{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-254317",
  "citation": "Res. 00827-2003 Tribunal Agrario",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Titulación de terrenos forestales dentro de zona protectora exige posesión decenal previa",
  "title_en": "Titling forest lands within a protected zone requires proof of prior ten-year possession",
  "summary_es": "La resolución del Tribunal Agrario revoca la aprobación de una información posesoria sobre un terreno de 6,627.40 m² ubicado en la Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, Sector Buena Vista. El tribunal determina que el promovente no demostró haber ejercido una posesión decenal, pública, pacífica y de buena fe con anterioridad a la creación de la zona protectora en abril de 1994, requisito indispensable según los artículos 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 13 a 15 de la Ley Forestal. Las pruebas testimoniales resultaron contradictorias en cuanto al modo de adquisición, actos posesorios y antigüedad de la posesión; además, el reconocimiento judicial constató que el inmueble era un área boscosa sin cercas, construcciones ni cultivos, dedicada a conservación natural. El tribunal subraya que los bienes que integran el Patrimonio Natural del Estado son inalienables e imprescriptibles, por lo que solo es posible su titulación si se acredita una posesión calificada y consolidada antes de la afectación ambiental. La sentencia ordena rechazar las diligencias y deja sin efecto la inscripción registral ordenada en primera instancia.",
  "summary_en": "The Agrarian Tribunal reverses the approval of a possessory information proceeding over a 6,627.40 m² plot located within the Nicoya Peninsula Protected Zone, Buena Vista Sector. The court finds that the petitioner failed to prove ten years of continuous, public, peaceful, and good-faith possession prior to the creation of the protected zone in April 1994—a requirement under Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law and Articles 13–15 of the Forestry Law. Testimonial evidence was contradictory regarding the manner of acquisition, acts of possession, and duration; a judicial inspection confirmed the property was forested, lacked fences, buildings, or crops, and was dedicated to natural conservation. The ruling reiterates that assets comprising the State's Natural Heritage are inalienable and imprescriptible, and titling is only possible upon proof of qualified possession consolidated before the environmental designation. The proceeding is rejected, and the first-instance registration order is vacated.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario",
  "date": "19/12/2003",
  "year": "2003",
  "topic_ids": [
    "property-and-titling"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "property-and-titling",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "información posesoria",
    "usucapión agraria",
    "zona protectora",
    "Patrimonio Natural del Estado",
    "artículo 7 Ley de Informaciones Posesorias",
    "inalienabilidad e imprescriptibilidad",
    "posesión decenal pre-afectación",
    "área silvestre protegida"
  ],
  "article_citations": [],
  "keywords_es": [
    "información posesoria",
    "zona protectora",
    "Patrimonio Natural del Estado",
    "posesión decenal",
    "usucapión",
    "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias",
    "Ley Forestal 7575",
    "inalienabilidad",
    "imprescriptibilidad",
    "reconocimiento judicial",
    "cobertura boscosa",
    "cambio de uso del suelo"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "possessory information",
    "protected zone",
    "State Natural Heritage",
    "ten-year possession",
    "adverse possession",
    "Possessory Information Law",
    "Forestry Law 7575",
    "inalienable",
    "imprescriptible",
    "judicial inspection",
    "forest cover",
    "land use change"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "En el caso, valorada la prueba a conciencia y sin sujeción estricta a las normas de derecho común (artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), el Tribunal llega a la ineludible conclusión de que esta diligencia debe ser rechazada por comprender un bien que forma parte del Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, al no haber sido demostrado por el titulante haber adquirido y consolidado un derecho de propiedad sobre el mismo con anterioridad a la creación de la zona protegida de marras.",
  "excerpt_en": "In this case, having assessed the evidence conscientiously and without strict adherence to the rules of common law (Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law), the Tribunal reaches the inescapable conclusion that this proceeding must be dismissed because it concerns a property that forms part of the State's Forest Heritage, the title holder having failed to prove the acquisition and consolidation of a property right over it prior to the creation of the protected zone in question.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The first-instance ruling is overturned and the possessory information proceeding is dismissed for failing to prove ten-year possession prior to the creation of the protected zone.",
    "summary_es": "Se revoca la sentencia de primera instancia y se rechazan las diligencias de información posesoria por no acreditarse la posesión decenal previa a la creación de la zona protectora."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando X",
      "quote_en": "Pursuant to Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, which applies here because the property to be titled lies within the Protected Zone …, in order to register that property in the Public Registry, the petitioner must prove possession of the property for at least ten years prior to the entry into force of the Decree creating said Reserve, and must also have protected the forest resource.",
      "quote_es": "De acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, de aplicación al caso por encontrarse el inmueble a titular dentro de la Zona Protectora …, para poder inscribir dicho bien en el Registro Público, es preciso el gestionante demuestre haber estado en posesión del inmueble por lo menos diez años antes de la vigencia del Decreto que creó la citada Reserva, así como haber protegido el recurso forestal"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando X, citando Voto Sala Constitucional N° 4587-97",
      "quote_en": "Given the nature of the property to be titled (public property), the possession period required for adverse possession must run before the property is designated for the public domain. In other words, the declaration of a protected wild area prevents post-designation possession from being counted, and it prevents the requirements for adverse possession from being satisfied if the right has not already been acquired—meaning the ten years of possession suitable for usucapion have not elapsed by that time.",
      "quote_es": "dada la naturaleza del bien que se pretende titular (cosa pública), el plazo de posesión apta para la usucapión debe transcurrir antes de que se produzca la afectación del bien al dominio público. Es decir, la declaratoria de área silvestre protegida evita que cuente la posesión posterior a la afectación, e impide concretar los requisitos de la usucapión si a ese momento no se ha adquirido el derecho, o sea, no han transcurrido los diez años de posesión apta para usucapir con las condiciones que establece la ley."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1066147",
      "citation": "Res. 01234-2021 Tribunal Agrario",
      "title_en": "Annulment of possessory information due to partial overlap with Natural State Heritage",
      "title_es": "Anulación de información posesoria por traslape documental con Patrimonio Natural del Estado",
      "doc_type": "court_decision",
      "date": "14/12/2021",
      "year": "2021"
    },
    {
      "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-738944",
      "citation": "Res. 00007-2018 Tribunal Agrario",
      "title_en": "Rejection of possessory information for lack of proof of ten-year possession and cadastral inconsistency",
      "title_es": "Improcedencia de información posesoria por falta de prueba de posesión decenal e inconsistencia catastral",
      "doc_type": "court_decision",
      "date": "19/01/2018",
      "year": "2018"
    },
    {
      "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-11950",
      "citation": "Ley 276",
      "title_en": "Water Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Aguas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "27/08/1942",
      "year": "1942"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-27738",
      "citation": "Ley 7554",
      "title_en": "Organic Environmental Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "04/10/1995",
      "year": "1995"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-41661",
      "citation": "Ley 7575",
      "title_en": "Forestry Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Forestal",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "13/02/1996",
      "year": "1996"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-163959",
      "citation": "Res. 00007-2018 Tribunal Agrario",
      "title_en": "Requirements for Possessory Information Proceedings and Assessment of Public Deeds",
      "title_es": "Requisitos para información posesoria y valoración de escritura pública",
      "doc_type": "court_decision",
      "date": "19/01/2018",
      "year": "2018"
    },
    {
      "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-83410",
      "citation": "Res. 00660-2005 Tribunal Agrario",
      "title_en": "Inadmissibility of Possessory Information over JAPDEVA Lands",
      "title_es": "Improcedencia de información posesoria sobre terrenos de JAPDEVA",
      "doc_type": "court_decision",
      "date": "23/08/2005",
      "year": "2005"
    },
    {
      "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-11950",
      "citation": "Ley 276",
      "title_en": "Water Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Aguas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "27/08/1942",
      "year": "1942"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-27738",
      "citation": "Ley 7554",
      "title_en": "Organic Environmental Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "04/10/1995",
      "year": "1995"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-41661",
      "citation": "Ley 7575",
      "title_en": "Forestry Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Forestal",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "13/02/1996",
      "year": "1996"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1066147",
        "kind": "related_voto",
        "label": ""
      },
      {
        "target_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-738944",
        "kind": "related_voto",
        "label": ""
      }
    ],
    "external": [
      {
        "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1286081",
        "url": "",
        "kind": "related_voto",
        "label": "",
        "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-1286081"
      },
      {
        "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-308594",
        "url": "",
        "kind": "related_voto",
        "label": "",
        "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-308594"
      },
      {
        "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-315124",
        "url": "",
        "kind": "related_voto",
        "label": "",
        "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-315124"
      }
    ]
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-254317",
  "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-11950",
      "norm_num": "276",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Aguas",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "27/08/1942"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-27738",
      "norm_num": "7554",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "04/10/1995"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-41661",
      "norm_num": "7575",
      "norm_name": "Ley Forestal",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "13/02/1996"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [
    "sen-1-0034-1066147",
    "sen-1-0034-1286081",
    "sen-1-0034-308594",
    "sen-1-0034-315124",
    "sen-1-0034-738944"
  ],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "VOTO 827-F-03\n\nVOTO 827-F-03\n\nTRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSE. Goicoechea a las catorce horas veinte minutos del diecinueve de diciembre del año dos mil tres.-\n\nDiligencias de Información posesoria, tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario de Nicoya (actualmente con sede en Santa Cruz), promovido por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, vecino de Tambor de Puntarenas, con cédula de identidad número CED1 . Actúa como su apoderado especial judicial el licenciado Gerardo Morales Rodríguez, quien es mayor, casado, abogado, con cédula de identidad número CED2 . Se tuvo como parte al Estado a través de la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, apersonándose en representación del primero el licenciado Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes, quien es mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Heredia con cédula de identidad número CED3 ; y del segundo el ingeniero [Nombre1] , quien es mayor, casado, Ingeniero Agrónomo vecino de San José, con cédula de identidad número CED4 . Conoce este Tribunal del recurso de apelación interpuesto por el representante del Estado contra la sentencia dictada a las trece horas quince minutos del siete de octubre del dos mil dos.\n\nRESULTANDO\n\n1.- El promovente [Nombre1] , solicitó se inscriba a su nombre : un terreno de árboles situado en [Dirección1] , , de la Provincia de Puntarenas; mide: seis mil seiscientos veintisiete metros con cuarenta decímetros cuadrados, linda al norte y oeste: [Nombre1] al sur y este: [Nombre1] en medio servidumbre de paso con frente total de doscientos cincuenta y dos metros siete centímetros.\n\n2.- El representante estatal, licenciado Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes solicitó que debe de rechazarse las presentes diligencias, conforme al artículo 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, pues la finca forma parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, inalienable e imprescriptible, y sobre el cual la posesión de particulares no causa ningún derecho a su favor, Ley Forestal Nº 7575, artículos 13, 14 y 15. Además que los inmuebles descritos en los planos catastrados número P-589858-99, P-590605-99, P-590855-99, P-590609-99, P-590593-99 y P-590597-99 traslapan con el plano Nº P-54225-63, aportado inicialmente por el mismo promovente en las diligencias de información posesoria tramitadas en ese juzgado bajo el número EXPN1, que describe el inmueble donado por [Nombre1] al promovente, según consta en el testimonio de escritura otorgada a las 15 horas del 23 de febrero de 1999 aportado a ese expediente y en el cual se dice haber adquirido de [Nombre2] y que el inmueble se ha poseído por más de treinta años.-\n\n 3.- El Licenciado José Piñar Ballestero juez de primera instancia en sentencia de las trece horas quince minutos del siete de octubre del dos mil dos, resolvió: \"POR TANTO: Razones expuestas, artículos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, es el criterio de este juzgador que se le debe APROBAR al promovente las presentes diligencias de Información practicada sin oposición alguna, correspondiente a las finca que se indicará, adquirida por [Nombre1] , en forma originaria. El inmueble es el que corresponde al plano catastrado número P-589858-99, del veintidós de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve. Que es del caso impartirle su aprobación a las presentes diligencias, sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho y sujeta a las restricciones establecidas en la Ley de Aguas en sus artículos 72 y 73. En consecuencia, proceda el Registro Público a inscribir en la Sección Propiedad, Partido de Puntarenas, a nombre de [Nombre1] , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, vecino de Tambor de Puntarenas, [Dirección2] , el inmueble que se describe así: Terreno apto para potrero correspondiente al plano catastrado número P-589858-99, del veintidós de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, sito en [Dirección3] , , del [Dirección4] primero Puntarenas, de la provincia de Puntarenas. Mide: seis mil seiscientos veintisiete metros cuarenta decímetros cuadrados. Con los siguientes linderos actuales. NORTE Y OESTE [Nombre1] , SUR Y ESTE [Nombre1] servidumbre de paso en medio. Estimado en CIEN MIL COLONES. No soporta cargas reales, no existen condueños. Con la presente no trata de evadir los trámites y consecuencias de juicio sucesorio alguno. Ley de Informaciones Posesorias número ciento treinta y nueve del catorce de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno y sus reformas\".\n\n 4.- En los procedimientos y plazos se han observado las formalidades de ley. No se notan defectos u omisiones capaces de causar indefensión alguna a las partes.\n\nRedacta la jueza Alpízar Rodríguez,y;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- De conformidad con lo regulado en los numerales 501 y 502 del Código de Trabajo, aplicados supletoriamente en esta materia con base en el numeral 79 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, se rechaza por innecesario, dada la prueba que consta en autos, la documental ofrecida con el carácter de prueba para mejor resolver por la Procuraduría General de la República (en adelante Procuraduría), referida al informe del Catastro Nacional fechado 29 de octubre del 2003 (folios 171 174), así como la solicitud de la parte promovente de realizarse un reconocimiento judicial sobre el inmueble y su ofrecimiento del documento suscrito por el topógrafo [Nombre3] , de fecha 28 de noviembre del 2003 (visible a folio 184). \n\nII.- No se prohija el elenco de hechos probados, salvo el quinto, por referirse a cuestiones de trámite del proceso y no a los aspectos fácticos que deben comprobarse para dictar una sentencia confirmatoria de una información posesoria. El quinto se tendrá por uno. Agréguese de igual naturaleza: 2) El inmueble objeto de esta diligencia se ubica en Río Seco de Paquera del cantón de Puntarenas. Mide seis mil seiscientos veintisiete metros con cuarenta decímetros cuadrados, y colinda por todos sus rumbos con terrenos del titulante, señalándose según el plano catastrado número quinientos ochenta y nueve mil ochocientos cincuenta y ocho-noventa y nueve, la existencia de una servidumbre de paso por el sur, este y parte del norte (ver plano: folio 1; escrito inicial: folio 4).- 3) Es terreno de naturaleza boscosa, sin construcciones ni cultivos (ver plano: folio 1; escrito inicial: folio 4; reconocimiento judicial: folio 37).- 4) El inmueble citado se encuentra dentro de la Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, Sector Buena Vista, creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo Nº22968-MIRENEM de 10 de abril de 1994 (ver certificación del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía: folio 2; plano: folio 1).- 5) El terreno objeto del proceso formaba parte de otro, el cual ha sido dividido catastralmente en varias partes, para efectos de proceder a su titulación (ver declaraciones de [Nombre4] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] y [Nombre8] : folios 54, 55, 68, 69 y 70; memorial del promovente: folio 115).\n\nIII.- No se acepta la conclusión a la que llega el a quo sobre hechos indemostrados, al improbarse los siguientes de importancia, por no constar prueba fehaciente y pertinente de los mismos. No se probó así: 1) [Nombre1] haya adquirido el inmueble objeto de las diligencias en forma originaria a partir de mil novecientos setenta y uno.- 2) El promovente haya poseído a título de dueño, de buena fe, en forma pública, pacífica y continua, el inmueble a titular al menos diez años antes de la declaratoria de la Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, en mil novecientos noventa y cuatro.- 3) La constitución de la servidumbre señalada en el plano catastrado número quinientos ochenta y nueve mil ochocientos cincuenta y ocho-noventa y nueve, y por ende cual es el fundo sirviente.- 4) El inmueble objeto de titulación, junto con otros terrenos que está titulando el promovente, ubicados en la misma zona, superen en medida, trescientas hectáreas.\n\nIV.- El a-quo, en resolución de las 13:15 horas del 7 de octubre del 2002 acogió la presente diligencia de información posesoria. Consideró bien demostrada la posesión decenal anterior a la creación de la Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya. Además, tuvo por cumplidos todos los requisitos exigidos por la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, rechazando los argumentos de la Procuraduría, para que se denegara la inscripción. \n\nV.- Dicho ente solicita se revoque la sentencia citada, dadas las incongruencias en cuanto al tiempo, modo de adquirir la posesión y actos posesorios, que se perciben del análisis integrado de los elementos probatorios, lo cual impide tener por cumplidos los requisitos indispensables para titular en perjuicio del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, inalienable e imprescriptible (artículos 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley Forestal Nª7575). Expone específicamente como agravios los siguientes agravios: 1) Se está tratando de inscribir varios inmuebles que anteriormente conformaban uno solo, a través de diferentes expedientes tramitado en el Despacho de origen bajo los números 01-000014-391AG, 01-000015-391AG, 01-000016-391AG, 01-000017-391AG, 01-000018-391AG, 01-000019-391AG, 01-000020-391AG, 01-000021-391AG, 01-000022-391AG,, 01-000023-391AG, 01-000024-391AG, 01-000025-391AG, 01-000027-391AG y 01-000028-391AG. Debe entonces, para efectos del análisis en el tiempo y modo de posesión requeridos para titular terrenos que forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado (Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya- Sector Buena Vista), examinarse todos ellos como uno; 2) No hay coincidencia entre lo manifestado por el titulante sobre los actos posesorios, y lo observado en el reconocimiento judicial así como con lo declarado por los testigos. El gestionante afirma en su escrito inicial, con carácter de declaración jurada, haber poseído los inmuebles en forma originaria y consistir su posesión básicamente en la hechura de rondas, cercas, siembra de plátanos y arboles frutales como mango, coco, aguacate, etc. En las actas de reconocimiento remitidas en la mayoría de los casos citados, fechadas 20 de junio del 2001, se señala NO existen cercas, sino delimitación por carriles limpios, no hay construcciones, semovientes ni cultivos, y que se dedican los terrenos a conservación natural. Los testigos, [Nombre9] y [Nombre10] por su parte, afirman los actos posesorios del gestionante han consistido, según el primero, en limpieza para construir una casa de habitación, y de acuerdo con la segunda, en el levantamiento de cercas por los cuatro costados, así como mantener el terreno limpio. Resalta la Procuraduría no existen cercas ni tampoco construcciones, a pesar de que los testigos y el promovente se refieren a ello, siendo lo existente carriles y estar el terreno en regeneración natural de acuerdo con el reconocimiento judicial efectuado. Igualmente citan las declaraciones de [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] , rendidas el 21 de febrero del 2002 en otras informaciones citadas (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01 y 27-01), en las cuales manifestaron: a) El primero en forma discordante, estaba el inmueble destinado a frutales, y ser los actos de posesión la hechura de cercas, chapias y mantenimiento (14-01 y 20-01). En otros procesos estar destinada la finca a la agricultura y haber sido divido en lotes (15-01, 18-01, 24-01. 