, 2017, which rules of the civil procedure are applicable concerning the appeal against denial of leave to appeal, since the newest procedural rules contain substantial differences regarding formality, filing deadline, office where the motion must be filed, and procedural sanction for malicious conduct of the petitioner. As we are in a moment of transition between two procedural normative bodies for supplementary use in agrarian matters, the scope of the transitional rules has been analyzed. Moreover, aware of the need for clear, precise criteria from this section of the tribunal, it has been concluded, as a result of the study of the aforementioned rules, that it is proportional and reasonable to employ the procedure contemplated in Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, Law 9342, in a supplementary manner by the remission of Article 599 of the Labor Code, number 9343 (see Decision of this court, number 547-F-2019 of July 18, 2019).\n\n**III.-** This instance considers that the formalities of the appeal have been met and it has been filed within the three-day period. Now, regarding the decisions that are subject to appeal, the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction contemplates in Article 59 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction which matters have such a remedy for challenge. From the letter of that legal precept, the following are extracted: **1.** judgments; **2.** decisions that uphold preliminary defenses; **3.** or, that in any way put an end to the proceedings, by making their continuation or reiteration impossible; the appeal shall also be available in cases expressly admitted in this law. **4.** By constitutional jurisprudence (see Decisions 300 of 07.21.1990 and 1112 of 02.25.1994 of the Constitutional Chamber) which is binding in accordance with Article 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, judicial decisions with their own effects are also appealable through this means, in respect of the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 8, 25, and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights (the \"Pact of San José, Costa Rica,\" Law 4534). **In the present matter,** the titleholders appeal against denial of leave to appeal the decision issued by the Agrarian Court of San Carlos at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (image 247), in which an appeal against the decision of that Instance at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (box 241) was rejected, a judicial decision that warned the petitioners to cancel certain cadastral plots (planos catastrados) in order to avoid duplication of titles. Upon this Tribunal analyzing what was decided by the Lower Court, it considers that the appealed decision does indeed have such a procedural remedy, as it generates an effect of its own on the proceeding, making the continuation of the process impossible, as a result of the warning that the Court issued to the petitioners regarding accrediting the cancellation of a series of cadastral plots, specifically numbers A-1733352-2014, A-1659-1964, A-1853883-2015, A-983-1971, A-822263-2002 and A-764621-2022, which apparently modify the plot (plano) subject to registration.\n\n**IV.-** In accordance with the foregoing, Articles 6, 26, 59, and 60 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction, 599 of the Labor Code, and 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal against denial of leave to appeal (apelación por inadmisión) filed by the defendant against the decision issued by the Court at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three must be granted. In its place, the appeal filed by the titleholders against the decision of fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is granted.\n\n**V.- Dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez:** The undersigned judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez signs, but does not share, the majority vote, insofar as it grants an appeal against denial of leave to appeal (apelación por inadmisión) against the decision that denied an ordinary appeal (apelación ordinaria) against the decision ordering the cancellation of cadastral plots that are modified by the base plot (plano) of the possessory information proceeding. The appeal against denial of leave to appeal is the procedural instrument that the parties have to challenge decisions that illegally deny an appeal (Articles 60 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction and 583 of the Civil Procedure Code 7130, applied supplementarily due to the date of commencement of the main proceeding). It is an extraordinary remedy and is available when an appeal has been illegally denied. In the present case, what was the object of the appeal lacks the possibility of appeal, pursuant to Article 59 of the Law of Jurisdiction. It does not put an end to the proceeding, nor is it a step that the party is unable to fulfill, or at least there is no proof of this. The cancellation of cadastral plots that should not exist because a possessory information proceeding is being processed based on one that modifies or renders the previous ones without effect is a legitimate order, necessary for legal certainty, which has its basis in Articles 2, 11 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), 2, 3, and 18 of the National Cadastre Law (Ley Catastro Nacional) and 55, 71, 86 to 90 of its Regulations (the latter contains the rules and procedures for the cancellation of cadastral plots). The appellant has also not demonstrated that there is any legal impossibility to comply with what was ordered in the decision of January 5, 2022, which would therefore prevent the continuation of the proceeding, a possibility in light of which it could be assessed whether it is a decision with its own effects. What it states is that what was ordered is an \"onerous burden (carga tediosa)\" and considers it is a requirement not regulated in the Law of Possessory Information. Therefore, according to what is recorded in the proceeding so far, it is appropriate to confirm the decision of February 14, 2023, which denied the ordinary appeal and to dismiss the present appeal against denial of leave to appeal.