IV.- Ms. Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, in her capacity as Assistant Procuradora, filed an appeal against the first-instance judgment, indicating the reasons for her disagreement (folios 152 to 154).
V.- In the substantiation of the process, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and no errors or omissions capable of causing its nullity are noted in the judgment.
Drafted by Judge González Mora, and;
CONSIDERING:
I.- The list of proven facts is shared, as it is well supported in the case file.
II.- The appeal is filed by Ms. Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua in her capacity as Assistant Procuradora (folios 152 to 154). She expresses disagreement with judgment No. 42-2012 of thirteen hours and forty minutes on March six, two thousand twelve, wherein the possessory information proceedings were approved (folio 144 to 148). In summary, she sets forth the following grievance: Official letters ACAHN-TICOT-12-11 dated January 18, 2011, and ACAHN-TICOT-93 dated March 4, 2011, both issued by SINAC of the Area de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte, state that on the property to be titled there are areas corresponding to wetlands, which form part of the natural heritage of the State, also forming part of the public domain, and therefore are not susceptible to appropriation by private parties (articles 2 and 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo Nº35803-MINAET, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente arts. 32, 38, 41, 43, 44 and 45) even if the wetland has not been decreed as such, as indicated by Constitutional Chamber ruling 16938-11, which she partially transcribes. The appellant adds that, based on the foregoing, it is clear that wetlands have an immediate legal affectation to the public domain, which was brought to the attention of the judge. She requests the disapproval of these proceedings because they seek the titling of assets belonging to the public domain, such as the natural heritage of the State (folios 152-153).
III.- Wetlands are ecosystems that have interactions with soil, water, air, plants, and animals. As defined by the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, they are ecosystems dependent on aquatic regimes, natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, lentic or lotic, fresh, brackish, or salty, including marine extensions up to the posterior limit of marine phanerogams or coral reefs or, in their absence, up to six meters deep at low tide (article 40). The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) defines wetlands as those \"areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters.\" Due to their importance, wetlands receive national and international protection. Wetlands are considered the most productive ecosystems on Earth; furthermore, for centuries they have allowed the filtration of rainwater, forming large underground deposits of fresh water—also known as aquifers—which are of vital importance to human beings; they also contribute to diminishing the negative effects of natural disasters such as floods and generally provide stability to coastal zones. Concern for conserving wetlands is relatively recent, beginning about five decades ago, when the importance of the functions of these ecosystems and the consequences of their deterioration were understood, which were very evident because industrialization processes had transformed the environment, in many cases causing significant damage to natural systems. For this reason, various sectors of the international community joined efforts to form a worldwide organization to ensure the conservation of wetlands, and in 1971, in the city of Ramsar, Iran, the first meeting was held, called \"The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat,\" (later known as the Convention on Wetlands or the Ramsar Convention); one of the most important achievements of that event was that the participating countries made a commitment to conserve wetlands due to their enormous importance for all forms of life, ensuring their rational use through national actions and international cooperation, with the purpose of achieving equitable development worldwide. In Costa Rica, both wetlands and their conservation are of public interest, being multiple-use ecosystems, and activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles that occur within them are prohibited. Wetlands are classified as a management category of protected wilderness areas (articles 32, 44 and 45 Ley Orgánica del Ambiente).