27-01); b) El segundo indicó el terreno estaba dedicado a frutales y ser los actos hechura y arreglo de cercas, limpieza de rondas, carriles y cuido en general (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01 y 27-01); 3) No comparte la Procuraduría el argumento del juez de ser fácil de enmontar la zona, luego de pasada una cosecha, lo cual hace se vuelva rápidamente parte del paisaje de regeneración natural. Según tal, ello explica el porque el reconocimiento arroja una información actual diferente a la actividad que se haya dado en otras épocas. Al respecto, resalta el Procurador los testigos deben referirse al ejercicio de la posesión actual, no solo la efectuada con anterioridad, aparte de que en el caso hablan en tiempo presente; 4) Con las declaraciones de [Nombre11] , [Nombre9] y [Nombre10] , rendidas el 8 de marzo del 2002 en el presente asunto y otros de los citados (abreviados su número como sigue: 16-01, 18-01, 21-01, 22-01, 24-01, 25-01, 27-01, 28-01), no se prueba el ejercicio de la posesión decenal con anterioridad a la fecha de entrada en vigencia del Decreto Creador de la Zona Protectora citada, pues los señores [Nombre11] y [Nombre9] manifestaron conocer la finca desde hace doce y diez años respectivamente; 5) Sostiene la apelante, se denota discordia en cuanto al modo de adquisición del titulante, dado que en declaraciones de [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] , rendidas el 21 de febrero del 2002 y en otras de las informaciones citadas (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01 y 27-01), manifestaron conocer el inmueble desde hace treinta años aproximadamente, el cual fue adquirido del señor [Nombre12] hacía como veinte años. Por su parte, los testigos [Nombre7] , [Nombre8] e [Nombre6] declaran, en términos prácticamente idénticos, conocer la propiedad desde antes de 1950 (justo el tiempo requerido según la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Agrario citada por la Procuraduría) y que siempre ha pertenecido a la familia [Nombre1] , no en específico al titulante. Esas manifestaciones no concuerdan con lo afirmado por el señor [Nombre1], de ser su posesión originaria. Además, el transmitente señalado por los dos testigos primeros citados en este agravio, no forma parte de la familia mencionada; 6) Se da una práctica inconveniente por el Juzgado de aceptar nuevas declaraciones de testigos hasta que finalmente cumplen con afirmar el tiempo de posesión requerido legalmente. El juzgador de instancia justifica ello se dio porque las primeras declaraciones fueron tomadas antes del apersonamiento de la Procuraduría, como es la práctica normal se le previno al titulante cumpliese con lo requerido por tal, y con ese fin fue se tomaron las segundas declaraciones de [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] el 21 de febrero del 2000, quienes efectivamente otorgaron al titulante una posesión derivada de más de treinta años. En cuanto a las terceras indica el apelante el juzgador de instancia se basa en el numeral 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y el haber la Procuraduría cambiado las reglas del juego del promovente, al requerir se tomara en cuenta la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Agrario según la cual debe demostrarse la posesión decenal con antelación a la fecha de promulgación de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización. Ello debía ser de conocimiento del juez como tal y además ya constaba en autos la certificación del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía en la cual se indicaba el área a titular forma parte de una zona silvestre protegida; 7) En el Juzgado de origen, lo cual fue manifestado oportunamente, se tramita la Información Posesoria Nº00-100077-417AG, en la cual el plano aportado inicialmente por el mismo promovente de estas diligencias, CED5, que describe un inmueble donado por [Nombre13] a él, traslapa con el plano objeto de estas diligencias.\n\nVI.- El señor [Nombre1] solicitó por su parte, en memorial presentado a estrado el 18 de noviembre de 2002, se declarase sin lugar el recurso, por estar debidamente fundamentada la sentencia de acuerdo con la prueba evacuada en autos. En él acepta además estar tramitando varias informaciones posesorias (folios 115 a 116). La representación estatal, al contestar en memorial de 17 de octubre de 2003 una audiencia sobre la prueba para mejor proveer ordenada en esta instancia, reitera los argumentos esgrimidos en su apelación y afirma existe traslape según sus estudios entre el plano P-54225-1963 y el que es objeto de esta diligencia, y otras más (folios 153 a 154). Debe recalcarse, aparte de no demostrarse el traslape reclamado, el Procurador cita como plano de este proceso el plano P-590597-99, lo cual no es correcto, aunque dentro de los otros mencionados si comprende al que lo es efectivamente (P-589858-99). El promovente por su parte, dando respuesta a varias audiencias concedidas en esta etapa, sobre la prueba aportada y lo dicho por el ente de marras, afirma la información posesoria a la que ella hace referencia no se relaciona con la presente, no existe traslape al respecto y aclara no estar pretendiendo titular más de las 300 hectáreas permitidas por la Ley (folios 158, 164 y 187). Finalmente, la Procuraduría acepta con base en el informe del Catastro Nacional, no existe el traslape reclamado y solicita dejar sin efecto sus alegaciones al respecto, no así el resto de sus objeciones (folios 166 y 170).\n\nVII.- El agravio primero de la apelante no es de recibo. El hecho de estarse tramitando por separado diferentes expedientes referidos a lotes que el promovente reclama como suyos, los cuales conformaban parte de una misma unidad material, no obliga a su análisis conjunto para efectos de demostrarse tiempo y modo de posesión, salvo que se pretenda con ello violentar el máximo de área permitida sea titulada por una misma persona a través de esta vía (300 hectáreas), según lo establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Aparte de no haber sido demostrado la totalidad de terrenos que pretende titular el señor [Nombre14] superen esa medida, queda a criterio del promovente si los gestionaba todos como una unidad o en forma separada, pese a los inconvenientes que pueda implicar lo último respecto de la prueba documental, testimonial y el aumento de costos. Además, para el análisis del cumplimiento del tiempo y modo de posesión, como se verá, debe valorarse lo que conste en autos. Si en consideración del Procurador existía prueba externa al caso que lo afectase o desvirtuase lo en él afirmado por el titulante, debió proceder a aportarla en la forma debida.\n\nVIII.- Los agravios dos, cuatro y cinco de la parte apelante se relacionan entre sí, pues combaten lo tenido por demostrado por el a quo, y resaltan las contradicciones entre lo afirmado por el promovente y lo dicho por los testigos en cuanto a modo de adquisición, actos posesorios ejercidos y delimitación del terreno. Al respecto, y de acuerdo con lo que se explicará en los considerandos siguientes, lleva razón la Procuraduría, aclarándose se toma en cuenta únicamente para analizar los agravios, lo que conste en este proceso y la prueba efectivamente recibida o aportada en él, no así la referencia a los testimonios rendidos en otros asuntos, mucho menos si no fueron agregados a los autos como prueba documental. Según lo tenido por probado en esta instancia, el terreno a titular se encuentra ubicado dentro de la Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, establecida en abril de 1994. Por consiguiente, debió el promovente demostrar en forma clara y contundente, haber ejercido una posesión decenal anterior a 1994. Lo anterior no fue debidamente acreditado. Al respecto, aparte de lo que se dirá sobre la forma y cantidad de testigos recibidos, deben resaltarse los siguiente puntos. Las declaraciones hechas en este tipo de proceso por los gestionante, tienen el carácter de declaración jurada, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el numeral 3 párrafo final de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Los artículos 1, 2, 4, 5 6, 7, 9 y 15 de la misma disponen los requisitos que deben cumplirse al plantearse el proceso, como de trámite y de fondo. En ese sentido, el Tribunal ha explicado, la “…Información Posesoria es un trámite de actividad judicial no contenciosa para la formalización de un título registrable sobre un derecho de propiedad que se ha llegado a adquirir por la usucapión, cumpliendo para ello con los requisitos legales correspondientes. Se exige demostrar la posesión a título de dueño, en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida (artículos 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil). El titulante, aparte de carecer de título inscrito o inscribible en el Registro Público, debe manifestar expresamente que la finca no ha sido inscrita en el Registro Público anteriormente. Por razones de interés público, y para evitar una doble inscripción registral sobre un mismo bien, o bien, para tutelar a terceros de mejor derecho que el titulante, la Ley exige notificar a ciertos sujetos. También estableció un trámite de oposición dentro de la Información Posesoria, en caso de que alguno de los interesados se sienta perjudicado por la titulación (artículo 8). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ordena al Juez tener como partes y por tanto notificarles personalmente desde el inicio de las diligencias, a los colindantes, ello por cuanto la titulación podría abarcar parte de las tierras que les pertenecen. También se ordena notificar a los condueños o condóminos. Igualmente, en resguardo de los intereses del Estado, se ordena tener como parte a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para el resguardo de la propiedad sujeta al dominio público, y de la Propiedad Agraria estatal (artículo 5). Finalmente, la Ley manda a citar a todos los interesados, mediante la publicación de un Edicto en el Boletín Judicial, que puedan tener un interés legítimo en el proceso.(Ver numeral 5 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) ( ver voto Nº755 de las 9:45 horas del 13 de noviembre del 2003). Se exige también la existencia de linderos bien señalados (cercas, carriles, etc.). Deben aportarse los siguientes documentos: marca de ganado si la finca se dedica a ganadería; cédula de identidad o documento de identificación respectivo del titulante; el plano catastrado; certificación actualizada del Registro Público que aclare si se han titulado otras fincas por el promovente y cual es su medida; certificación actualizada del Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía sobre si está o no comprendido el terreno dentro de alguna área protegida. La legislación vigente sobre suelos exige se demuestre el uso del terreno conforme a su aptitud (estudio de suelo). También está obligado el juez, para velar por la protección del recurso hídrico con fines de utilidad pública, de existir nacientes o fuentes de agua, a solicitar el informe respectivo del ente competente para ello (artículos 50 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, inciso 14 del numeral 121 de la Constitución Política, 1, 3 y 17 de la Ley de Aguas N°276 de 27 de agosto de 1942, 33 de la Ley Forestal vigente Nº7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996 y Decreto Ejecutivo N°26237-MINAE de 19 de junio de 1997).\n\nIX.- Aparte de lo indicado, el escrito inicial debe contener cada uno de los datos requeridos en el artículo 1º de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias: Nombre y calidades del promovente; naturaleza, situación, medida y linderos del terreno; nombres y dirección de los colindantes (si son personas jurídicas debe acreditarse su personería actualizada); indicación de sí existen condueños y cargas reales (entre ellas, servidumbres, usufructos, etc.), de haberlos especificar quiénes y cuáles (probar además la constitución de las últimas); tiempo de posesión; descripción de los actos posesorios; extensión de cultivos, zonas boscosas o de pasto; existencia de construcciones y mejoras realizadas; cantidad de apartos de ser ganadera la finca; causa y fecha de adquisición; nombre y apellidos de la persona que transmitió, en caso de tratarse de un modo derivado, así como su domicilio; estimación del inmueble y las diligencias; indicación de tres testigos vecinos del mismo cantón donde se ubique el inmueble, cuando sea necesario de acuerdo con lo indicado en el numerales 4 y 6 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Debe además necesariamente declararse que: la finca no se encuentra ya inscrita en el Registro Público, se carece de título de dominio inscribible y no se pretende evadir las consecuencias de un juicio sucesorio. De no tenerse la posesión decenal al momento de iniciar la diligencia, puede el promovente sumar la de sus transmitentes, pero además de aclarar eso en el escrito, debe aportar el documento público en el cual conste el traspaso de su derecho. La documental y el resto de la prueba que se debe aportar, vienen a ratificar o probar precisamente lo informado en el escrito. Por ello no resulta procedente se remita al contenido de la documental que acompañe al escrito inicial. En cuanto a la prueba testimonial exigida, en un mínimo de tres, el legislador impuso el requisito de ser vecinos del cantón donde se ubica el inmueble. Ello con el fin de permitir fuesen realmente personas conocedoras de la situación las que se presentaran a declarar. En otras palabras, se presume los vecinos de la zona son quienes mejor pueden dar fe de los dueños de los terrenos cercanos a los suyos y que sucede en ellos, por frecuentar o vivir en el mismo lugar. Todos estos requisitos y la prueba pertinente para corroborar lo declarado en el memorial inicial están claramente especificados en la normativa citada. No puede entonces alegarse desconocimiento al respecto, mucho menos si se cuenta con asesoría legal profesional, como sucedió en el caso. La omisión en cuanto a ellos, o el ofrecimiento de prueba no pertinente, es responsabilidad únicamente del promovente, que el juzgador no puede asumir ni intentar solventar.\n\nX.- Además de los requisitos mencionados, en los casos en los cuales el terreno esté comprendido dentro de una zona protegida, debe cumplirse con un requisito más calificado en cuanto al ejercicio y tiempo de la posesión. “…De acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, de aplicación al caso por encontrarse el inmueble a titular dentro de la Zona Protectora …, para poder inscribir dicho bien en el Registro Público, es preciso el gestionante demuestre haber estado en posesión del inmueble por lo menos diez años antes de la vigencia del Decreto que creó la citada Reserva, así como haber protegido el recurso forestal”(voto Nº170-03 de las 16:24 horas del 31 de marzo del 2003. Ver también al respecto el voto Nº755-03 citado). Lo anterior se exige en protección del patrimonio forestal del Estado y la biodiversidad, sin afectarse por ello los derechos que efectivamente los sujetos privados hubiesen consolidado por el transcurso del tiempo (ver al respecto el voto Nº497 de las 15:20 horas del 30 de julio del 2003 del Tribunal). En ese sentido, la Sala Constitucional en Voto N° 4587 de las 15:45 horas del 5 de agosto de 1997, en el cual analizó la constitucionalidad del artículo 7 citado, dispuso para poder titular los terrenos ubicados en las zonas protegidas que ahí se señalan, debía el interesado demostrar la posesión diez años antes de la vigencia del Decreto respectivo. Básicamente dijo la Sala en esa oportunidad: \"… dada la naturaleza del bien que se pretende titular (cosa pública), el plazo de posesión apta para la usucapión debe transcurrir antes de que se produzca la afectación del bien al dominio público. Es decir, la declaratoria de área silvestre protegida evita que cuente la posesión posterior a la afectación, e impide concretar los requisitos de la usucapión si a ese momento no se ha adquirido el derecho, o sea, no han transcurrido los diez años de posesión apta para usucapir con las condiciones que establece la ley\". En el caso, valorada la prueba a conciencia y sin sujeción estricta a las normas de derecho común (artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), el Tribunal llega a la ineludible conclusión de que esta diligencia debe ser rechazada por comprender un bien que forma parte del Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, al no haber sido demostrado por el titulante haber adquirido y consolidado un derecho de propiedad sobre el mismo con anterioridad a la creación de la zona protegida de marras. En los considerandos posteriores se darán las razones de equidad y derecho que fundamentan dicha conclusión.\n\nXI.- Respecto del modo de adquisición, tiempo de posesión y actos en posesorios, no existe coincidencia entre los testigos, y entre estos y lo dicho por el titulante en su escrito inicial. Indicó el señor [Nombre1] poseer el terreno desde 1971 en forma originaria y ser sus actos posesorios la hechura de rondas, cercas, siembra de plátanos, árboles frutales como mango, coco, aguacate y teca (folios 7 y 8). Lo primero no fue corroborado por ninguno de los testigos que declararon en diferentes oportunidades: [Nombre9] , [Nombre11] , [Nombre10] , [Nombre4] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] y [Nombre8] (folios 24, 25, 26, 54, 55, 68, 69 y 70). De hecho, los tres últimos citados, en forma idéntica indicaron, conocer la finca desde antes de 1950, y haber sido siempre de la familia [Nombre1] (folios 68, 69 y 70). Por su parte, los señores [Nombre4] y [Nombre5] afirmaron el terreno que el señor [Nombre1] pretende titular lo adquirió éste de [Nombre12] , hacía como veinte años según el primero, lo cual corresponde aproximadamente al año de 1982 (folio 55). El promovente, en forma contradictoria a sus intereses, por cuanto se supone que ofrece testigos veraces, conocedores de la situación de la finca, que VOLUNTARIAMENTE elige con el fin de probar sus afirmaciones, aporta el memorial de fecha 19 de abril del 2002, visible a folio 57, con el cual pretende “aclarar” lo dicho por esos dos testigos, aduciendo el señor [Nombre12] hace muchos años tuvo fincas aledañas a la que se pretende titular, pero no esa, y reitera su modo de adquisición es originario. Lo anterior no es convincente ni aceptable, [Nombre15] en este caso, en el cual en forma injustificada se aceptó en más de una oportunidad declararan diferentes testigos. De ser admitida su justificación, tendría que tenerse por cierto esos testigos no declararon entonces sobre la finca objeto del proceso, o bien no la conocían, y por ende, no debieron ser ofrecidos como tal. Pero aparte de este proceder tan cuestionable, y de las contradicciones en cuanto al modo y fecha de adquisición, que impiden tener por efectivamente demostrada el ejercicio de la posesión decenal en la forma requerida por la ley antes de 1994, por parte del titulante, existen otras discordancias que igualmente desvirtúan lo afirmado por él, y que conllevan el rechazo de esta gestión.\n\nXII.- En cuanto al tiempo de posesión, [Nombre9] y [Nombre11] (folios 24 y 25) dijeron conocer la finca desde hacía 10 y 12 respectivamente (aproximadamente 1991 y 1989, de acuerdo con la fecha de la declaración). Además de no ser útiles esos testigos para demostrar una posesión anterior a esas fechas, lo cual era necesario dada la situación especial de la finca al formar parte de una zona protectora, llama la atención pese a afirmar que conocían la finca desde hace tantos años, no sabían quienes eran sus colindantes. [Nombre10] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre4] (folios 26, 54 y 55) dijeron conocer la finca desde hace como 30 años (lo cual corresponde a 1971 y 1972 respectivamente, según sus fechas de declaración). Sin embargo, al igual que los primeros citados, la señora [Nombre10] no sabía quienes eran los colindantes, ni tampoco se refirió a como llegó a ser el dueño del terreno [Nombre1] . [Nombre4] no sabía tampoco sobre las colindancias ni cual era la medida del terreno. Pero además, junto con [Nombre5] , afirmaron la finca fue adquirida de [Nombre12] . El primero dijo eso fue hacía como 20 años, lo cual da como fecha aproximada el año de 1982. El segundo no mencionó la fecha de adquisición (folios 54 y 55). Esto contradice no solo el modo de adquisición afirmado por el señor [Nombre1], sino además el tiempo que declaró poseer el terreno. Lo cual es aún más cuestionable, si se toma en cuenta, dada la fecha de creación de la zona protectora de marras, debió haber demostrado poseer la finca al menos los diez años anteriores a 1994, en la forma legalmente exigida. [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] y [Nombre8] (folios 68, 69 y 70), declararon conocer la finca desde antes de 1950, la cual antes formaba parte de otra. Afirmaron siempre ha pertenecido a la familia [Nombre1] . Lo anterior desdice no solo lo afirmado por testigos anteriores, sino además el propio dicho del titulante, quien afirma con carácter de declaración jurada ser el dueño del inmueble desde 1971 y haberlo adquirido en forma originaria.\n\nXIII.- Sobre los actos posesorios, los primeros testigos recibidos en marzo del 2001 manifestaron: [Nombre9] y [Nombre10] consistían tales en haberse cercado la finca por todos sus linderos. La segunda agregó sobre el terreno era “muy limpio” (folios 24 y 26); [Nombre11] dijo habían sido la limpieza del terreno con el fin de construir una casa (folio 25). El segundo grupo de testigos fue recibido en febrero del 2002, y afirmaron conocer el terreno pero como parte de uno más grande. Específicamente sobre los actos posesorios, con la aclaración de conocer el terreno como parte de otro, dijeron: [Nombre4] , haberse dedicado el inmueble a agricultura (folio 55). [Nombre5] , ser un terreno dedicado a árboles frutales en su mayoría, haberse hecho y arreglado cercos, limpieza de rondas y cuido en general (folio 54). El tercer grupo de testigos, que igualmente conoce el terreno como parte de otro, se recibió en junio del 2002, y declararon: [Nombre6] y [Nombre7] dicen la propiedad se ha dedicado a conservación o regeneración natural y los actos posesorios han sido el cuido general que requiere una finca de esa naturaleza (folios 68 y 69). [Nombre8] , a diferencia de todos los testigos citados, afirma algunas partes de la finca se han dedicado a ganadería, y otras a agricultura, pero en su mayoría a conservación o regeneración natural, y los actos posesorios son el cuido general que requiere una finca de tal naturaleza (folio 70). Aparte de las evidentes inconsistencias en cuanto a lo afirmado por los testigos entre sí, en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el 20 de junio del 2001, se deriva de lo consignado en ella, el terreno es de topografía quebrada, no existían cercas pero sí carriles, no había construcciones, semovientes ni cultivos. Se consignó estaba dedicado a conservación natural. Aunado a lo anterior, el plano objeto de las diligencias indica el terreno se dedica a “árboles” (folio1), lo cual es corroborado también al indicarse la naturaleza del inmueble en el escrito inicial (folio 4). Por consiguiente, ante tantas contradicciones, en forma alguna se puede tener por claro cuáles han sido los actos posesorios y a qué se ha dedicado el terreno objeto de titulación, y por ende no se puede tener por demostrado dicho aspecto en la forma requerida por la ley, menos si se toma como base el titulante afirmó fueron cercas, rondas y siembra de plátano y frutales, y según sus tres últimos testigos, aportados supuestamente para “aclarar o probar” lo que los anteriores no habían podido decir, el terreno “siempre se ha dedicado a conservación y los actos posesorios han sido los que requiere una finca de tal naturaleza”.\n\nXIV.- En cuanto a la delimitación del inmueble, este Tribunal toma en cuenta el mismo formaba parte de una unidad material, a la cual hacen referencia varios de los testigos recibidos (folios 54, 55, 68, 69 y 70). Sin embargo, al decidir el promovente plantear su inscripción por partes, en concreto en este caso un terreno con una medida de 6627,40 metros cuadrados, está obligado a delimitarlo en forma clara. Igualmente los testigos que ofrece deben conocerlo de esa forma, y poder explicar que es lo que saben al respecto, pues de otra manera no se podría aceptar, ni se tendría certeza, sobre si lo declarado se refiere al terreno objeto de titulación. En ese sentido, de los primeros testigos que declararon en autos: [Nombre9] y [Nombre10] (folios 24 y 26), indicaron el terreno estaba cercado por los cuatros costados. [Nombre9] incluso especificó el levantamiento de las cercas eran para él los actos posesorios ejercidos (folio 24). [Nombre11] no se refirió a la forma como estaba delimitado el terreno, y tampoco conocía sus colindancias (folio 25). [Nombre4] dice que por ser la finca muy quebrada nunca se ha interesado en saberlas. Agrega: “El inmueble está dedicado a la agricultura. Esta propiedad antes era una sola finca pero la han venido loteando no sé con que intención. No sé si está rondeada o cercada ya que esos son unos cercos que cuesta mucho andarlos” (folio 55). [Nombre5] (folio 54), afirmó el “lote pertenece a una finca grande de aproximadamente ochenta y más hectáreas, cuyas colindancias por el rumbo oeste es con [Dirección5] , al este con [Dirección6] , al norte con un gringo cuyo nombre no sé y al sur no recuerdo de quien”. Aparte de los problemas que implican el conocer el lote como parte de otro terreno para efectos de ubicación del mismo, éste testigo no es útil entonces para demostrar los linderos específicos y actuales del que se pretende titular, pues se desprende de su dicho se refiere al terreno como un todo y no a la parte que se pretendía titular. Los últimos tres testigos, [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] y [Nombre8] , no se refieren a las colindancias del terreno (folios 68, 69 y 70). Pero además de lo dicho, el titulante en su memorial inicial afirma haber realizado como actos de posesión la hechura de cercas (folio 8). Esa afirmación y lo indicado por los primeros testigos citados anteriormente, se ve desvirtuada con lo constatado en el reconocimiento judicial realizado en junio del 2001, pues claramente se indicó no estaba cercado el inmueble, existiendo como delimitación carriles (ver acta de folio 37).\n\n XV.- Lo analizado es suficiente para tener por no demostrados los presupuestos básicos para acoger la presente gestión. Pero independientemente de ello, es importante indicar en cuanto a los agravios restantes lo siguiente. Lo alegado en el tercero respecto de no ser cierto el argumento del a quo de ser fácil de enmontar la zona y por ende luego de pasada una cosecha se vuelva rápidamente de regeneración natural, es improcedente, aparte de tratarse de una situación que debe ser analizada y demostrada en cada caso en concreto, dependiendo del tipo de vegetación y condiciones naturales de la zona específica. Pero, en este asunto, aunque fuese cierto pudiese ser un área de fácil regeneración, ello no varía la conclusión a la que llega el Tribunal en cuanto al no cumplimiento de los requisitos necesarios para aprobar esta titulación.