\n\n**THEREFORE (POR TANTO):**\n\nThe appeal against denial of leave to appeal (apelación por inadmisión) filed by the petitioners against the decision issued by the Court at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is granted. In its place, the appeal filed by said party against the decision of fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is granted. Judge Alpízar Rodríguez dissents.\n\nJudge Alpízar Rodríguez dissents.\n\n| | | |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| | ![image]() | |\n| ![image]() | ??????????????? XHROS8LYTPQ61 GEISON LOPEZ BARRANTES - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | ![image]() |\n| ??????????????? UBTSVIETF6861 MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ??????????????? FGTGZRXZIH461 RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: 17-000054-0298-AG\nII Circuito Judicial San José, 4º piso, edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Calle Blancos de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: 2247-9093. Fax: 2280-6317 ó 2280-8381.\n\n**EXPEDIENT:** 17-000054-0298-AG - 2\n\n**PROCEEDING:** NON-CONTENTIOUS JUDICIAL ACTIVITY\n\n**MOVING PARTY:** ANALIVE GUTIERREZ QUESADA\n\n \n\n   \n\n**VOTO N°  N° 2023000286**\n\n \n\n**AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL**.\n\nSECOND **JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.— At** **eleven hours fifteen minutes on the fourteenth of April two thousand twenty-three.—**\n\n**APPEAL AGAINST DENIAL OF ADMISSION** filed within the **POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING** brought by **ANALIVE GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, married once, homemaker, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - two hundred ninety-six - five hundred ninety-four; **MARÍA LUISA GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, single, homemaker, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - three hundred sixty-five - one hundred thirty-five; and **LUIS ÁNGEL GUTIÉRREZ QUESADA**, of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of Caimitos de Florencia, San Carlos, identity card number two - three hundred thirty-nine - one hundred eleven. Appearing as interested parties are **THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC**, legal identification number two - zero zero zero zero - forty-five thousand five hundred twenty-two, represented by its deputy attorney **Lydiana Rodríguez** **Paniagua**, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Alajuela, identity card number two - four hundred sixty-six - zero sixty-five; and **THE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (INDER)** legal identification number four - zero zero zero zero - zero forty-two thousand one hundred forty-three - eleven, represented by its general judicial representative **Marjorie Mayela Madrigal Muñoz**, of legal age, divorced twice, attorney, resident of San Ramón de Alajuela, identity card number one - five hundred ninety-eight - one hundred one, bar association number twenty-one thousand three hundred forty-two. Acting as special judicial representative for the plaintiffs is attorney **Javier Alfaro Blanco**, bar association number two thousand five hundred forty-six. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos. This Tribunal hears the appeal against denial of admission against the resolution issued at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three.\n\nDrafted by Judge **López Barrantes**; and,\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**I.-** By means of a filing visible in images 251 to 255 of the electronic case file, downloaded in its entirety in ascending order, the titleholder party appeals against denial of admission of the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of San Carlos at nine hours and thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (image 247), in which an appeal was rejected against what was decided by that Instance at fourteen hours and forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (box 241), a judicial decision that cautioned the moving party to cancel certain cadastral plans (planos catastrados) in order to avoid duplication of titles.\n\n**II.-** Regarding remedies, the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction has its own regime. Article 60, as relevant, refers to the labor law chapter. The point in question lies in determining in which cases the reform to said labor body under Law 9343, which came into effect as of July 26, 2017, is to be used. The transitional section offers several scenarios for its use. However, this tribunal has analyzed, considering these stipulations, what happens with the legal institution of the appeal against denial of admission (apelación por inadmisión). In the labor procedural reform, it is contemplated in numeral 599 insofar as it states that the effects of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and the appeal against denial of admission shall be governed by what is provided in civil procedural legislation. It is also of special interest to indicate, in matters that were pending as of July 26, 2017, which rules of the civil procedure are to be used concerning the appeal against denial of admission, since the newest procedural rules contain substantial differences regarding formality, time limit for filing, office where the filing must be submitted, and procedural sanction for malicious conduct by the filer. As we are at a moment of transition between two procedural regulatory bodies for supplementary use in agrarian matters, the scope of the transitional rules has been analyzed. Furthermore, conscious of the need for clear, precise criteria from this section of the tribunal, it has been concluded, as a product of the study of the aforementioned rules, that what is proportionate and reasonable is to use the procedure contemplated in Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, Law 9342, in a supplementary manner by remittance of Article 599 of the Labor Code number 9343 (see Ruling of this Court number 547-F-2019 of July 18, 2019).\n\n**III.