\n\nXVI.- Del sexto agravio debe decirse, no puede el Tribunal limitar las facultades del juzgador de instancia en forma general,, en cuanto a la admisión y valoración de la prueba, [Nombre15] si el numeral 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias dispone: “El juez podrá cuando lo crea conveniente, ordenar todas aquellas diligencias que estime necesarias para comprobar la veracidad de los hechos a que se refiere la Información. Rechazará la misma si llegare a constatar que se pretende titular indebidamente baldíos nacionales o terrenos pertenecientes a cualquier institución del Estado, lo mismo que reservas forestales, parques nacionales o reservas biológicas”. Sin embargo, en esta oportunidad, dado lo acontecido y demostrado en autos, lleva razón el Procurador al reclamar se admitió en forma indebida la ampliación de prueba testimonial, no solo en una, sino en dos oportunidades. Lo anterior por cuanto en marzo del 2001 se recibieron los tres primeros testigos ofrecidos por el titulante, tal y como lo exige el artículo 6 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. En esa primera ocasión debe resaltar el Tribunal, la prueba la recibió un Juez comisionado, lo cual no es una práctica admisible en materia agraria, por sus fines, que propician el respeto, salvo excepciones calificadas, del principio de inmediatez. [Nombre15] en casos como el presente, donde está de por medio la protección de una zona protegida, y al ser la actuación comisionada la evacuación de una prueba fundamental para el fondo de lo llamado a resolver, como lo es la testimonial. Luego de ello consta se apersonó la Procuraduría, quien recordó debía demostrarse el ejercicio decenal de la posesión con anterioridad a la fecha de vigencia del decreto que creó la zona protegida de marras. Inaceptablemente, el a quo utiliza como argumento para justificar la ampliación de prueba testimonial, haberse apersonado idcho ente en forma posterior a esas primeras declaraciones (ver folio 82). Independientemente de lo alegado por el Procurador, el Juez por principio conoce el derecho y está obligado a velar por el cumplimiento del requisito dicho. La parte titulante además, debía desde el momento en que ofreció prueba testimonial, corroborar los testigos conociesen el terreno durante el tiempo suficiente para poder probar los hechos por ella afirmados. Si error o ignorancia, suya o de su asesor legal, no los acredita en la forma debida en el momento oportuno, es una carga que solo debe imputarse en su contra bajo su responsabilidad. No corresponde al juez subsanar dicha situación, salvo que, sin violentar sus funciones y en tutela de los derechos de la parte y con respecto del ordenamiento vigente, considere en forma fundada, sea estrictamente necesario recibir alguna prueba adicional. Posterior a ello, se realiza un reconocimiento judicial, en el cual no puede este Tribunal dejar de señalar, se levanta un acta con descripción bastante limitada del terreno (ver folio 37). En memorial de fecha 7 de diciembre del 2001 (folio 49), el titulante pide se le permita ofrecer otros dos testigos, por cuanto los señores [Nombre11] y José Pérez, tenían poco tiempo de conocer la finca, a lo cual accede el Juzgador de instancia (folio 50). Se recibieron así en febrero del 2002 las declaraciones de [Nombre5] y [Nombre4] (folios 54 y 55). Debido a contradicciones entre lo declarado por ellos y lo afirmado por el titulante, éste presenta dos memoriales a folios 57 y 63. En el primero pretende “aclarar” lo dicho por ellos en cuanto a ser derivada la forma de adquisición del inmueble, lo cual contradice lo afirmado por el titulante. En el segundo, el apoderado judicial del titulante solicita se reciban tres testigos más, “…con el fin de demostrar que las tierras que pretende titular mi representado siempre han estado en manos de él y o su familia y que la transmisión de padres a hijos se ha dado en forma verbal; que a si mismo la posesión ejercida lo ha sido con mucho mas de diez (sic) de antelación a la publicación de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización…”. Pese a que con esa manifestación se varía lo afirmado inicialmente por el promovente, y a haberse admitido ya cinco testimonios, el juez de instancia accede a recibirlos en junio del 2002 (folios 68 a 70). Estos, aparte de afirmar conocer la finca desde 1950, no aportan mucha información sobre el terreno, e incluso hacen aún más contradictoria la recibida en su totalidad. Aclara el Tribunal este agravio se admite en este caso en concreto, por cuanto como ya se explicó, es facultad del Juez de instancia determinar el número de testigos que necesita para fallar, y en cuanto a lo establecido en el artículo 6 citado sobre el número de testigos, su extensión no es ilegal, siempre y cuando sea estrictamente necesario y se corrobore no se altera con ello el cumplimiento efectivo de los fines de la legislación vigente. Lo inaceptable es permitir el gestionante vaya “subsanando” o alterando a su conveniencia, lo que ha afirmado o bien ha ido quedando demostrado, conforme va transcurriendo el proceso. [Nombre15] si la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias es clara en cuanto a requisitos, y existe una gran cantidad de pronunciamientos por parte de los Tribunales que han resuelto y explicado como se interpretan y deben cumplir cada uno de ellos. En el caso, en vista de las afirmaciones de los dos primeros testigos recibidos [Nombre9] y [Nombre11] (folios 24 y 25), sobre conocer el terreno desde hacía apenas 10 o 12 años, se puede entender se haya ordenado recibir dos testigos más, los cuales se suponen debían tener conocimiento sobre el mismo con muchos años más de antelación, y además, lógicamente, estar lo suficientemente enterados para poder informar al juez sobre todos los detalles que éste requiriese en cuanto a tiempo de posesión, actos ejercidos, delimitación y demás datos fundamentales. Incluso, aún cuando el juez omitiese hacer alguna pregunta de especial interés para corroborar lo informado por el titulante, éste y su asesor legal pueden estar presentes en la declaración y solicitar se hagan al declarante las preguntas pertinentes que el juzgador haya dejado de hacer. Pero luego de los segundos testigos, injustificadamente a la luz de lo alegado, como se explicó, se recibieron tres más. \n\nXVII.- El sétimo agravio se rechaza por no demostrarse el inmueble que se pretende titular en el expediente Nº00-100077-417AG del Juzgado Agrario de Nicoya, traslape con el que es objeto de la presente diligencia. Si bien es cierto del dibujo de ubicación de las fincas, de acuerdo con los planos NºP-589858-99 y las copias del informe remitidas por el Juzgado de Nicoya sobre el expediente citado (folios 126 a 136), se deriva están los inmuebles entre meridianos y paralelos cercanos, no existe prueba fehaciente exista traslape entre ellos. En el informe solicitado al Catastro Nacional y admitido como prueba para mejor proveer, se indica incluso el plano P-54225-1963 citado en el informe respectivo del Juzgado de Nicoya, no traslapa con el plano P-589858-1999. Tampoco el resto de planos referidos a las informaciones posesorias que tramita el promovente, según lo indicado por el Catastro Nacional traslapan documentalmente (folios 138 a 152). La Procuraduría en memorial de 28 de octubre del 2003, a raíz de la prueba solicitada al Catastro Nacional por el Tribunal con carácter de mejor proveer, acepta no existe el traslape reclamado y solicita dejar sin efecto sus alegaciones al respecto (folio 166). Luego, en memorial de fecha 11 de noviembre de 2003, insiste en la existencia de un traslape entre el plano P-54225-1963 y el inmueble que conformaba una sola unidad del cual formaba parte el que es objeto de este proceso. Pero al respecto, claramente indica la porción descrita en el plano P-589858-99, que corresponde al presente asunto, no se traslapa con el citado plano de 1963. Por ende, sus alegaciones al respecto resultan improcedentes.\n\n XVIII.- Finalmente, debe además hacer notar el Tribunal, en los considerandos de la sentencia impugnada, más que analizarse la prueba y el cumplimiento de los presupuestos procesales y de fondo exigidos para acoger la diligencia, se combate la posición de la Procuraduría, al considerar ésta incurre en una práctica “inconveniente” de cambiar las “reglas del juego” (folio 82). Asimismo, existe una contradicción entre lo afirmado en el escrito inicial sobre no existir cargas reales sobre el inmueble y lo consignado en el plano base de las diligencias, al marcarse la existencia de una servidumbre de paso, que evidentemente sirve de acceso al mismo. Ello no solo es una discordancia que debió ser advertida por el a quo, para que en caso de ser pertinente, ordenase demostrar su constitución en la forma debida y se aclarase cual era el fundo sirviente, si estaba o no inscrito, medidas de la servidumbre (ancho y largo) y fin de la misma. Pero además, en este caso, dado que el inmueble forma parte de una zona protegida, de no haber consolidado el titulante su derecho con anterioridad a la vigencia del decreto que la crea, resultaba improcedente la constitución de un gravamen como el citado. Al respecto, recuérdese las áreas silvestre protegidas estatales forman parte del patrimonio natural del Estado (artículos 32, 34, 37, 38, 46 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 13 y 14 de La Ley Forestal; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, voto de la Sala Constitucional N°2988 de las 11:57 horas del 23 de abril de 1999 y Nº755-03 citado del Tribunal Agrario). Este por su parte, está conformado por los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, áreas declaradas inalienables, fincas inscritas a nombre del Estado, fincas de las municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y demás organismos de la Administración Pública, excepto inmuebles que garanticen operaciones crediticias del Sistema Bancario Nacional y formen parte de su patrimonio (artículos 13 y 15 Ley Forestal). Los terrenos forestales y bosques comprendidos dentro del patrimonio natural del Estado son inembargables, inalienables e imprescriptibles, de conformidad con los numerales 14 y 15 de la Ley Forestal, y no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil (ver al respecto los votos N°1092 de las 16:09 horas del 7 de febrero del 2001 y N°421 de las 15:20 horas del 16 de enero del 2001. En igual sentido el N°2988 de las 11:57 horas del 23 de abril de 1999, todos de la Sala Constitucional). \n\nXIX.- En razón de todo lo expuesto, deberá revocarse la resolución recurrida, en cuanto aprobó las presentes diligencias de información posesoria. En su lugar, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 7 y 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y demás normativa citada, se rechazan las diligencias de información posesoria establecidas por [Nombre1] .\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe rechaza la prueba ofrecida por ambas partes para mejor proveer. Se revoca la resolución recurrida. En su lugar, se rechaza la diligencia de información posesoria establecida por [Nombre1] .-\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCARLOS BOLAÑOS CESPEDES RUTH ALPIZAR RODRIGUEZ\n\nNº EXPN2\n\nInformación Posesoria\n\nPromovida [Nombre1] .\n\nli.-",
  "body_en_text": "VOTO 827-F-03\n\nVOTO 827-F-03\n\nAGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSE. Goicoechea, at two twenty in the afternoon of the nineteenth of December, two thousand three.-\n\nPossessory information proceedings (Diligencias de Información posesoria), processed before the Agrarian Court of Nicoya (currently based in Santa Cruz), initiated by [Name1], of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of Tambor de Puntarenas, with identity card number CED1. Acting as his special judicial attorney is Gerardo Morales Rodríguez, who is of legal age, married, attorney, with identity card number CED2. The State, through the Procuraduría General de la República, and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario were included as parties, with Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes, who is of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Heredia with identity card number CED3, appearing on behalf of the former; and engineer [Name1], who is of legal age, married, Agricultural Engineer, resident of San José, with identity card number CED4, on behalf of the latter. This Tribunal hears the appeal filed by the State's representative against the judgment issued at one fifteen in the afternoon of the seventh of October, two thousand two.\n\nRESULTANDO\n\n1.- The petitioner [Name1] requested that the following be registered in his name: a wooded lot located in [Address1], , Province of Puntarenas; measuring: six thousand six hundred and twenty-seven meters and forty square decimeters, bordered on the north and west by: [Name1], on the south and east by: [Name1], with an easement (servidumbre) of passage in the middle, with a total frontage of two hundred and fifty-two meters and seven centimeters.\n\n2.- The state representative, Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes, requested that these proceedings should be rejected, pursuant to article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, because the property is part of the State's Natural Heritage, inalienable and imprescriptible, and over which the possession of private individuals does not create any right in their favor, Ley Forestal No. 7575, articles 13, 14, and 15. Furthermore, the properties described in the cadastral maps number P-589858-99, P-590605-99, P-590855-99, P-590609-99, P-590593-99, and P-590597-99 overlap with map No. P-54225-63, initially provided by the same petitioner in the possessory information proceedings processed in this court under number EXPN1, which describes the property donated by [Name1] to the petitioner, as recorded in the testimony of the deed granted at 3:00 p.m. on February 23, 1999, provided to that file and in which it is said to have been acquired from [Name2] and that the property has been possessed for more than thirty years.-\n\n 3.- Mr. José Piñar Ballestero, judge of first instance, in a judgment at one fifteen in the afternoon of October seventh, two thousand two, resolved: \"POR TANTO: For the reasons stated, articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, it is the criterion of this judge that the present possessory information proceedings, conducted without any opposition, should be APPROVED for the petitioner, corresponding to the property to be indicated, acquired by [Name1], in an original manner. The property is the one corresponding to the cadastral map number P-589858-99, of October twenty-second, nineteen ninety-nine. It is appropriate to grant approval to these proceedings, without prejudice to third parties with a better right and subject to the restrictions established in the Ley de Aguas in its articles 72 and 73. Consequently, let the Public Registry proceed to register in the Property Section, Party of Puntarenas, in the name of [Name1], of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of Tambor de Puntarenas, [Address2], the property described as follows: Land suitable for pasture corresponding to the cadastral map number P-589858-99, of October twenty-second, nineteen ninety-nine, located in [Address3], , of the first [Address4] Puntarenas, province of Puntarenas. It measures: six thousand six hundred and twenty-seven meters, forty square decimeters. With the following current boundaries. NORTH AND WEST [Name1], SOUTH AND EAST [Name1], with an easement of passage in the middle. Estimated at ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES. It does not bear real encumbrances, there are no co-owners. With this, it is not intended to evade the procedures and consequences of any succession judgment. Ley de Informaciones Posesorias number one hundred and thirty-nine of July fourteenth, nineteen forty-one and its amendments\".\n\n 4.- The procedures and time limits have observed the legal formalities. No defects or omissions capable of causing any defenselessness to the parties are noted.\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, and;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- In accordance with the provisions of numerals 501 and 502 of the Labor Code, applied supplementarily in this matter based on numeral 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the documentary evidence offered as evidence for a better resolution by the Procuraduría General de la República (hereinafter Procuraduría), referring to the National Cadastre report dated October 29, 2003 (folios 171-174), is rejected as unnecessary, given the evidence contained in the record, as is the petitioner's request for a judicial inspection of the property and his offer of the document signed by the surveyor [Name3], dated November 28, 2003 (visible at folio 184).\n\nII.- The list of proven facts is not endorsed, except for the fifth, as it refers to procedural matters of the case and not to the factual aspects that must be proven to issue a confirmatory judgment for a possessory information. The fifth shall be considered as one. Add others of the same nature: 2) The property subject to these proceedings is located in Río Seco de Paquera, canton of Puntarenas. It measures six thousand six hundred and twenty-seven meters and forty square decimeters, and borders on all its sides with lands of the title applicant, noting, according to cadastral map number five hundred eighty-nine thousand eight hundred fifty-eight-ninety-nine, the existence of an easement of passage on the south, east, and part of the north (see map: folio 1; initial brief: folio 4).- 3) It is land of a wooded nature, without buildings or crops (see map: folio 1; initial brief: folio 4; judicial inspection: folio 37).- 4) The aforementioned property is located within the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, Sector Buena Vista, created by Decreto Ejecutivo Nº22968-MIRENEM of April 10, 1994 (see certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy: folio 2; map: folio 1).- 5) The land subject to the process was part of another, which has been divided cadastrally into several parts for the purposes of titling (see statements from [Name4], [Name5], [Name6], [Name7], and [Name8]: folios 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70; petitioner's brief: folio 115).\n\nIII.- The conclusion reached by the lower court on unproven facts is not accepted, as the following important ones are disproven, due to a lack of reliable and pertinent evidence thereof. Thus, it was not proven: 1) That [Name1] acquired the property subject to the proceedings in an original manner starting from nineteen seventy-one.- 2) That the petitioner possessed, as owner, in good faith, publicly, peacefully, and continuously, the property to be titled for at least ten years before the declaration of the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya in nineteen ninety-four.- 3) The constitution of the easement indicated in the cadastral map number five hundred eighty-nine thousand eight hundred fifty-eight-ninety-nine, and therefore which is the servient tenement.- 4) That the property subject to titling, together with other lands the petitioner is titling, located in the same zone, exceeds three hundred hectares in measure.\n\nIV.- The lower court, in a resolution at 1:15 p.m. on October 7, 2002, granted the present possessory information proceedings. It considered the ten-year possession prior to the creation of the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya to be well demonstrated. Furthermore, it deemed all the requirements demanded by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias to be met, rejecting the Procuraduría's arguments for denying the registration.\n\nV.- Said entity requests the reversal of the cited judgment, given the inconsistencies regarding the time, manner of acquiring possession, and possessory acts, which are perceived from the integrated analysis of the evidentiary elements, which prevents the fulfillment of the essential requirements to title to the detriment of the State's Natural Heritage, which is inalienable and imprescriptible (articles 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575). It specifically raises the following grievances: 1) An attempt is being made to register several properties that previously formed a single one, through different files processed in the Court of origin under numbers 01-000014-391AG, 01-000015-391AG, 01-000016-391AG, 01-000017-391AG, 01-000018-391AG, 01-000019-391AG, 01-000020-391AG, 01-000021-391AG, 01-000022-391AG, 01-000023-391AG, 01-000024-391AG, 01-000025-391AG, 01-000027-391AG, and 01-000028-391AG. Therefore, for the analysis of the time and manner of possession required to title lands that are part of the State's Natural Heritage (Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya- Sector Buena Vista), all of them must be examined as one; 2) There is no coincidence between what the title applicant stated regarding the possessory acts and what was observed in the judicial inspection, as well as with what was declared by the witnesses. The petitioner affirms in his initial brief, under sworn statement, that he has possessed the properties in an original manner and that his possession consists basically of making firebreaks (rondas), fences, planting plantains, and fruit trees such as mango, coconut, avocado, etc. In the inspection reports submitted in most of the cited cases, dated June 20, 2001, it is indicated that NO fences exist, only delimitation by clean lanes, there are no buildings, livestock, or crops, and that the lands are dedicated to natural conservation. The witnesses, [Name9] and [Name10], for their part, affirm that the petitioner's possessory acts have consisted, according to the former, of cleaning to build a dwelling house, and according to the latter, of erecting fences on all four sides, as well as keeping the land clean. The Procuraduría highlights that neither fences nor buildings exist, despite the fact that the witnesses and the petitioner refer to them, the existing elements being lanes, and the land being in natural regeneration according to the judicial inspection carried out. They also cite the statements of [Name4] and [Name5], rendered on February 21, 2002, in other cited possessory information proceedings (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01), in which they stated: a) The former, discordantly, indicated the property was destined for fruit trees, and the acts of possession were making fences, clearing (chapias), and maintenance (14-01 and 20-01). In other proceedings, the farm was destined for agriculture and had been divided into lots (15-01, 18-01, 24-01, 27-01); b) The latter indicated the land was dedicated to fruit trees and the acts were making and repairing fences, cleaning firebreaks, lanes, and general care (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01); 3) The Procuraduría does not share the judge's argument that the area is easily overgrown after a harvest, which causes it to quickly become part of the natural regeneration landscape. According to it, this explains why the inspection yields current information different from the activity that may have occurred at other times. In this regard, the Procurador highlights that witnesses must refer to the exercise of current possession, not only that carried out previously, besides the fact that in this case they speak in the present tense; 4) With the statements of [Name11], [Name9], and [Name10], rendered on March 8, 2002, in the present matter and others cited (their numbers abbreviated as follows: 16-01, 18-01, 21-01, 22-01, 24-01, 25-01, 27-01, 28-01), the exercise of ten-year possession prior to the effective date of the Creating Decree of the cited Zona Protectora is not proven, as Mr. [Name11] and Mr. [Name9] stated they had known the farm for twelve and ten years, respectively; 5) The appellant maintains that discordance is evident regarding the title applicant's mode of acquisition, given that in statements by [Name4] and [Name5], rendered on February 21, 2002, and in other cited possessory information proceedings (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01), they stated they had known the property for approximately thirty years, which was acquired from Mr. [Name12] about twenty years ago. For their part, witnesses [Name7], [Name8], and [Name6] declare, in practically identical terms, that they have known the property since before 1950 (exactly the time required according to the Agrarian Tribunal's jurisprudence cited by the Procuraduría) and that it has always belonged to the [Name1] family, not specifically to the title applicant. These statements do not agree with what Mr. [Name1] affirmed, that his possession is original. Furthermore, the transferor indicated by the first two witnesses cited in this grievance is not part of the aforementioned family; 6) An inconvenient practice is occurring at the Court of accepting new witness statements until they finally comply with affirming the legally required possession time. The lower court judge justifies this because the first statements were taken before the Procuraduría's appearance, as it is normal practice to instruct the title applicant to comply with its requirements, and for that purpose, the second statements of [Name4] and [Name5] were taken on February 21, 2000, who effectively granted the title applicant a derived possession of more than thirty years. Regarding the third set, the appellant indicates the lower court judge relies on numeral 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Procuraduría having changed the rules of the game for the petitioner by requiring that the Agrarian Tribunal's jurisprudence be considered, according to which ten-year possession must be demonstrated prior to the date of enactment of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización. This should have been known by the judge as such, and furthermore, the certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy was already in the record, indicating that the area to be titled forms part of a protected wild area; 7) In the Court of origin, which was stated in a timely manner, Possessory Information Proceeding No. 00-100077-417AG is being processed, in which the map initially provided by the same petitioner of these proceedings, CED5, which describes a property donated by [Name13] to him, overlaps with the map subject to these proceedings.\n\nVI.- Mr. [Name1] for his part, in a brief submitted to the court on November 18, 2002, requested the appeal be dismissed, as the judgment was duly substantiated in accordance with the evidence presented in the record. In it, he also accepts he is processing several possessory information proceedings (folios 115 to 116). The state representation, when responding on October 17, 2003, to a hearing on the evidence for a better resolution ordered in this instance, reiterates the arguments put forth in its appeal and affirms there is an overlap according to its studies between map P-54225-1963 and the one subject to these proceedings, and others (folios 153 to 154). It must be emphasized that, aside from the claimed overlap not being demonstrated, the Procurador cites map P-590597-99 as the map for this process, which is incorrect, although among the other maps mentioned, it does include the effective one (P-589858-99). The petitioner, for his part, responding to several hearings granted at this stage regarding the evidence provided and what was said by the entity in question, affirms that the possessory information proceeding it refers to is not related to the present one, that there is no overlap in this regard, and clarifies he is not intending to title more than the 300 hectares permitted by Law (folios 158, 164, and 187). Finally, the Procuraduría accepts, based on the National Cadastre report, that the claimed overlap does not exist and requests that its allegations in this regard be rendered ineffective, but not the rest of its objections (folios 166 and 170).\n\nVII.- The appellant's first grievance is not admissible. The fact that different files are being processed separately, referring to lots that the petitioner claims as his own, which formed part of a single material unit, does not mandate their joint analysis for proving the time and manner of possession, unless it is intended thereby to violate the maximum permitted area that can be titled by the same person through this means (300 hectares), as established in article 15 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Apart from it not being proven that the totality of lands Mr. [Name14] intends to title exceeds this measure, it is at the petitioner's discretion whether he processed them all as a unit or separately, despite the inconveniences the latter may entail regarding documentary and testimonial evidence and increased costs. Furthermore, for the analysis of compliance with the time and manner of possession, as will be seen, what is in the record must be assessed. If, in the Procurador's consideration, there was evidence external to the case that affected or disproved what the title applicant affirmed in it, he should have proceeded to provide it in the proper manner.\n\nVIII.- The second, fourth, and fifth grievances of the appealing party are related to each other, as they challenge what was deemed proven by the lower court and highlight the contradictions between what the petitioner affirmed and what the witnesses said regarding the mode of acquisition, the possessory acts exercised, and the delimitation of the land. In this regard, and in accordance with what will be explained in the following considerandos, the Procuraduría is correct, clarifying that only what is contained in this process and the evidence actually received or provided in it is taken into account to analyze the grievances, not the reference to testimonies rendered in other matters, much less if they were not added to the record as documentary evidence. According to what has been deemed proven in this instance, the land to be titled is located within the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, established in April 1994. Consequently, the petitioner had to demonstrate clearly and forcefully having exercised ten-year possession prior to 1994. The above was not duly accredited. In this regard, aside from what will be said about the form and number of witnesses received, the following points must be highlighted. The statements made in this type of process by the petitioner have the character of a sworn statement, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 3, final paragraph, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the same set forth the requirements that must be met when filing the process, both procedural and substantive. In this sense, the Tribunal has explained that the \"...Possessory Information is a non-contentious judicial activity process for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired through adverse possession (usucapión), complying for this with the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The title applicant, apart from lacking a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the farm has not been previously registered in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to prevent a double registration entry on the same property, or to protect third parties with a better right than the title applicant, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition process within the Possessory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties, and therefore to personally notify from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners, this because the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. It is also ordered to notify co-owners. Likewise, to safeguard the State's interests, it is ordered to consider the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario as parties, for the protection of property subject to public domain and State Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law mandates summoning all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Boletín Judicial, who may have a legitimate interest in the process (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (see vote No. 755 of 9:45 a.m. on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-defined boundaries (fences, lanes, etc.) is also required. The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the farm is dedicated to cattle raising; the title applicant's identity card or respective identification document; the cadastral map; an updated certification from the Public Registry clarifying if other farms have been titled by the petitioner and their measure; an updated certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy on whether or not the land is included within any protected area. Current legislation on soils requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its suitability (land use study). The judge is also obligated, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, should springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity for this (articles 50 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3, and 17 of the Ley de Aguas No. 276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Ley Forestal No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, and Decreto Ejecutivo N°26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997).\n\nIX.- Apart from the foregoing, the initial brief must contain each of the data required in article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias: Name and qualifications of the petitioner; nature, location, measure, and boundaries of the land; names and address of the adjoining landowners (if they are legal entities, their updated legal status must be proven); indication of whether there are co-owners and real encumbrances (among them, easements (servidumbres), usufructs, etc.), if so, specify who and which ones (also prove the constitution of the latter); time of possession; description of the possessory acts; extent of crops, forested areas, or pasture; existence of buildings and improvements made; number of livestock if the farm is for cattle; cause and date of acquisition; name and surnames of the person who transferred it, in the case of a derived mode, as well as their domicile; estimation of the property and the proceedings; indication of three witnesses residing in the same canton where the property is located, when necessary according to the provisions of numerals 4 and 6 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. It must also necessarily be declared that: the farm is not already registered in the Public Registry, there is no registrable title of ownership, and it is not intended to evade the consequences of a succession judgment. If ten-year possession is not held at the time of initiating the proceeding, the petitioner may add that of his transferors, but in addition to clarifying this in the brief, he must provide the public document recording the transfer of his right. The documentary evidence and the rest of the evidence to be provided serve to ratify or prove precisely what was reported in the brief. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentary evidence accompanying the initial brief. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, a minimum of three, the legislator imposed the requirement that they be residents of the canton where the property is located. This was to allow persons truly knowledgeable about the situation to present themselves to testify. In other words, it is presumed that residents of the area are those best able to attest to the owners of the lands near their own and what happens on them, by frequently visiting or living in the same place. All these requirements and the pertinent evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial brief are clearly specified in the cited regulations. Ignorance thereof cannot therefore be alleged, much less if professional legal advice was available, as happened in the case. The omission regarding them, or the offering of non-pertinent evidence, is the sole responsibility of the petitioner, which the judge cannot assume or attempt to resolve.\n\nX.- In addition to the mentioned requirements, in cases where the land is included within a protected area, a more qualified requirement must be met regarding the exercise and time of possession. \"... In accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, applicable to the case because the property to be titled is located within the Zona Protectora …, in order to register said property in the Public Registry, the petitioner must demonstrate having been in possession of the property for at least ten years before the validity of the Decree that created the cited Reserve, as well as having protected the forest resource\" (vote No. 170-03 of 4:24 p.m. on March 31, 2003. See also in this regard vote No. 755-03 cited). The above is required to protect the State's forest heritage and biodiversity, without thereby affecting the rights that private subjects may have effectively consolidated over time (see in this regard vote No. 497 of 3:20 p.m. on July 30, 2003, of the Tribunal). In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber, in Vote No. 4587 of 3:45 p.m. on August 5, 1997, in which it analyzed the constitutionality of the cited article 7, ruled that to title lands located in the protected areas indicated therein, the interested party had to demonstrate possession ten years before the validity of the respective Decree. Basically, the Chamber said on that occasion: \"... given the nature of the property intended to be titled (public property), the period of possession suitable for adverse possession (usucapión) must elapse before the property is affected for public domain. That is, the declaration of a protected wild area prevents possession subsequent to the declaration from counting, and prevents the requirements for adverse possession from being completed if the right has not been acquired by that time, i.e., the ten years of possession suitable for adverse possession under the conditions established by law have not elapsed\". In this case, upon assessing the evidence conscientiously and without strict adherence to the rules of common law (article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), the Tribunal reaches the unavoidable conclusion that these proceedings must be rejected because they encompass a property that forms part of the State's Forest Heritage, as the title applicant has not demonstrated having acquired and consolidated a property right over it prior to the creation of the protected area in question. The reasons of equity and law that support this conclusion will be given in the subsequent considerandos.\n\nXI.- Regarding the mode of acquisition, time of possession, and possessory acts, there is no consistency among the witnesses, or between them and what the title applicant stated in his initial brief. Mr. [Name1] indicated he has possessed the land since 1971 in an original manner and that his possessory acts are making firebreaks, fences, planting plantains, fruit trees such as mango, coconut, avocado, and teak (folios 7 and 8). The former was not corroborated by any of the witnesses who testified at different times: [Name9], [Name11], [Name10], [Name4], [Name5], [Name6], [Name7], and [Name8] (folios 24, 25, 26, 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70). In fact, the last three cited, identically indicated they knew the farm since before 1950 and that it had always belonged to the [Name1] family (folios 68, 69, and 70). For their part, Mr. [Name4] and Mr. [Name5] affirmed that the land Mr. [Name1] intends to title was acquired by him from [Name12], about twenty years ago according to the former, which corresponds approximately to the year 1982 (folio 55). The petitioner, in a manner contradictory to his interests, insofar as he is supposed to offer truthful witnesses, knowledgeable about the situation of the farm, whom he VOLUNTARILY chooses in order to prove his affirmations, provides the brief dated April 19, 2002, visible at folio 57, with which he intends to \"clarify\" what was said by those two witnesses, claiming that Mr. [Name12] many years ago had farms bordering the one intended to be titled, but not that one, and reiterates his mode of acquisition is original.\n\nThe foregoing is neither convincing nor acceptable, [Nombre15] in this case, in which the declaration of different witnesses was unjustifiably accepted on more than one occasion. Were his justification to be admitted, it would have to be taken as true that those witnesses did not then declare about the property subject to the proceeding, or else did not know it, and therefore, should not have been offered as such. But apart from this highly questionable conduct, and from the contradictions regarding the manner and date of acquisition, which prevent the exercise of ten-year possession in the manner required by law prior to 1994 from being considered effectively demonstrated by the applicant, there are other discrepancies that likewise undermine what he asserted, and which lead to the rejection of this petition.\n\nXII.- As for the time of possession, [Nombre9] and [Nombre11] (folios 24 and 25) stated they had known the property for 10 and 12 years respectively (approximately 1991 and 1989, according to the date of the declaration). Besides these witnesses not being useful to demonstrate possession prior to those dates, which was necessary given the special situation of the property as part of a protected zone (zona protectora), it is striking that despite claiming to have known the property for so many years, they did not know who its adjoining landowners were. [Nombre10], [Nombre5], [Nombre4] (folios 26, 54 and 55) stated they had known the property for about 30 years (which corresponds to 1971 and 1972 respectively, according to their declaration dates). However, like the first ones cited, Mrs. [Nombre10] did not know who the adjoining landowners were, nor did she refer to how [Nombre1] came to be the owner of the land. [Nombre4] also did not know about the boundaries or what the land's measurement was. But further, along with [Nombre5], they asserted the property was acquired from [Nombre12]. The former said this was about 20 years ago, which yields an approximate date of 1982. The latter did not mention the date of acquisition (folios 54 and 55). This contradicts not only the manner of acquisition asserted by Mr. [Nombre1], but also the time he declared he possessed the land. Which is even more questionable, if it is taken into account that, given the date of creation of the protected zone in question, he should have demonstrated possession of the property for at least the ten years prior to 1994, in the legally required manner. [Nombre6], [Nombre7] and [Nombre8] (folios 68, 69 and 70), declared they knew the property from before 1950, which formerly was part of another. They stated it has always belonged to the [Nombre1] family. The foregoing contradicts not only what prior witnesses asserted, but also the applicant’s own statement, who asserts under oath to be the owner of the property since 1971 and to have acquired it in an original manner.\n\nXIII.- Regarding the possessory acts (actos posesorios), the first witnesses received in March 2001 stated: [Nombre9] and [Nombre10] said such acts consisted of the property having been fenced along all its boundaries. The latter added the land was “very clean” (folios 24 and 26); [Nombre11] said they were the clearing of the land for the purpose of building a house (folio 25). The second group of witnesses was received in February 2002, and stated they knew the land but as part of a larger one. Specifically regarding possessory acts, with the clarification of knowing the land as part of another, they stated: [Nombre4], the property having been dedicated to agriculture (folio 55). [Nombre5], being land mostly dedicated to fruit trees, fences having been made and repaired, firebreak clearing and general care (folio 54). The third group of witnesses, who likewise know the land as part of another, was received in June 2002, and declared: [Nombre6] and [Nombre7] state the property has been dedicated to conservation or natural regeneration and the possessory acts have been the general care that a property of that nature requires (folios 68 and 69). [Nombre8], unlike all the cited witnesses, asserts some parts of the property have been dedicated to livestock, and others to agriculture, but mostly to conservation or natural regeneration, and the possessory acts are the general care that a property of such nature requires (folio 70). Apart from the evident inconsistencies regarding what the witnesses stated among themselves, in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted on June 20, 2001, it follows from what was recorded therein that the land has broken topography, there were no fences but there were tracks, there were no buildings, livestock or crops. It was recorded as being dedicated to natural conservation. Added to the above, the map (plano) subject to the proceedings indicates the land is dedicated to “trees” (folio 1), which is also corroborated when indicating the nature of the property in the initial filing (folio 4). Consequently, given so many contradictions, it can in no way be clear what the possessory acts were and what the land subject to title proceedings has been used for, and therefore this aspect cannot be considered demonstrated in the manner required by law, even less so if one takes as a basis that the applicant asserted they were fences, firebreaks and the planting of plantain and fruit trees, and according to his last three witnesses, allegedly provided to “clarify or prove” what the prior ones had not been able to state, the land “has always been dedicated to conservation and the possessory acts have been those required by a property of such nature.”\n\nXIV.- Regarding the delimitation of the property, this Court takes into account that it formed part of a material unit, to which several of the witnesses received refer (folios 54, 55, 68, 69 and 70). However, by deciding to file for its registration in parts, specifically in this case a piece of land measuring 6,627.40 square meters, the applicant is obligated to delimit it clearly. Likewise, the witnesses he offers must know it in that form, and be able to explain what they know about it, because otherwise it could not be accepted, nor would there be certainty, as to whether what was declared refers to the land subject to title proceedings. In that sense, of the first witnesses who testified in the proceedings: [Nombre9] and [Nombre10] (folios 24 and 26), indicated the land was fenced on all four sides. [Nombre9] even specified that the erection of the fences were for him the possessory acts exercised (folio 24). [Nombre11] did not refer to how the land was delimited, and also did not know its boundaries (folio 25). [Nombre4] says that because the property is very broken, he has never been interested in knowing them. He adds: “The property is dedicated to agriculture. This property before was a single farm but they have been subdividing (loteando) it I don't know with what intention. I don't know if it has firebreaks or is fenced since those are fences that are very hard to walk along” (folio 55). [Nombre5] (folio 54), stated the “lot (lote) belongs to a large property of approximately eighty-something hectares, whose boundaries along the west are with [Dirección5], to the east with [Dirección6], to the north with a gringo whose name I don't know and to the south I don't remember whose it is.” Apart from the problems implied by knowing the lot as part of another piece of land for purposes of locating it, this witness is then not useful to demonstrate the specific and current boundary lines (linderos) of the one intended to be titled, since it emerges from his statement that he refers to the land as a whole and not to the part sought to be titled. The last three witnesses, [Nombre6], [Nombre7] and [Nombre8], do not refer to the boundaries of the land (folios 68, 69 and 70). But besides the above, the applicant in his initial brief asserts having performed as acts of possession the making of fences (folio 8). That assertion and what was indicated by the first witnesses cited above is undermined by what was verified in the judicial inspection conducted in June 2001, because it was clearly indicated the property was not fenced, with tracks existing as delimitation (see record on folio 37).\n\nXV.- The foregoing analysis is sufficient to consider the basic requirements to grant this petition as not demonstrated. But regardless of that, it is important to state the following regarding the remaining grievances. What was alleged in the third one, regarding the lower court’s argument that the area is easy to become overgrown and therefore after a harvest it quickly returns to natural regeneration, is unfounded, besides it being a situation that must be analyzed and demonstrated in each specific case, depending on the type of vegetation and natural conditions of the specific area. But, in this matter, even if it were true it could be an area of easy regeneration, that does not change the conclusion reached by the Court regarding the non-fulfillment of the necessary requirements to approve this title proceeding.\n\nXVI.