-** This instance deems that the formalities of the appeal have been met and that it was filed within the three-day period. Now then, regarding the resolutions subject to the appeal remedy, the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction contemplates in Article 59 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction which matters have such a challenge remedy. From the text of that legal precept, the following are extracted: **1.** judgments; **2.** resolutions that grant preliminary defenses (defensas previas); **3.** or, that in any way terminate the proceedings, by making their continuation or repetition impossible; the remedy shall also proceed in cases expressly admitted in this law. **4.** By constitutional jurisprudence (see Rulings 300 of 21.07.1990 and 1112 of 25.02.1994 of the Constitutional Chamber) which is binding in accordance with article 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, judicial decisions with their own effects are also challengeable by this means, in respect of what is provided in articles 1, 2, 8, 25 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights (or \"Pact of San José de Costa Rica\", Law 4534). **In the present matter** the titleholder party appeals against denial of admission of the resolution issued by the Agrarian Court of San Carlos at nine hours and thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (image 247), in which an appeal was rejected against what was decided by that Instance at fourteen hours and forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three (box 241), a judicial decision that cautioned the moving party to cancel certain cadastral plans (planos catastrados) in order to avoid duplication of titles. Upon this Tribunal's analysis of what was decided by the Trial Court, it considers that the appealed resolution does enjoy such a challenge remedy as it generates its own effect in the proceeding, making the continuation of the case file processing impossible, as a result of the caution that the Court issued to the moving persons regarding proving the cancellation (cancelación) of a series of cadastral plans, namely numbers A-1733352-2014, A-1659-1964, A-1853883-2015, A-983-1971, A-822263-2002 and A-764621-2022, which apparently modify the plan that is the object of registration.\n\n**IV.-** According to the foregoing, articles 6, 26, 59 and 60 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction, 599 of the Labor Code, and 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal against denial of admission filed by the defendant party against the resolution issued by the Court at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three must be admitted. Instead, the appeal filed by the titleholder persons against the resolution issued at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is admitted.\n\n**V.- Dissenting vote of Judge Alpízar Rodríguez**: The undersigned Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez signs but does not share the majority vote, inasmuch as it grants an appeal against denial of admission against the resolution that denied an ordinary appeal of the decision to order the cancellation of cadastral plans (planos catastrados) that are modified by the base plan of the possessory information proceeding (proceso de información posesoria). The appeal against denial of admission is the procedural instrument parties have to challenge resolutions that illegally deny an appeal remedy (articles 60 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction and 583 of the Civil Procedure Code 7130, applied supplementarily due to the start date of the main proceeding). It is an extraordinary remedy and proceeds when an appeal has been illegally denied. In the present case, what was the object of appeal lacks an appeal remedy, according to what is provided in numeral 59 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction. It does not terminate the proceeding nor is it a procedure that the party is unable to comply with, or at least there is no proof thereof. The cancellation of cadastral plans that should not exist because one is processing possessory information proceedings based on one that modifies or renders the previous ones void is a legitimate order, necessary for legal certainty, which has its basis in numerals 2, 11 of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), 2, 3, and 18 of the National Cadastre Law (Ley Catastro Nacional) and 55, 71, 86 to 90 of its Regulation (the latter contains the rules and procedures for the cancellation of cadastral plans). The appealing party has also not demonstrated that any legal impossibility exists to comply with what was ordered in the resolution of January 5, 2022, which would then prevent it from continuing with the proceeding, a possibility which, if it existed, could lead to an assessment of whether it is a resolution with its own effects. What it states is that what was ordered is a \"tedious burden\" and considers it is a requirement not regulated in the Law of Possessory Information. Therefore, according to what is in the record so far, it is proper to uphold the resolution of February 14, 2023, which denied the ordinary appeal and to dismiss this appeal against denial of admission.\n\n**THEREFORE:**\n\nThe appeal against denial of admission filed by the moving party against the resolution issued by the Court at nine hours thirty-seven minutes on the fourteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is admitted. Instead, the appeal filed by said party against the resolution issued at fourteen hours forty-two minutes on the eighth of February of the year two thousand twenty-three is admitted.\n\nJudge Alpízar Rodríguez dissents.\n\n| | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| | ![]() | |\n| ![]() | ???????????????
XHROS8LYTPQ61
GEISON LOPEZ BARRANTES - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | ![]() |\n| ???????????????
UBTSVIETF6861
MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | ???????????????
FGTGZRXZIH461
RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: 17-000054-0298-AG\nII Circuito Judicial San José, 4º piso, edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Calle Blancos de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: 2247-9093. Fax: 2280-6317 ó 2280-8381. Correo electrónico: tagrario-sgdoc@poder-judicial.go.cr" }