- Regarding the sixth grievance, it must be said that the Court cannot limit the powers of the trial judge in a general manner, [Nombre15] if numeral 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias provides: “The judge may, when he deems it convenient, order all such proceedings he considers necessary to verify the truthfulness of the facts to which the Information refers. He shall reject it if he comes to verify that it is intended to improperly title national public lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves (reservas forestales), national parks (parques nacionales) or biological reserves (reservas biológicas).” However, on this occasion, given what occurred and was demonstrated in the proceedings, the State Attorney is correct in claiming that the extension of testimonial evidence was improperly admitted, not just on one, but on two occasions. The foregoing because in March 2001 the first three witnesses offered by the applicant were received, just as required by Article 6 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. On that first occasion the Court must emphasize that a commissioned judge received the evidence, which is not an admissible practice in agrarian matters, due to its purposes, which promote respect, save for qualified exceptions, of the principle of immediacy (inmediatez). [Nombre15] in cases like the present one, where the protection of a protected area (zona protegida) is at stake, and when the commissioned act is the taking of evidence fundamental for the substance of what must be resolved, such as testimonial evidence. After that, it is recorded that the State Attorney's Office appeared, reminding that the ten-year exercise of possession prior to the effective date of the decree creating the protected area in question had to be demonstrated. Unacceptably, the lower court uses as an argument to justify the extension of testimonial evidence that said entity appeared after those first declarations (see folio 82). Regardless of what the State Attorney alleged, the Judge knows the law in principle and is obligated to ensure compliance with said requirement. The applicant party also had, from the moment it offered testimonial evidence, to corroborate that the witnesses knew the land for sufficient time to be able to prove the facts asserted by it. If an error or ignorance, its own or its legal counsel’s, does not accredit them in the proper manner at the opportune moment, it is a burden that must only be imputed against it under its responsibility. It does not fall to the judge to remedy that situation, unless, without violating his functions and in protection of the party's rights and with respect for the current legal system, he considers with basis that it is strictly necessary to receive some additional evidence. Subsequent to that, a judicial inspection is conducted, in which this Court cannot fail to point out that a record is drawn up with a rather limited description of the land (see folio 37). In a brief dated December 7, 2001 (folio 49), the applicant requests to be allowed to offer two other witnesses, because Messrs. [Nombre11] and José Pérez had known the property for only a short time, to which the trial judge agrees (folio 50). Thus, the declarations of [Nombre5] and [Nombre4] were received in February 2002 (folios 54 and 55). Due to contradictions between what they declared and what the applicant asserted, the latter presents two briefs at folios 57 and 63. In the first he intends to “clarify” what they said regarding the manner of acquisition of the property being derivative, which contradicts what the applicant asserted. In the second, the applicant’s attorney-in-fact requests that three more witnesses be received, “…in order to demonstrate that the lands my client intends to title have always been in the hands of him and or his family and that the transmission from parents to children has been verbal; and also that the possession exercised has been for much more than ten [sic] years prior to the publication of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización…” Despite the fact that with that statement what the applicant initially asserted is varied, and that five testimonies had already been admitted, the trial judge agrees to receive them in June 2002 (folios 68 to 70). These, apart from claiming to know the property since 1950, do not contribute much information about the land, and even make the evidence received in its entirety even more contradictory. The Court clarifies that this grievance is admitted in this specific case, because as already explained, it is the power of the trial judge to determine the number of witnesses he needs to rule, and regarding what is established in the cited Article 6 on the number of witnesses, its extension is not illegal, as long as it is strictly necessary and it is corroborated that the effective fulfillment of the purposes of the current legislation is not thereby altered. What is unacceptable is to allow the petitioner to go “remedying” or altering at his convenience, what he has asserted or what has been gradually demonstrated, as the proceeding unfolds. [Nombre15] if the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is clear as to requirements, and there is a large quantity of pronouncements by the Courts that have resolved and explained how each of them is interpreted and must be fulfilled. In this case, in view of the statements by the first two witnesses received, [Nombre9] and [Nombre11] (folios 24 and 25), about knowing the land for barely 10 or 12 years, it is understandable that the reception of two more witnesses was ordered, who supposedly should have had knowledge of it for many more years prior, and also, logically, be sufficiently informed to be able to inform the judge about all the details he might require regarding time of possession, acts exercised, delimitation and other fundamental data. Even when the judge might omit to ask some question of special interest to corroborate what the applicant reported, the applicant and his legal counsel can be present at the declaration and request that the relevant questions that the judge has omitted be asked of the declarant. But after the second witnesses, unjustifiably in light of what was alleged, as explained, three more were received.\n\nXVII.- The seventh grievance is rejected because no overlap with the property that is the subject of this proceeding is demonstrated for the property sought to be titled in file Nº00-100077-417AG of the Juzgado Agrario de Nicoya. Although it is true that from the location sketch of the properties, according to maps NºP-589858-99 and the copies of the report sent by the Juzgado de Nicoya regarding the cited file (folios 126 to 136), it follows that the properties are between nearby parallels and meridians, there is no conclusive proof that there is an overlap between them. In the report requested from the Catastro Nacional and admitted as evidence for better provision (prueba para mejor proveer), it is even indicated that map P-54225-1963 cited in the respective report of the Juzgado de Nicoya does not overlap with map P-589858-1999. Nor do the rest of the maps related to the possessory information proceedings that the applicant processes, according to what the Catastro Nacional indicated, documentarily overlap (folios 138 to 152). The State Attorney's Office, in a brief of October 28, 2003, regarding the evidence requested from the Catastro Nacional by the Court for better provision, accepts the alleged overlap does not exist and requests that its allegations in this regard be set aside (folio 166). Later, in a brief dated November 11, 2003, it insists on the existence of an overlap between map P-54225-1963 and the property that formed a single unit of which the one subject to this proceeding was a part. But in this regard, it is clearly indicated that the portion described in map P-589858-99, which corresponds to the present matter, does not overlap with the cited 1963 map. Therefore, its allegations in this regard are unfounded.\n\nXVIII.- Finally, the Court must also note that in the recitals of the appealed judgment, rather than analyzing the evidence and the fulfillment of the procedural and substantive requirements demanded to grant the proceeding, the position of the State Attorney's Office is contested, considering that it engages in an “inconvenient” practice of changing “the rules of the game” (folio 82). Likewise, there is a contradiction between what was asserted in the initial filing about there being no real encumbrances on the property and what is recorded on the base map of the proceedings, by marking the existence of an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso), which evidently serves as access to it. This is not only a discrepancy that should have been noticed by the lower court, so that, if pertinent, it might order its due constitution to be demonstrated and clarify which was the servient tenement, whether or not it was registered, the measurements of the easement (width and length) and its purpose. But in addition, in this case, given that the property forms part of a protected area, had the applicant not consolidated his right prior to the effective date of the decree creating it, the constitution of an encumbrance (gravamen) like the one cited was unfounded. In this regard, recall that state-owned protected wild areas form part of the State's natural heritage (artículos 32, 34, 37, 38, 46 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 13 y 14 de La Ley Forestal; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, voto de la Sala Constitucional N°2988 de las 11:57 horas del 23 de abril de 1999 y Nº755-03 citado del Tribunal Agrario). The latter, for its part, is composed of forests and forest lands of national reserves, areas declared inalienable, properties registered in the name of the State, properties of municipalities, autonomous institutions and other Public Administration bodies, except properties that guarantee credit operations of the National Banking System and form part of its equity (artículos 13 y 15 Ley Forestal). The forest lands and forests comprised within the State's natural heritage are unattachable, inalienable and imprescriptible, in accordance with numerals 14 and 15 of the Ley Forestal, and cannot be mortgaged nor be subject to encumbrances in the terms of Civil Law (see in this regard votos N°1092 de las 16:09 horas del 7 de febrero del 2001 y N°421 de las 15:20 horas del 16 de enero del 2001. In the same sense N°2988 de las 11:57 horas del 23 de abril de 1999, all from the Sala Constitucional).\n\nXIX.- By reason of all the foregoing, the appealed decision, insofar as it approved these possessory information proceedings, must be revoked. In its place, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 7 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and other cited regulations, the possessory information proceedings initiated by [Nombre1] are rejected.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe evidence offered by both parties for better provision is rejected. The appealed decision is revoked. In its place, the possessory information proceeding initiated by [Nombre1] is rejected.-\n\n\nANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA\n\n\nCARLOS BOLAÑOS CESPEDES RUTH ALPIZAR RODRIGUEZ\n\nNº EXPN2\n\nInformación Posesoria\n\nPromovida [Nombre1].\n\nli.-\n\nNORTH AND WEST [Nombre1], SOUTH AND EAST [Nombre1], easement (servidumbre) de paso in the middle. Estimated at ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES. It does not bear liens or encumbrances (cargas reales), there are no co-owners. This proceeding does not seek to evade the procedures and consequences of any succession lawsuit. Law of Possessory Informations number one hundred thirty-nine of July fourteenth, nineteen forty-one and its amendments.\"\n\n4.- In the procedures and deadlines, the legal formalities have been observed. No defects or omissions capable of causing any defenselessness to the parties are noted.\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, and;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- In accordance with the provisions of numbers 501 and 502 of the Labor Code, applied supplementarily in this matter based on number 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the documentary evidence offered as evidence for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) by the Procuraduría General de la República (hereinafter Procuraduría) is rejected as unnecessary, given the evidence already in the record, referring to the report of the Catastro Nacional dated October 29, 2003 (folios 171-174), as well as the requesting party's motion to conduct a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) of the property and its offer of the document signed by the surveyor [Nombre3], dated November 28, 2003 (visible at folio 184).\n\nII.- The list of proven facts is not adopted, except for the fifth, as it refers to procedural matters of the case and not to the factual aspects that must be verified to issue a confirmatory judgment for a possessory information (información posesoria). The fifth shall be counted as one. Add facts of the same nature: 2) The property subject to this proceeding is located in Río Seco de Paquera, canton of Puntarenas. It measures six thousand six hundred twenty-seven meters and forty square decimeters, and is bounded on all sides by lands of the applicant (titulante), with the existence of an easement (servidumbre) de paso along the south, east, and part of the north being indicated according to the registered plan (plano catastrado) number five hundred eighty-nine thousand eight hundred fifty-eight-ninety-nine (see plan: folio 1; initial filing: folio 4).- 3) It is land of a forested nature (naturaleza boscosa), without buildings or crops (see plan: folio 1; initial filing: folio 4; judicial inspection: folio 37).- 4) The cited property is located within the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, Sector Buena Vista, created by Decreto Ejecutivo Nº22968-MIRENEM of April 10, 1994 (see certification from the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía: folio 2; plan: folio 1).- 5) The land subject to the process was part of another, which has been divided by survey into several parts for the purpose of proceeding with its titling (see statements of [Nombre4], [Nombre5], [Nombre6], [Nombre7], and [Nombre8]: folios 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70; brief of the applicant: folio 115).\n\nIII.- The conclusion reached by the lower court (a quo) on unproven facts is not accepted, with the following of importance being disapproved due to a lack of conclusive and pertinent evidence thereof. Thus, the following were not proven: 1) [Nombre1] acquired the property subject to the proceedings in an original form (forma originaria) starting from nineteen seventy-one.- 2) The applicant possessed the property to be titled as an owner (a título de dueño), in good faith (buena fe), in a public, peaceful, and continuous manner, for at least ten years before the declaration of the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, in nineteen ninety-four.- 3) The constitution of the easement (servidumbre) indicated in the registered plan number five hundred eighty-nine thousand eight hundred fifty-eight-ninety-nine, and therefore which is the servient tenement (fundo sirviente).- 4) The property subject to titling, together with other lands the applicant is titling located in the same area, exceed three hundred hectares in measurement.\n\nIV.- The lower court, in a resolution at 1:15 p.m. on October 7, 2002, granted this possessory information proceeding. It considered the ten-year possession (posesión decenal) prior to the creation of the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya well demonstrated. Furthermore, it deemed all the requirements demanded by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias fulfilled, rejecting the Procuraduría's arguments for denial of the registration.\n\nV.- Said entity requests that the cited judgment be revoked, given the inconsistencies regarding the time, manner of acquiring possession, and possessory acts, perceived from an integrated analysis of the evidentiary elements, which prevents deeming the indispensable requirements for titling to the detriment of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, which is inalienable and imprescriptible, from being fulfilled (articles 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley Forestal Nª7575). It specifically sets forth the following grievances: 1) An attempt is being made to register several properties that previously formed a single one, through different files processed at the court of origin under numbers 01-000014-391AG, 01-000015-391AG, 01-000016-391AG, 01-000017-391AG, 01-000018-391AG, 01-000019-391AG, 01-000020-391AG, 01-000021-391AG, 01-000022-391AG, 01-000023-391AG, 01-000024-391AG, 01-000025-391AG, 01-000027-391AG, and 01-000028-391AG. Therefore, for the purposes of analyzing the time and manner of possession required to title lands forming part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado (Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya- Sector Buena Vista), all of them must be examined as one; 2) There is no coincidence between what the applicant stated regarding the possessory acts, and what was observed in the judicial inspection as well as in the testimony of the witnesses. The petitioner (gestionante) claims in his initial filing, with the character of a sworn statement, to have possessed the properties in an original form and that his possession basically consisted of making firebreaks (rondas), fences, planting plantains and fruit trees like mango, coconut, avocado, etc. In the inspection reports (actas de reconocimiento) submitted in most of the cited cases, dated June 20, 2001, it is noted that NO fences exist, only delimitation by clear lanes (carriles limpios), there are no buildings, livestock, or crops, and that the lands are dedicated to natural conservation. The witnesses [Nombre9] and [Nombre10], for their part, claim that the possessory acts of the petitioner have consisted, according to the first, of cleaning to build a dwelling house, and according to the second, of erecting fences on all four sides, as well as keeping the land clean. The Procuraduría highlights that no fences or buildings exist, even though the witnesses and the applicant refer to them, with what exists being lanes and the land being in a state of natural regeneration according to the judicial inspection conducted. It also cites the statements of [Nombre4] and [Nombre5], given on February 21, 2002, in other cited informaciones (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01), in which they stated: a) The first, discordantly, stated that the property was destined for fruit trees and that the acts of possession were the making of fences, clearing (chapias), and maintenance (14-01 and 20-01). In other processes, the farm was destined for agriculture and had been divided into lots (15-01, 18-01, 24-01, 27-01); b) The second indicated the land was dedicated to fruit trees and the acts were making and repairing fences, cleaning firebreaks, lanes, and general care (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01); 3) The Procuraduría does not share the judge's argument that the area easily becomes overgrown after a harvest is gone, which makes it quickly become part of the natural regeneration landscape. According to this, it explains why the inspection yields current information different from the activity that may have occurred in other periods. Regarding this, the Procurador highlights that witnesses must refer to the exercise of current possession, not only that carried out previously, apart from the fact that in this case they speak in the present tense; 4) With the statements of [Nombre11], [Nombre9], and [Nombre10], given on March 8, 2002, in this matter and others of those cited (abbreviated by number as follows: 16-01, 18-01, 21-01, 22-01, 24-01, 25-01, 27-01, 28-01), the exercise of ten-year possession prior to the effective date of the Decree creating the cited Zona Protectora is not proven, because Mr. [Nombre11] and Mr. [Nombre9] stated they had known the farm for twelve and ten years respectively; 5) The appellant maintains that discord is noted regarding the applicant's manner of acquisition, given that in statements of [Nombre4] and [Nombre5], given on February 21, 2002, and in others of the cited informaciones (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01), they stated they had known the property for approximately thirty years, which was acquired from Mr. [Nombre12] about twenty years ago. For their part, witnesses [Nombre7], [Nombre8], and [Nombre6] declare, in practically identical terms, having known the property since before 1950 (precisely the time required according to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal Agrario cited by the Procuraduría) and that it has always belonged to the [Nombre1] family, not specifically to the applicant. These statements do not agree with what was claimed by Mr. [Nombre1], that his possession was original. Moreover, the transferor indicated by the first two witnesses cited in this grievance is not part of the aforementioned family; 6) An inconvenient practice occurs by the Court of accepting new witness statements until they finally comply with affirming the legally required time of possession. The lower court judge justifies this occurred because the first statements were taken before the Procuraduría's appearance, and as is the normal practice, the applicant was warned to comply with its requirements, and for this purpose the second statements of [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] were taken on February 21, 2000, who indeed granted the applicant a derived possession of more than thirty years. Regarding the third statements, the appellant points out the lower court judge relies on number 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the fact that the Procuraduría changed the rules of the game for the applicant by requiring that the jurisprudence of the Tribunal Agrario be considered, according to which ten-year possession must be demonstrated prior to the date of enactment of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización. This should have been known by the judge as such and moreover, the certification from the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía was already in the record indicating the area to be titled forms part of a protected wild area; 7) In the Court of origin, which was stated opportunely, the Información Posesoria No. 00-100077-417AG is being processed, in which the plan initially submitted by the same applicant of these proceedings, CED5, describing a property donated to him by [Nombre13], overlaps with the plan subject to these proceedings.\n\nVI.- Mr. [Nombre1] for his part requested, in a brief submitted to the court on November 18, 2002, that the appeal be declared without merit, as the judgment was duly grounded in accordance with the evidence produced in the record. In it, he also accepts that he is processing several possessory informaciones (folios 115 to 116). The State representation, when responding on October 17, 2003, to a hearing regarding the evidence for better resolution ordered at this instance, reiterates the arguments put forth in its appeal and claims, according to its studies, there is an overlap between plan P-54225-1963 and the one subject to this proceeding, and several others (folios 153 to 154). It must be emphasized that, aside from the claimed overlap not being demonstrated, the Procurador cites plan P-590597-99 as the plan for this process, which is not correct, although among the others mentioned, it does include the one that effectively is (P-589858-99). The applicant for his part, responding to several hearings granted at this stage regarding the evidence provided and what was said by the aforementioned entity, affirms the possessory information to which it refers is not related to the present one, there is no overlap in this regard, and clarifies he is not seeking to title more than the 300 hectares permitted by law (folios 158, 164, and 187). Finally, the Procuraduría accepts, based on the report from the Catastro Nacional, that the claimed overlap does not exist and requests its allegations in this regard be set aside, but not the rest of its objections (folios 166 and 170).\n\nVII.- The first grievance of the appellant is not admissible. The fact that different files are being processed separately referring to lots that the applicant claims as his own, which formed part of a single material unit, does not obligate their joint analysis for the purposes of demonstrating time and manner of possession, unless this is intended to violate the maximum area permitted to be titled by the same person through this route (300 hectares), as established in article 15 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Aside from it not having been demonstrated that the entirety of the lands Mr. [Nombre14] intends to title exceeds that measurement, it is at the discretion of the applicant whether to process them all as a unit or separately, despite the inconveniences the latter may entail regarding documentary evidence, witness testimony, and increased costs. Furthermore, for the analysis of compliance with time and manner of possession, as will be seen, what is in the record must be assessed. If in the Procurador's consideration there was evidence external to the case that affected or detracted from what the applicant affirmed in it, it should have proceeded to submit it in the proper manner.\n\nVIII.- The second, fourth, and fifth grievances of the appellant are interrelated, as they challenge what the lower court deemed proved, and highlight the contradictions between what was affirmed by the applicant and what was said by the witnesses regarding manner of acquisition, possessory acts exercised, and boundary delimitation of the land. In this regard, and in accordance with what will be explained in the following considerandos, the Procuraduría is correct, clarifying that only what is in this process and the evidence actually received or provided in it is taken into account for analyzing the grievances, not the reference to testimonies given in other matters, much less if they were not added to the record as documentary evidence. According to what has been deemed proven at this instance, the land to be titled is located within the Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya, established in April 1994. Consequently, the applicant had to demonstrate clearly and forcefully having exercised a ten-year possession (posesión decenal) prior to 1994. The foregoing was not duly accredited. In this regard, apart from what will be said about the form and number of witnesses received, the following points must be highlighted. The statements made in this type of process by the petitioner have the character of a sworn statement, in accordance with the provisions of number 3, final paragraph, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the same provide the requirements that must be met when filing the process, both procedural and substantive. In this sense, the Tribunal has explained, the \"…Información Posesoria is a non-contentious judicial proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired through adverse possession (usucapión), complying for this purpose with the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as an owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The applicant, besides lacking a registered or registrable title in the Registro Público, must expressly state that the farm has not been previously registered in the Registro Público. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid a double registry entry over the same good, or to protect third parties with a better right than the applicant, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Información Posesoria, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider adjacent landowners (colindantes) as parties and therefore to notify them personally from the beginning of the proceedings, because the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. It is also ordered to notify co-owners or condominium members. Likewise, to safeguard the interests of the State, it is ordered to consider the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario as parties, for the protection of property subject to the public domain and State Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law commands that all interested parties be summoned by the publication of an Edict in the Boletín Judicial, who may have a legitimate interest in the process. (See number 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (see vote Nº755 of 9:45 a.m. on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries is also required (fences, lanes, etc.). The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the farm is dedicated to cattle ranching; the applicant's identity card or respective identification document; the registered plan; updated certification from the Registro Público clarifying if other farms have been titled by the applicant and what their measurement is; updated certification from the Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía on whether or not the land is included within any protected area. Current legislation on soils requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its suitability (soil study). The judge is also obligated, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity for this (articles 50 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, subsection 14 of number 121 of the Constitución Política, 1, 3, and 17 of the Ley de Aguas N°276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Ley Forestal Nº7575 of February 5, 1996, and Decreto Ejecutivo N°26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997).\n\nIX.- Apart from the above, the initial filing must contain each of the data required in article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias: Name and qualifications of the applicant; nature, situation, measurement, and boundaries of the land; names and addresses of adjacent landowners (if they are legal entities, their updated legal standing (personería) must be accredited); indication of whether there are co-owners and liens or encumbrances (cargas reales) (among them, easements (servidumbres), usufructs, etc.), and if so, specify who and which ones (also prove the constitution of the latter); time of possession; description of possessory acts; extent of crops, forested areas, or pasture; existence of buildings and improvements made; number of livestock units (apartos) if the farm is for cattle; cause and date of acquisition; full name of the person who transferred it, in case of a derivative manner, as well as their domicile; estimation of the property and the proceedings; indication of three witnesses residing in the same canton where the property is located, when necessary according to what is indicated in numbers 4 and 6 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. It must also necessarily be declared that: the farm is not already registered in the Registro Público, there is no registrable title of ownership, and there is no attempt to evade the consequences of a succession lawsuit. If the applicant did not have the ten-year possession at the time of initiating the proceeding, they may add that of their transferors, but in addition to clarifying this in the filing, they must provide the public document in which the transfer of their right is recorded.\n\nThe documentation and the rest of the evidence that must be provided serve to ratify or prove precisely what was stated in the filing. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentation accompanying the initial filing. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, from a minimum of three, the legislator imposed the requirement that they be residents of the canton where the property is located. This is to allow people truly knowledgeable about the situation to present themselves to testify. In other words, it is presumed that the residents of the area are those best able to attest to the owners of the lands near their own and what happens on them, by frequenting or living in the same place. All of these requirements and the pertinent evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial filing are clearly specified in the cited regulations. One cannot therefore allege ignorance in this regard, much less if one has professional legal advice, as happened in this case. The omission regarding them, or the offering of non-pertinent evidence, is solely the responsibility of the petitioner, which the judge cannot assume or attempt to remedy.\n\n**X.-** In addition to the aforementioned requirements, in cases where the land is included within a protected area, a more qualified requirement regarding the exercise and duration of possession must be met. *“…In accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, applicable to the case because the property to be titled is within the Zona Protectora …, in order to register said property in the Public Registry, the applicant must demonstrate having been in possession of the property for at least ten years before the effective date of the Decree that created the cited Reserve, as well as having protected the forest resource” (Voto Nº170-03 of 4:24 p.m. on March 31, 2003. See also in this regard the cited Voto Nº755-03)*. The foregoing is required in protection of the State's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado) and biodiversity, without thereby affecting the rights that private subjects may have effectively consolidated through the passage of time (see in this regard Voto Nº497 of 3:20 p.m. on July 30, 2003, of the Tribunal). In that sense, the Constitutional Chamber in Voto N° 4587 of 3:45 p.m. on August 5, 1997, in which it analyzed the constitutionality of the cited Article 7, ruled that in order to title lands located in the protected areas indicated therein, the interested party had to demonstrate possession ten years before the effective date of the respective Decree. The Chamber basically stated on that occasion: *\"… given the nature of the property sought to be titled (public property (cosa pública)), the period of possession suitable for adverse possession (usucapión) must elapse before the property's allocation to the public domain occurs. That is, the declaration of a protected wild area prevents possession subsequent to the allocation from counting, and prevents the requirements for adverse possession (usucapión) from being met if the right has not been acquired by that moment, i.e., the ten years of possession suitable for adverse possession (usucapir) with the conditions established by law have not elapsed.\"* In the case at hand, having weighed the evidence conscientiously and without strict adherence to the rules of common law (Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), the Tribunal reaches the unavoidable conclusion that this proceeding must be rejected because it comprises a property that forms part of the State's Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado), as the title applicant has not demonstrated having acquired and consolidated a property right over the same prior to the creation of the protected area in question. In the subsequent recitals, the reasons of equity and law that support this conclusion will be given.\n\n**XI.-** Regarding the mode of acquisition, duration of possession, and possessory acts, there is no coincidence among the witnesses, nor between them and what was stated by the title applicant in his initial filing. Mr. [Name1] stated he had possessed the land since 1971 in an original manner and that his possessory acts were the creation of firebreaks (rondas), fences, planting of bananas, and fruit trees such as mango, coconut, avocado, and teak (folios 7 and 8). The first was not corroborated by any of the witnesses who testified on different occasions: [Name9], [Name11], [Name10], [Name4], [Name5], [Name6], [Name7], and [Name8] (folios 24, 25, 26, 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70). In fact, the last three cited, in an identical manner, stated they had known the farm since before 1950, and that it had always belonged to the [Name1] family (folios 68, 69, and 70). For their part, Mr. [Name4] and Mr. [Name5] affirmed that the land Mr. [Name1] seeks to title was acquired by him from [Name12], about twenty years ago according to the first, which corresponds approximately to the year 1982 (folio 55). The petitioner, in a manner contradictory to his interests, insofar as it is assumed he offers truthful witnesses, knowledgeable about the farm's situation, whom he VOLUNTARILY chooses in order to prove his affirmations, provides the filing dated April 19, 2002, visible on folio 57, with which he intends to “clarify” what was said by those two witnesses, arguing that Mr. [Name12] had neighboring farms many years ago, but not that one, and reiterates his mode of acquisition is original. The foregoing is neither convincing nor acceptable, [Name15] in this case, in which the testimony of different witnesses was unjustifiably accepted on more than one occasion. If his justification were admitted, it would have to be taken as true that those witnesses did not testify about the farm that is the object of the process, or that they did not know it, and therefore, they should not have been offered as such. But aside from this highly questionable conduct, and from the contradictions regarding the mode and date of acquisition, which prevent the exercise of ten-year possession as required by law before 1994 from being considered effectively proven by the title applicant, there are other discrepancies that likewise detract from what he affirmed, and which entail the rejection of this proceeding.\n\n**XII.-** Regarding the duration of possession, [Name9] and [Name11] (folios 24 and 25) said they had known the farm for 10 and 12 years respectively (approximately 1991 and 1989, according to the date of the testimony). Besides these witnesses not being useful to demonstrate possession prior to those dates, which was necessary given the special situation of the farm being part of a protected area, it is striking that despite affirming they had known the farm for so many years, they did not know who its adjacent landowners (colindantes) were. [Name10], [Name5], [Name4] (folios 26, 54, and 55) said they had known the farm for about 30 years (which corresponds to 1971 and 1972 respectively, according to their dates of testimony). However, like the first ones cited, Mrs. [Name10] did not know who the adjacent landowners (colindantes) were, nor did she refer to how [Name1] came to be the owner of the land. [Name4] also did not know about the boundaries (colindancias) nor what the measurement of the land was. But furthermore, along with [Name5], they affirmed the farm was acquired from [Name12]. The first said that was about 20 years ago, giving an approximate date of 1982. The second did not mention the date of acquisition (folios 54 and 55). This contradicts not only the mode of acquisition affirmed by Mr. [Name1], but also the duration for which he declared possessing the land. Which is even more questionable, if one takes into account that, given the date of creation of the protected area in question, he should have demonstrated possessing the farm for at least the ten years prior to 1994, in the legally required manner. [Name6], [Name7], and [Name8] (folios 68, 69, and 70), declared knowing the farm since before 1950, which previously formed part of another one. They affirmed it has always belonged to the [Name1] family. The foregoing contradicts not only what was affirmed by previous witnesses, but also the title applicant's own statement, who affirms under oath to be the owner of the property since 1971 and to have acquired it originally.\n\n**XIII.-** Regarding the possessory acts, the first witnesses heard in March 2001 stated: [Name9] and [Name10] that such acts consisted of the farm having been fenced on all its boundaries. The second added that the land was “very clean” (folios 24 and 26); [Name11] said they had been the clearing of the land for the purpose of building a house (folio 25). The second group of witnesses was heard in February 2002, and they affirmed knowing the land but as part of a larger one. Specifically regarding the possessory acts, with the clarification of knowing the land as part of another, they said: [Name4], the property had been dedicated to agriculture (folio 55). [Name5], it was land dedicated mostly to fruit trees, fences had been made and repaired, the clearing of firebreaks (rondas), and general care (folio 54). The third group of witnesses, who likewise know the land as part of another, was heard in June 2002, and they declared: [Name6] and [Name7] say the property has been dedicated to conservation or natural regeneration and the possessory acts have been the general care that a farm of that nature requires (folios 68 and 69). [Name8], unlike all the cited witnesses, affirms some parts of the farm have been dedicated to livestock, and others to agriculture, but mostly to conservation or natural regeneration, and the possessory acts are the general care that a farm of such nature requires (folio 70). Apart from the evident inconsistencies in what was affirmed among the witnesses, from the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted on June 20, 2001, it is derived from what was recorded therein, that the land has broken topography, there were no fences but there were tracks, there were no constructions, livestock (semovientes), or crops. It was recorded that it was dedicated to natural conservation. Coupled with the foregoing, the plan that is the object of the proceedings indicates the land is dedicated to “trees” (folio 1), which is also corroborated when the nature of the property is indicated in the initial filing (folio 4). Consequently, given so many contradictions, it cannot in any way be clear what the possessory acts have been and to what the land object of the title proceeding has been dedicated, and therefore this aspect cannot be considered demonstrated in the manner required by law, least of all if one takes as a basis that the title applicant affirmed they were fences, firebreaks (rondas), and the planting of bananas and fruit trees, and according to his last three witnesses, supposedly provided to “clarify or prove” what the previous ones had not been able to say, the land “has always been dedicated to conservation and the possessory acts have been those required by a farm of such nature.”\n\n**XIV.-** Regarding the delimitation of the property, this Tribunal takes into account that it formed part of a material unit, to which several of the witnesses heard refer (folios 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70). However, by deciding to file for its registration in parts, specifically in this case a land with a measurement of 6,627.40 square meters, the petitioner is obligated to delimit it clearly. Likewise, the witnesses he offers must know it in that form, and be able to explain what they know about it, otherwise it could not be accepted, nor would there be certainty, as to whether what was declared refers to the land object of the title proceeding. In that sense, of the first witnesses who testified in the case file: [Name9] and [Name10] (folios 24 and 26), indicated the land was fenced on all four sides. [Name9] even specified that the erection of the fences were for him the possessory acts exercised (folio 24). [Name11] did not refer to the way the land was delimited, and also did not know its boundaries (colindancias) (folio 25). [Name4] says that because the farm is very broken, he has never been interested in knowing them. He adds: *“The property is dedicated to agriculture. This property was previously one single farm but they have been subdividing (loteando) it, I don't know with what intention. I don't know if it has boundary lines (rondeada) or fences because those are fences that are very difficult to walk” (folio 55).* [Name5] (folio 54), affirmed the “*lot belongs to a large farm of approximately eighty or more hectares, whose boundaries (colindancias) to the west are with [Address5], to the east with [Address6], to the north with a gringo whose name I don't know, and to the south I don't remember whose*”. Apart from the problems implied by knowing the lot as part of another land for purposes of locating the same, this witness is therefore not useful to demonstrate the specific and current boundaries of the one sought to be titled, as it is inferred from his statement that he refers to the land as a whole and not to the part that was sought to be titled. The last three witnesses, [Name6], [Name7], and [Name8], do not refer to the boundaries (colindancias) of the land (folios 68, 69, and 70). But besides what has been said, the title applicant in his initial filing affirms having carried out, as acts of possession, the erection of fences (folio 8). That affirmation and what was indicated by the first witnesses cited above, is contradicted by what was verified in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted in June 2001, as it was clearly indicated that the property was not fenced, with tracks existing as delimitation (see record on folio 37).\n\n**XV.-** The analysis conducted is sufficient to consider the basic presuppositions for granting the present petition not proven. But independently of that, it is important to indicate the following regarding the remaining grievances. What is alleged in the **third** grievance, regarding the argument of the lower court (a quo) not being true that the area is easily overgrown with brush and therefore, after a harvest, it quickly returns to natural regeneration, is unfounded, aside from being a situation that must be analyzed and demonstrated in each specific case, depending on the type of vegetation and natural conditions of the specific area. But, in this matter, even if it were true that it could be an area of easy regeneration, that does not alter the conclusion reached by the Tribunal regarding the non-fulfillment of the necessary requirements to approve this title proceeding.\n\n**XVI.-** Regarding the sixth grievance, it must be said that the Tribunal cannot limit the powers of the trial judge in a general manner, [Name15] if numeral 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias provides: “*The judge may, when he deems it convenient, order all those proceedings he considers necessary to verify the truthfulness of the facts to which the Information refers. He shall reject the same if he comes to verify that an attempt is being made to unduly title untitled public lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves*”. However, on this occasion, given what occurred and was demonstrated in the case file, the Procurator is correct in claiming that the admission of additional testimonial evidence was unduly permitted, not just on one, but on two occasions. This is because in March 2001, the first three witnesses offered by the title applicant were heard, just as Article 6 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias requires. On that first occasion, the Tribunal must highlight that the evidence was received by a commissioned Judge, which is not an admissible practice in agrarian matters, due to its purposes, which favor respect for the principle of immediacy, except for qualified exceptions. [Name15] in cases like the present one, where the protection of a protected area is at stake, and when the commissioned action involves the taking of evidence fundamental to the substance of what is to be decided, as is testimonial evidence. After that, it is recorded that the Procurator's Office appeared, reminding that the ten-year exercise of possession prior to the effective date of the decree that created the protected area in question had to be demonstrated. Unacceptably, the lower court (a quo) uses as an argument to justify admitting additional testimonial evidence, that said entity appeared after those first declarations (see folio 82). Regardless of what was alleged by the Procurator, the Judge, by principle, knows the law and is obligated to ensure compliance with said requirement. The title-applying party also had to, from the moment it offered testimonial evidence, corroborate that the witnesses knew the land for a sufficient time to be able to prove the facts it affirmed. If due to its error or ignorance, or that of its legal advisor, it does not substantiate them in the proper manner at the opportune moment, it is a burden that must only be imputed against it, under its responsibility. It is not up to the judge to rectify that situation, unless, without violating his functions and in protection of the party's rights and with respect for the legal system in force, he considers on a well-founded basis that it is strictly necessary to receive some additional evidence. After that, a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was carried out, in which this Tribunal cannot fail to point out that a record was drawn up with a quite limited description of the land (see folio 37). In a filing dated December 7, 2001 (folio 49), the title applicant asks to be allowed to offer two other witnesses, because Mr. [Name11] and Mr. José Pérez had known the farm for only a short time, to which the trial Judge agreed (folio 50). Thus, the declarations of [Name5] and [Name4] were heard in February 2002 (folios 54 and 55). Due to contradictions between what they declared and what the title applicant affirmed, he presented two filings on folios 57 and 63. In the first, he intends to “clarify” what they said regarding the mode of acquisition of the property being derivative, which contradicts what the title applicant affirmed. In the second, the title applicant's legal representative requests that three more witnesses be heard, *“…with the aim of demonstrating that the lands my represented party seeks to title have always been in the hands of him and/or his family and that the transmission from parents to children has occurred verbally; and likewise that the possession exercised has been for much more than ten (sic) years prior to the publication of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización…”* Despite that statement varying what was initially affirmed by the petitioner, and despite five testimonies having already been admitted, the trial judge agreed to hear them in June 2002 (folios 68 to 70). These, apart from affirming they knew the farm since 1950, did not provide much information about the land, and even made the evidence received in its totality even more contradictory. The Tribunal clarifies that this grievance is admitted in this specific case, because as already explained, it is the power of the trial Judge to determine the number of witnesses he needs to reach a decision, and regarding what is established in the cited Article 6 on the number of witnesses, its extension is not illegal, provided it is strictly necessary and it is corroborated that the effective fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation in force is not altered thereby. What is unacceptable is allowing the applicant to proceed to “rectify” or alter, at his convenience, what he has affirmed or what has been successively demonstrated, as the process unfolds. [Name15] if the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is clear regarding requirements, and there is a great number of pronouncements by the Tribunals that have resolved and explained how each one of them is to be interpreted and must be complied with. In the case at hand, in view of the affirmations of the first two witnesses heard, [Name9] and [Name11] (folios 24 and 25), about having known the land for barely 10 or 12 years, it can be understood that the hearing of two more witnesses was ordered, who presumably should have had knowledge of the same for many more years prior, and furthermore, logically, be sufficiently informed to be able to inform the judge about all the details he might require regarding the duration of possession, acts exercised, delimitation, and other fundamental data. Even when the judge might omit asking a question of special interest to corroborate what was reported by the title applicant, the latter and his legal advisor may be present at the testimony and request that the pertinent questions the judge may have failed to ask be put to the declarant. But after the second witnesses, unjustifiably in light of what was alleged, as explained, three more were heard.\n\nXVII.- The seventh grievance is rejected because it has not been demonstrated that the property sought to be titled in case file Nº00-100077-417AG of the Juzgado Agrario de Nicoya overlaps with the one that is the subject of this proceeding. Although it is true that, based on the property location drawing and according to survey plans (planos) NºP-589858-99 and the copies of the report submitted by the Juzgado de Nicoya regarding the cited case file (folios 126 to 136), it can be derived that the properties are located between nearby meridians and parallels, there is no conclusive proof that an overlap exists between them. In the report requested from the Catastro Nacional and admitted as evidence for better provision (prueba para mejor proveer), it is even indicated that survey plan P-54225-1963, cited in the respective report from the Juzgado de Nicoya, does not overlap with survey plan P-589858-1999. Nor do the rest of the survey plans referred to in the possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias) being processed by the applicant documentarily overlap, according to what was indicated by the Catastro Nacional (folios 138 to 152). The Procuraduría, in a brief dated October 28, 2003, following the evidence requested from the Catastro Nacional by the Tribunal as a better provision measure, accepts that the claimed overlap does not exist and requests that its allegations in this regard be set aside (folio 166). Then, in a brief dated November 11, 2003, it insists on the existence of an overlap between survey plan P-54225-1963 and the property that formed a single unit of which the one that is the subject of this proceeding was a part. But in this respect, it clearly indicates that the portion described in survey plan P-589858-99, which corresponds to the present matter, does not overlap with the cited 1963 survey plan. Therefore, its allegations in this regard are unfounded.\n\n XVIII.- Finally, the Tribunal must also note that, in the considerandos of the appealed judgment, rather than analyzing the evidence and the fulfillment of the procedural and substantive requirements necessary to grant the proceeding, it counters the Procuraduría's position, considering that it incurs in an \"inconvenient\" practice of changing the \"rules of the game\" (folio 82). Likewise, there is a contradiction between what was stated in the initial filing that no real encumbrances (cargas reales) exist on the property and what was recorded on the base survey plan for the proceedings, where the existence of a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) is marked, which evidently serves as access to it. This is not only a discrepancy that should have been noticed by the a quo so that, if pertinent, it could order proof of its constitution in the proper form and clarify which was the servient tenement, whether or not it was registered, the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) (width and length), and its purpose. But also, in this case, given that the property forms part of a protected area, if the title holder had not consolidated their right prior to the effective date of the decree that created it, the constitution of an encumbrance such as the one cited would have been improper. In this respect, it should be remembered that state-protected wilderness areas form part of the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado) (Articles 32, 34, 37, 38, 46 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, ruling (voto) of the Sala Constitucional N°2988 of 11:57 a.m. on April 23, 1999, and Nº755-03 cited from the Tribunal Agrario). This heritage, for its part, is comprised of the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, areas declared inalienable, properties registered in the name of the State, properties of the municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other entities of the Public Administration, except for properties that guarantee credit operations of the National Banking System and form part of their assets (Articles 13 and 15 Ley Forestal). The forest lands and forests included within the State's natural heritage are unattachable, inalienable, and imprescriptible, in accordance with numerals 14 and 15 of the Ley Forestal, and cannot be mortgaged nor be subject to encumbrance in terms of Civil Law (see in this regard rulings (votos) N°1092 of 4:09 p.m. on February 7, 2001, and N°421 of 3:20 p.m. on January 16, 2001. In the same sense, N°2988 of 11:57 a.m. on April 23, 1999, all from the Sala Constitucional).\n\nXIX.- By reason of all the foregoing, the appealed resolution must be revoked, insofar as it approved these possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria). In its place, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 7, and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and other cited regulations, the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) initiated by [Nombre1] are rejected.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe evidence offered by both parties for better provision is rejected. The appealed resolution is revoked. In its place, the possessory information proceeding initiated by [Nombre1] is rejected.-\n\nANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA\n\nCARLOS BOLAÑOS CESPEDES RUTH ALPIZAR RODRIGUEZ\n\nNº EXPN2\nInformación Posesoria\nPromovida [Nombre1].\nli.-\n\nThe judge is also obligated, in order to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity (articles 50 of the Organic Law of the Environment, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3 and 17 of the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Forestry Law No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, and Executive Decree No. 26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997). </span><span style=\\\"font-weight:bold\\\">IX</span><span>.- Apart from what has been indicated, the initial filing must contain each of the data required in article 1 of the Law of Possessory Information: Name and qualifications of the petitioner; nature, situation, measurement, and boundaries of the land; names and addresses of adjoining landowners (if they are legal entities, their updated legal representation must be accredited); indication of whether there are co-owners and encumbrances (cargas reales) (among them, easements (servidumbres), usufructs, etc.), and if so, specifying who and which ones (also proving the constitution of the latter); time of possession; description of possessory acts; extent of crops, forested areas (zonas boscosas), or pasture; existence of constructions and improvements made; number of livestock units if the farm is for cattle; cause and date of acquisition; first and last name of the person who transferred it, in the case of a derivative mode, as well as their address; estimation of the property's value and the proceedings; indication of three witnesses who are neighbors of the same canton where the property is located, when necessary in accordance with what is indicated in numerals 4 and 6 of the Law of Possessory Information. It must also necessarily be declared that: the farm is not already registered in the Public Registry, there is no registrable title of ownership, and it is not intended to evade the consequences of a succession proceeding. If the ten-year possession is not held at the time of initiating the proceeding, the petitioner may add that of their transferors, but in addition to clarifying that in the filing, they must provide the public document in which the transfer of their right is recorded. The documentary evidence and the rest of the evidence that must be provided serve precisely to ratify or prove what was stated in the filing. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentary evidence accompanying the initial filing. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, in a minimum of three,</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> the legislator imposed the requirement of being neighbors of the canton where the property is located. This is for the purpose of allowing people who are truly knowledgeable about the situation to appear and testify. In other words, it is presumed that the neighbors of the area are those who can best attest to the owners of the lands near theirs and what happens on them, by frequenting or living in the same place. All these requirements and the pertinent evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial memorial are clearly specified in the cited regulations. Therefore, ignorance in this regard cannot be claimed, much less if one has professional legal advice, as happened in this case. The omission regarding them, or the offering of non-pertinent evidence, is solely the responsibility of the petitioner, which the judge cannot assume or attempt to resolve. </span><span style=\\\"font-weight:bold\\\">X.-</span><span> In addition to the mentioned requirements, in cases where the land is included within a protected zone (zona protegida), a more qualified requirement must be met regarding the exercise and time of possession. </span><span style=\\\"font-style:italic\\\">\"…In accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the Law of Possessory Information, applicable to the case because the property to be titled is located within the Zona Protectora …, in order to register said property in the Public Registry, the petitioner must prove they have been in possession of the property for at least ten years before the effective date of the Decree that created the cited Reserve, as well as having protected the forest resource\" (Voto Nº170-03 of 16:24 hours on March 31, 2003. See also in this regard Voto Nº755-03 cited)</span><span>. The foregoing is required in protection of the State's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado) and biodiversity, without thereby affecting the rights that private subjects may have effectively consolidated through the passage of time (see in this regard Voto Nº497 of 15:20 hours on July 30, 2003, of the Tribunal). In that sense, the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto N° 4587 of 15:45 hours on August 5, 1997, in which it analyzed the constitutionality of the cited article 7, ruled that in order to title lands located in the protected zones (zonas protegidas) indicated therein, the interested party had to prove possession ten years before the effective date of the respective Decree. Basically, the Chamber stated on that occasion</span><span style=\\\"font-style:italic\\\">: \"… given the nature of the property intended to be titled (public property), the period of possession suitable for adverse possession (usucapión) must elapse before the property is affected to the public domain. That is, the declaration of a protected wild area prevents possession subsequent to the designation from counting, and it prevents the requirements for adverse possession from being met if, at that time, the right has not been acquired, i.e., the ten</span><span style=\\\"font-style:italic; color:#0000ff\\\"> </span><span style=\\\"font-style:italic\\\">years of possession suitable for adverse possession under the conditions established by law have not elapsed.\" </span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>In this case, having weighed the evidence conscientiously and without strict subjection to the rules of common law (article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law), the Tribunal reaches the unavoidable conclusion that this proceeding must be rejected because it comprises a property that forms part of the State's forest heritage, as the title applicant has not demonstrated having acquired and consolidated a property right over it prior to the creation of the aforementioned protected zone (zona protegida).\"</span></p></div></body></html>\"\n\n27-01); b) The second indicated the land was dedicated to fruit trees and the acts were making and repairing fences, clearing firebreaks (rondas), lanes, and general care (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01); 3) The Attorney General's Office does not share the judge's argument that the area is easy to become overgrown after a harvest, causing it to quickly become part of the natural regeneration landscape. According to this, it explains why the inspection yields current information different from the activity that may have occurred in other periods. In this regard, the Attorney General highlights that the witnesses must refer to the exercise of current possession, not only that carried out previously, apart from the fact that in this case they speak in the present tense; 4) With the statements of [Nombre11] , [Nombre9] , and [Nombre10] , given on March 8, 2002, in this matter and others cited (their numbers abbreviated as follows: 16-01, 18-01, 21-01, 22-01, 24-01, 25-01, 27-01, 28-01), the exercise of ten-year possession prior to the effective date of the Creating Decree of the cited Protective Zone is not proven, since Mr. [Nombre11] and Mr. [Nombre9] stated they had known the farm for twelve and ten years, respectively; 5) The appellant maintains there is discordance regarding the mode of acquisition of the title applicant, given that in the statements of [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] , given on February 21, 2002, and in others of the cited informations (14-01, 15-01, 18-01, 20-01, 24-01, and 27-01), they stated they had known the property for approximately thirty years, which was acquired from Mr. [Nombre12] about twenty years ago. For their part, witnesses [Nombre7] , [Nombre8] , and [Nombre6] declare, in practically identical terms, that they have known the property since before 1950 (precisely the time required according to the Agrarian Court jurisprudence cited by the Attorney General's Office) and that it has always belonged to the [Nombre1] family, not specifically to the title applicant. These statements do not agree with what was affirmed by Mr. [Nombre1] , that his possession was original. Furthermore, the transferor indicated by the first two witnesses cited in this grievance is not part of the mentioned family; 6) An inconvenient practice occurs by the Court of accepting new witness statements until they finally comply with affirming the legally required possession time. The trial judge justifies this because the first statements were taken before the appearance of the Attorney General's Office, as is normal practice, the title applicant was cautioned to comply with what was required by the latter, and it was for this purpose that the second statements of [Nombre4] and [Nombre5] were taken on February 21, 2000, who effectively granted the title applicant a derived possession of more than thirty years. Regarding the third statements, the appellant indicates the trial judge relies on numeral 11 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\" and the fact that the Attorney General's Office changed the rules of the game for the petitioner, by requiring that the jurisprudence of the Agrarian Court be taken into account, according to which ten-year possession must be demonstrated prior to the date of enactment of the \"Ley de Tierras y Colonización\". This should have been known by the judge as such, and furthermore, the certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy was already on file indicating the area to be titled is part of a protected wild area; 7) In the Court of origin, which was stated in a timely manner, Posesory Information No. 00-100077-417AG is being processed, in which the survey plan initially provided by the same petitioner of these proceedings, CED5, which describes a property donated by [Nombre13] to him, overlaps with the survey plan subject to these proceedings.\n\n**VI.-** Mr. [Nombre1] , for his part, requested in a brief filed on November 18, 2002, that the appeal be dismissed, because the judgment was duly grounded according to the evidence taken in the case file. In it, he also accepts that he is processing several possessory informations (pages 115 to 116). The State representation, when responding on October 17, 2003, to a hearing regarding the evidence for better provision ordered at this instance, reiterates the arguments put forth in its appeal and affirms there is an overlap according to its studies between survey plan P-54225-1963 and the one that is the subject of this proceeding, and others (pages 153 to 154). It must be emphasized, apart from the claimed overlap not being demonstrated, the Attorney General cites survey plan P-590597-99 as the survey plan for this process, which is not correct, although among the others mentioned, it does include the one that effectively is (P-589858-99). The petitioner for his part, responding to several hearings granted at this stage, regarding the evidence provided and what was said by the aforementioned entity, affirms the possessory information to which it refers is not related to the present one, there is no overlap in this regard, and clarifies that he is not seeking to title more than the 300 hectares permitted by Law (pages 158, 164, and 187). Finally, the Attorney General's Office accepts, based on the report from the National Cadastre, that the claimed overlap does not exist and requests that its allegations in this regard be set aside, but not the rest of its objections (pages 166 and 170).\n\n**VII.-** The **first grievance** of the appellant is not admissible. The fact that different files referring to lots that the petitioner claims as his own, which formed part of the same material unit, are being processed separately does not obligate their joint analysis for the purpose of demonstrating time and mode of possession, unless this is intended to violate the maximum area allowed to be titled by the same person through this means (300 hectares), as established in Article 15 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\". Apart from it not having been demonstrated that the total lands Mr. [Nombre14] intends to title exceed that measure, it was at the petitioner's discretion whether to manage them all as one unit or separately, despite the inconveniences the latter may entail regarding documentary evidence, testimonial evidence, and cost increases. Furthermore, for the analysis of compliance with the time and mode of possession, as will be seen, what is on file must be evaluated. If, in the Attorney General's consideration, there was evidence external to the case that affected or detracted from what the title applicant affirmed in it, it should have proceeded to provide it in the proper form.\n\n**VIII.-** The **second, fourth, and fifth grievances** of the appellant are related to each other, as they contest what was considered proven by the lower court judge (a quo), and highlight the contradictions between what was affirmed by the petitioner and what was said by the witnesses regarding the mode of acquisition, possessory acts exercised, and delimitation of the land. In this regard, and in accordance with what will be explained in the following recitals, the Attorney General's Office is correct, clarifying that only what appears in this process and the evidence effectively received or provided in it is taken into account to analyze the grievances, not the reference to testimonies given in other matters, much less if they were not added to the case file as documentary evidence. According to what was considered proven at this instance, the land to be titled is located within the Península de Nicoya Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Península de Nicoya), established in April 1994. Consequently, the petitioner had to clearly and conclusively demonstrate having exercised ten-year possession prior to 1994. The foregoing was not duly accredited. In this regard, *apart from what will be said about the form and number of witnesses received*, the following points must be highlighted. The statements made in this type of process by the applicant have the character of a sworn declaration, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 3, final paragraph of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\". Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the same provide the requirements that must be met when filing the process, both procedural and substantive. In this sense, the Court has explained, the \"*... Posesory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial activity proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired by adverse possession (usucapión), thereby complying with the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (Articles 1 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\" and 856 of the Civil Code). The title applicant, apart from lacking an inscribed or inscribable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the farm has not been previously inscribed in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid double registry inscription over the same property, or to protect third parties with better rights than the title applicant, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Posesory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (Article 8). The \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\" orders the Judge to consider the adjacent landowners as parties and therefore to notify them personally from the beginning of the proceedings, since the titling could encompass part of the lands that belong to them. It is also ordered to notify the co-owners or co-tenants. Likewise, in safeguarding the interests of the State, it is ordered to consider the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) as parties, for the protection of property subject to public domain, and of State Agrarian Property (Article 5). Finally, the Law mandates summoning all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin, who may have a legitimate interest in the process. (See numeral 5 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\")* (see vote No. 755 of 9:45 a.m. on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries (fences, lanes, etc.) is also required. The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the farm is dedicated to cattle ranching; identity card or respective identification document of the title applicant; the cadastral survey plan; updated certification from the Public Registry clarifying whether other farms have been titled by the petitioner and what their measure is; updated certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy on whether or not the land falls within any protected area. The current soil legislation requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its suitability (soil study). The judge is also obligated, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity (Articles 50 of the \"Ley Orgánica del Ambiente\", subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3, and 17 of the \"Ley de Aguas\" No. 276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current \"Ley Forestal\" No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, and Executive Decree No. 26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997).\n\n**IX.-** Apart from the foregoing, the initial filing must contain each of the data required in Article 1 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\": Name and qualifications of the petitioner; nature, location, measure, and boundaries of the land; names and address of adjacent landowners (if they are legal entities, their updated legal standing must be accredited); indication of whether there are co-owners and real encumbrances (among them, easements (servidumbres), usufructs, etc.), specifying who and what they are if they exist (also proving the constitution of the latter); time of possession; description of possessory acts; extent of crops, forested areas or pasture; existence of constructions and improvements made; quantity of livestock units if the farm is for cattle ranching; cause and date of acquisition; first and last names of the person who transferred it, in the case of a derived mode, as well as their address; estimation of the property and the proceedings; indication of three witnesses who are residents of the same canton where the property is located, when necessary according to that indicated in numerals 4 and 6 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\". It must also necessarily declare that: the farm is not already inscribed in the Public Registry, there is no inscribable title of ownership, and it is not intended to evade the consequences of a probate proceeding (juicio sucesorio). If the ten-year possession is not held at the time of initiating the proceeding, the petitioner can add that of their transferors, but in addition to clarifying that in the filing, the public document stating the transfer of their right must be provided. The documentary and the rest of the evidence that must be provided serve precisely to ratify or prove what was stated in the filing. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentation accompanying the initial filing. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, at a minimum of three, the legislator imposed the requirement of being residents of the canton where the property is located. This is for the purpose of allowing people truly knowledgeable about the situation to appear and testify. In other words, it is presumed that the residents of the area are those who can best attest to the owners of the lands near theirs and what happens on them, because they frequent or live in the same place. All these requirements and the pertinent evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial brief are clearly specified in the cited regulations. Ignorance in this regard cannot be alleged, much less if professional legal counsel is available, as happened in the case. The omission regarding them, or the offering of non-pertinent evidence, is solely the responsibility of the petitioner, which the judge cannot assume or attempt to resolve.\n\n**X.-** In addition to the mentioned requirements, in cases where the land falls within a protected area, a more qualified requirement must be met regarding the exercise and time of possession. \"…*According to the provisions of Article 7 of the \"Ley de Informaciones Posesorias\", applicable to the case because the property to be titled is within the Protective Zone (Zona Protectora) …, in order to inscribe said property in the Public Registry, the applicant must demonstrate having been in possession of the property for at least ten years prior to the validity of the Decree that created the cited Reserve, as well as having protected the forest resource*\" (vote No. 170-03 of 4:24 p.m. on March 31, 2003. See also in this regard the cited vote No. 755-03). The foregoing is required in protection of the State's forest heritage and biodiversity, without affecting the rights that private subjects may have effectively consolidated through the passage of time (see in this regard vote No. 497 of 3:20 p.m. on July 30, 2003, of the Court). In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber in Vote No. 4587 of 3:45 p.m. on August 5, 1997, in which it analyzed the constitutionality of the cited Article 7, provided that in order to title lands located in the protected areas indicated therein, the interested party had to demonstrate possession ten years before the validity of the respective Decree. Basically, the Chamber said on that occasion: *\"… given the nature of the property intended to be titled (public thing), the period of possession suitable for adverse possession (usucapión) must elapse before the property's affectation to the public domain occurs. That is, the declaration of a protected wild area prevents possession subsequent to the affectation from counting, and impedes the requirements for adverse possession from being met if the right has not been acquired by that time, i.e., the ten years of possession suitable for usucapion with the conditions established by law have not elapsed\"*. In the case, after evaluating the evidence conscientiously and without strict subjection to the norms of common law (Article 54 of the \"Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria\"), the Court reaches the unavoidable conclusion that this proceeding must be rejected because it encompasses a property that forms part of the State's Forest Heritage, as the title applicant has not demonstrated having acquired and consolidated a property right over it prior to the creation of the aforementioned protected area. The reasons of equity and law that support this conclusion will be given in the subsequent recitals.\n\n**XI.-** Regarding the mode of acquisition, time of possession, and possessory acts, there is no coincidence among the witnesses, and between them and what the title applicant stated in his initial filing. Mr. [Nombre1] stated he possessed the land since 1971 in an original manner and that his possessory acts were making firebreaks (rondas), fences, planting plantains, fruit trees such as mango, coconut, avocado, and teak (pages 7 and 8). The first point was not corroborated by any of the witnesses who testified at different times: [Nombre9] , [Nombre11] , [Nombre10] , [Nombre4] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] , and [Nombre8] (pages 24, 25, 26, 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70). In fact, the last three cited, identically indicated knowing the farm since before 1950, and that it had always belonged to the [Nombre1] family (pages 68, 69, and 70). For their part, Mr. [Nombre4] and Mr. [Nombre5] affirmed that the land Mr. [Nombre1] intends to title was acquired by him from [Nombre12] , about twenty years ago according to the first, which corresponds approximately to the year 1982 (page 55). The petitioner, in a manner contradictory to his interests, since it is assumed he offers truthful witnesses, knowledgeable about the farm's situation, whom he VOLUNTARILY chooses for the purpose of proving his affirmations, provides the brief dated April 19, 2002, visible on page 57, with which he intends to \"clarify\" what was said by those two witnesses, arguing that Mr. [Nombre12] had farms adjacent to the one intended to be titled many years ago, but not that one, and reiterates his mode of acquisition is original. The foregoing is not convincing or acceptable, [Nombre15] in this case, in which, unjustifiably, different witnesses were allowed to testify on more than one occasion. If his justification were admitted, it would have to be taken as true that those witnesses did not testify, then, about the farm subject to the process, or did not know it, and therefore, they should not have been offered as such. But apart from this highly questionable behavior, and the contradictions regarding the mode and date of acquisition, which prevent the exercise of ten-year possession in the manner required by law before 1994 by the title applicant from being effectively demonstrated, there are other discordances that equally detract from what he affirmed, and which lead to the rejection of this application.\n\n**XII.-** Regarding the time of possession, [Nombre9] and [Nombre11] (pages 24 and 25) said they had known the farm for 10 and 12 years respectively (approximately 1991 and 1989, according to the date of the declaration). Besides these witnesses not being useful to demonstrate possession prior to those dates, which was necessary given the special situation of the farm forming part of a protective zone, it is noteworthy that despite affirming they had known the farm for so many years, they did not know who its adjacent landowners were. [Nombre10] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre4] (pages 26, 54, and 55) said they had known the farm for about 30 years (which corresponds to 1971 and 1972 respectively, according to their dates of declaration). However, like the first ones cited, Mrs. [Nombre10] did not know who the adjacent landowners were, nor did she refer to how Mr. [Nombre1] came to be the owner of the land. [Nombre4] also did not know about the boundaries or the measure of the land. But furthermore, along with [Nombre5] , they affirmed the farm was acquired from [Nombre12] . The first said this was about 20 years ago, which gives an approximate date of 1982. The second did not mention the date of acquisition (pages 54 and 55). This contradicts not only the mode of acquisition affirmed by Mr. [Nombre1] , but also the time he declared possessing the land. Which is even more questionable if one considers that, given the creation date of the aforementioned protective zone, he should have demonstrated possessing the farm for at least the ten years prior to 1994, in the legally required manner. [Nombre6] , [Nombre7] , and [Nombre8] (pages 68, 69, and 70), declared knowing the farm since before 1950, which previously formed part of another. They affirmed it has always belonged to the [Nombre1] family.\n\nThe foregoing contradicts not only what previous witnesses stated, but also the applicant’s own statement, who affirms under oath that he has been the owner of the property since 1971 and acquired it originally.\n\n**XIII.-** Regarding the possessory acts, the first witnesses heard in March 2001 stated: [Nombre9] and [Nombre10] that these consisted of fencing the farm along all its boundaries. The latter added that the land was “very clean” (folios 24 and 26); [Nombre11] said they had been the clearing of the land for the purpose of building a house (folio 25). The second group of witnesses was heard in February 2002, and they stated they knew the land but as part of a larger one. Specifically regarding the possessory acts, with the clarification that they knew the land as part of another, they said: [Nombre4], that the property had been dedicated to agriculture (folio 55). [Nombre5], that it was land mostly dedicated to fruit trees, that fences had been built and repaired, firebreak (rondas) clearing, and general care (folio 54). The third group of witnesses, who also know the land as part of another, were heard in June 2002, and declared: [Nombre6] and [Nombre7] say the property has been dedicated to conservation or natural regeneration and the possessory acts have been the general care required by a farm of that nature (folios 68 and 69). [Nombre8], unlike all the cited witnesses, states that some parts of the farm have been dedicated to livestock, and others to agriculture, but mostly to conservation or natural regeneration, and the possessory acts are the general care required by a farm of such nature (folio 70). Apart from the evident inconsistencies regarding what the witnesses stated among themselves, in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted on June 20, 2001, it follows from what was recorded therein that the land has rugged topography, there were no fences but there were tracks (carriles), and there were no buildings, livestock, or crops. It was recorded that it was dedicated to natural conservation. In addition to the foregoing, the survey plan (plano) that is the subject of the proceedings indicates the land is dedicated to “trees” (folio 1), which is also corroborated by indicating the nature of the property in the initial filing (folio 4). Consequently, given so many contradictions, it can in no way be clear what the possessory acts have been and to what use the land subject to title registration (titulación) has been dedicated, and therefore that aspect cannot be deemed proven in the manner required by law, even less so if one takes as a basis that the applicant stated they were fences, firebreaks (rondas), and the planting of plantain and fruit trees, and according to his last three witnesses, supposedly offered to “clarify or prove” what the previous ones had been unable to say, the land “has always been dedicated to conservation and the possessory acts have been those required by a farm of such nature.”\n\n**XIV.-** Regarding the delimitation of the property, this Court takes into account that it formed part of a material unit, to which several of the witnesses heard refer (folios 54, 55, 68, 69, and 70). However, upon deciding to file for its registration in parts, specifically in this case a piece of land measuring 6627.40 square meters, the applicant is obliged to delimit it clearly. Likewise, the witnesses he offers must know it in that form and be able to explain what they know about it, because otherwise it could not be accepted, nor would there be certainty as to whether what was declared refers to the land subject to title registration. In that sense, of the first witnesses who testified in the proceedings: [Nombre9] and [Nombre10] (folios 24 and 26), indicated the land was fenced on all four sides. [Nombre9] even specified that the erection of the fences were, for him, the possessory acts exercised (folio 24). [Nombre11] did not refer to how the land was delimited, nor did he know its boundaries (colindancias) (folio 25). [Nombre4] says that because the farm is very rugged, he has never been interested in knowing them. He adds: *“The property is dedicated to agriculture. This property was previously a single farm but they have been subdividing (loteando) it, I don't know with what intention. I don't know if it has firebreaks (rondeada) or fences because those are fences that are very difficult to walk”* (folio 55). [Nombre5] (folio 54), stated the “*lot belongs to a large farm of approximately eighty or more hectares, whose boundaries on the west side are with [Dirección5], on the east with [Dirección6], on the north with a gringo whose name I don't know, and on the south I don't remember whose it is*.” Aside from the problems involved in knowing the lot as part of another land for purposes of locating it, this witness is therefore not useful for demonstrating the specific and current boundaries of the one intended to be titled, since it follows from his statement that he refers to the land as a whole and not to the part intended to be titled. The last three witnesses, [Nombre6], [Nombre7], and [Nombre8], do not refer to the boundaries of the land (folios 68, 69, and 70). But in addition to the foregoing, the applicant in his initial brief states he carried out the making of fences as possessory acts (folio 8). That statement and what was indicated by the first witnesses cited above is contradicted by what was verified in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted in June 2001, as it was clearly indicated that the property was not fenced, with tracks (carriles) existing as its delimitation (see record at folio 37).\n\n**XV.-** The foregoing analysis is sufficient to find that the basic requirements necessary to grant this petition have not been proven. But regardless of that, it is important to indicate the following regarding the remaining grievances. What is alleged in the **third** one, regarding the a quo's argument being untrue that the area is easily overgrown (enmontar) and therefore, after a harvest passes, it quickly returns to natural regeneration, is unfounded, aside from being a situation that must be analyzed and proven in each specific case, depending on the type of vegetation and natural conditions of the specific area. But, in this matter, even if it were true that it could be an area of easy regeneration, this does not change the conclusion reached by the Court regarding the non-fulfillment of the necessary requirements to approve this title registration (titulación).\n\n**XVI.-** Regarding the sixth grievance, it must be said that the Court cannot limit the powers of the trial judge in general terms regarding the admission and assessment of evidence, [Nombre15] if section 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias provides: “*The judge may, when he deems it convenient, order all those proceedings he considers necessary to verify the truthfulness of the facts to which the Information refers. He shall reject the same if he comes to verify that it is intended to improperly title national public lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves*.” However, on this occasion, given what occurred and was proven in the case record, the Procurator is correct in claiming that the extension of testimonial evidence was improperly admitted, not just once, but on two occasions. The foregoing because in March 2001, the first three witnesses offered by the applicant were heard, just as required by Article 6 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. On that first occasion, the Court must highlight that the evidence was received by a commissioned Judge, which is not an admissible practice in agrarian matters, due to its purposes, which promote respect, save for qualified exceptions, for the principle of immediacy. [Nombre15] in cases like the present one, where the protection of a protected area is at stake, and the commissioned action being the taking of a fundamental piece of evidence for the merits of what must be resolved, such as the testimonial evidence. After that, it is on record that the Procurator's Office appeared, reminding that the exercise of ten-year possession must be demonstrated prior to the effective date of the decree that created the protected area in question. Unacceptably, the a quo uses as an argument to justify the extension of testimonial evidence the fact that said entity appeared after those first statements (see folio 82). Regardless of what was alleged by the Procurator, the Judge, in principle, knows the law and is obliged to ensure compliance with the stated requirement. The applicant party, moreover, from the moment it offered testimonial evidence, should have corroborated that the witnesses knew the land for sufficient time to be able to prove the facts asserted by it. If its error or ignorance, or that of its legal counsel, fails to accredit them in the proper manner at the opportune moment, it is a burden that must only be attributed against it under its responsibility. It is not the judge's role to remedy that situation, unless, without violating his functions and in protection of the party's rights and with respect for the current legal system, he considers on a well-founded basis that it is strictly necessary to receive some additional evidence. Subsequent to that, a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) is conducted, regarding which this Court cannot fail to point out that a record was drawn up with a rather limited description of the land (see folio 37). In a brief dated December 7, 2001 (folio 49), the applicant requests to be allowed to offer two other witnesses, because Messrs. [Nombre11] and José Pérez had known the farm for only a short time, which the trial Judge granted (folio 50). Thus, in February 2002, the statements of [Nombre5] and [Nombre4] were received (folios 54 and 55). Due to contradictions between what they declared and what the applicant stated, the latter filed two briefs at folios 57 and 63. In the first, he seeks to “clarify” what they said regarding how the property was acquired derivatively, which contradicts what the applicant stated. In the second, the applicant's legal representative requests that three more witnesses be heard, “…*in order to demonstrate that the lands my client intends to title have always been in his hands or his family's and that the transfer from parents to children has occurred verbally; that likewise the possession exercised has been for much more than ten (sic) years prior to the publication of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización…*” Despite the fact that with this statement, what was initially stated by the applicant is changed, and despite five testimonies having already been admitted, the trial judge agreed to hear them in June 2002 (folios 68 to 70). These witnesses, apart from stating they have known the farm since 1950, do not contribute much information about the land, and even make the evidence received in its entirety even more contradictory. The Court clarifies that this grievance is admitted in this specific case, because as already explained, it is the trial Judge's power to determine the number of witnesses he needs to rule, and regarding what is established in Article 6 cited on the number of witnesses, its extension is not illegal, as long as it is strictly necessary and it is corroborated that the effective fulfillment of the purposes of the current legislation is not altered by it. What is unacceptable is allowing the petitioner to go about “correcting” or altering, at his convenience, what he has stated or what has been proven, as the process unfolds. [Nombre15] if the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is clear regarding requirements, and there is a large number of rulings by the Courts that have resolved and explained how each one of them is interpreted and must be fulfilled. In this case, in view of the statements of the first two witnesses heard, [Nombre9] and [Nombre11] (folios 24 and 25), about having known the land for only 10 or 12 years, it can be understood that it was ordered to hear two more witnesses, who supposedly should have had knowledge of it many more years prior, and also, logically, be sufficiently informed to be able to inform the judge about all the details he might require regarding the duration of possession, acts exercised, delimitation, and other fundamental data. Even if the judge were to omit asking a question of special interest to corroborate what the applicant reported, the applicant and his legal counsel can be present during the statement and request that the declarant be asked the pertinent questions that the judge had omitted. But after the second witnesses, unjustifiably in light of what was alleged, as explained, three more were heard.\n\n**XVII.-** The seventh grievance is rejected because it was not demonstrated that the property intended to be titled in case file Nº00-100077-417AG of the Juzgado Agrario de Nicoya overlaps with the one that is the subject of this proceeding. While it is true from the drawing of the location of the farms, according to survey plans (planos) NºP-589858-99 and the copies of the report sent by the Juzgado de Nicoya regarding the cited case file (folios 126 to 136), it follows that the properties are between nearby meridians and parallels, there is no reliable proof that there is an overlap between them. In the report requested from the Catastro Nacional and admitted as evidence for better provision, it is even indicated that survey plan (plano) P-54225-1963 cited in the respective report of the Juzgado de Nicoya does not overlap with survey plan (plano) P-589858-1999. Nor do the rest of the survey plans (planos) referring to the possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias) processed by the applicant, according to what was indicated by the Catastro Nacional, documentarily overlap (folios 138 to 152). The Procurator's Office, in a brief dated October 28, 2003, as a result of the evidence requested from the Catastro Nacional by the Court as a better provision, accepts that the claimed overlap does not exist and requests that its allegations in this regard be dismissed (folio 166). Later, in a brief dated November 11, 2003, it insists on the existence of an overlap between survey plan (plano) P-54225-1963 and the property that constituted a single unit of which the one that is the subject of this process formed part. But in this regard, it is clearly indicated that the portion described in survey plan (plano) P-589858-99, which corresponds to the present matter, does not overlap with the cited 1963 survey plan. Therefore, its allegations in this regard are unfounded.\n\n**XVIII.-** Finally, the Court must also note that in the considerandos of the challenged judgment, rather than analyzing the evidence and the fulfillment of the procedural and substantive requirements necessary to grant the proceeding, the Procurator's Office's position is contested, considering that it engages in an “inconvenient” practice of changing the “rules of the game” (folio 82). Likewise, there is a contradiction between what was stated in the initial filing regarding there being no encumbrances (cargas reales) on the property and what was recorded on the survey plan (plano) underlying the proceedings, by marking the existence of an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso), which evidently serves as access to it. This is not only a discrepancy that should have been noticed by the a quo, so that, if pertinent, it could order its constitution to be demonstrated in the proper manner and clarify which was the servient tenement (fundo sirviente), whether or not it was registered, the measurements of the easement (width and length), and its purpose. But furthermore, in this case, given that the property forms part of a protected area, if the applicant had not consolidated his right prior to the effective date of the decree creating it, the constitution of an encumbrance like the one cited was unfounded. In this regard, it must be remembered that state-protected wild areas form part of the State's natural heritage (artículos 32, 34, 37, 38, 46 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 13 and 14 of La Ley Forestal; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, voto of the Sala Constitucional N°2988 at 11:57 hours on April 23, 1999, and Nº755-03 cited by the Tribunal Agrario). The latter, in turn, is composed of forests and forest lands of national reserves, areas declared inalienable, farms registered in the name of the State, farms of municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other Public Administration bodies, except properties that guarantee credit operations of the National Banking System and form part of their assets (artículos 13 and 15 Ley Forestal). The forest lands and forests comprised within the State's natural heritage are unseizable, inalienable, and imprescriptible, in accordance with numerals 14 and 15 of the Ley Forestal, and cannot be mortgaged or be subject to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law (see in this regard votos N°1092 at 4:09 p.m. on February 7, 2001, and N°421 at 3:20 p.m. on January 16, 2001. In the same sense, N°2988 at 11:57 a.m. on April 23, 1999, all from the Sala Constitucional).\n\n**XIX.-** For all the foregoing reasons, the appealed resolution must be revoked insofar as it approved the present possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria). In its place, in accordance with the provisions of artículos 1, 7, and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and other cited regulations, the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) brought by [Nombre1] are rejected.\n\n### POR TANTO\n\nThe evidence offered by both parties for better provision is rejected. The appealed resolution is revoked. In its place, the possessory information proceeding (diligencia de información posesoria) brought by [Nombre1] is rejected.-\n\nANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA\n\nCARLOS BOLAÑOS CESPEDES            RUTH ALPIZAR RODRIGUEZ\n\nNº EXPN2\nInformación Posesoria\nPromovida [Nombre1] .\nli.-"
}