IV. - Now then, the Constitutional Chamber, in ruling 16938-11 cited by the Procuradora, establishes that the norms of Decreto Ejecutivo 35803-MINAET, called \"Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales\" , published in La Gaceta No. 73 of April 16, 2010, are to be read as follows: \"Article 2. Continental Wetland Ecosystems. Continental wetland ecosystems form part of the Natural Heritage of the State.\" and \"Article 3. Marine Wetland Ecosystems. Marine wetland ecosystems form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, which shall be administered by MINAET through the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación.\" Therefore, the Procuradora interprets that wetlands have an immediate legal affectation to the public domain and cannot be subject to titling. This Tribunal does not share that criterion, because the same law establishes that protected wilderness areas, including those called wetlands, may be state, municipal, private, or mixed property (article 60 of the Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788, 32 and following Ley Orgánica del Ambiente). Moreover, as this Tribunal set forth in Ruling No. 515 of the fifteen hours of the thirtieth of April, two thousand twelve, the aforementioned unconstitutionality action was aimed at determining the administration of assets that are Natural Heritage of the State only, whether declared or not as protected zones or areas, whereas in the present case we are faced with an asset subject to private domain for more than ten years. As expressed by the Agrarian Tribunal, on the subject of the interpretation of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Natural Heritage of the State: “... IX. The Tribunal Superior Agrario had interpreted article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before being amended by the new Ley Forestal, in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this regard Rulings No. 169 of 9 hours 40 minutes on March 22, 1991, and No. 251 of 14 hours on April 17, 1991). To this end, it explained: \\\"This Tribunal has no doubt that article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before the amendment introduced to it by Ley Forestal number 7124 of June twenty-eight, nineteen ninety, and in its current text, departs from the general rule established in article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias which establishes: 'When the title applicant has not had ten-year possession of the property, he may take advantage of that exercised by his transferors, according to the provisions of article 863 of the Civil Code; but in this case he must present a public document stating the transfer of his right, even if not that of previous possessors'; the foregoing is stated for the following reason: in what is relevant, numeral 7 cited before the amendment provided: 'When the property to which the information refers contains a forest area of half or more of its extension, it shall be necessary to prove the due acquisition, with a public document granted more than ten years ago.' If the title applicant in the latter case was required to provide a public document granted more than ten years ago proving the acquisition of the property to be titled, it was because it was intended that in those cases, the ten-year possession had been exercised personally by the title applicant, since this evidence guaranteed the direct possession of whoever promoted the possessory information, because no one would provide a title granted more than ten years ago if they had not personally retained possession. With the amendment, what happened was that what was implicitly stated before the amendment was now expressly stated, because now it is established that when the property is located within an area declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone, the title applicant must demonstrate having exercised ten-year possession at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree that created the respective wilderness area...\\\" However, that interpretation of article 7 of the Ley Forestal was challenged as 'unconstitutional' by the title applicant herein, and the Constitutional Chamber, in Ruling No. 4587-97 (published in Boletín Judicial No. 188 on October 1, 1997) declared, in what is relevant, the following: \\\"The action is partially upheld and, consequently, the interpretation of article 7 of the Ley de informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by Ley Forestal No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which, to title lands included in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protective zones, personal possession is required with ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that creates the protected wilderness area, and that possession transmitted by previous possessors does not apply in these cases. This judgment is declaratory and its effects are retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith...\\\" In such a way that current possessors may take advantage of transmitted possession\\\". (Ruling No. 113 of 14:50 hours on February 20, 1998).
V.- Thus, the possessor who intends to acquire through adverse possession (usucapión) land covered with forest or with wetlands must demonstrate ten-year possession (original or transmitted), and having conserved the natural resources: forest, water, biodiversity, etc. In this case, the requirement demanded by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in articles 1, 6, and 7, is considered proven. Indeed, the title applicant provided cadastral plan No. […], where it is noted that the property consists of pastureland and has a yolillal zone (see cadastral plan on folio 123). In the study of compliant land use, it is indicated that the land is 75% pastureland and 25% wetland, and \"compliant land use has been exercised for the activity carried out. The certifier recommends \"allowing natural forest regeneration in the protection zones of the wetland and the stream. If the possessor wishes to introduce livestock again, he must prevent the animals from entering the wetland and the stream. In that case, watering troughs must also be installed for the animals to drink water.\" Which means that a sustainable agricultural activity has taken place. No interruption of its natural cycles is observed on the land, such as the construction of dikes, drainage, drying out, filling, or any other alteration that causes the deterioration and elimination of such ecosystems, as established by articles 98, 100, and 128 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, article 70 subsection f) of Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 34433-MINAE of March 11, 2008, Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad Nº 7788 of April 30, 1998, as well as Decreto Ejecutivo 35803-MINAET called \"Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales\". Quite the contrary, the technical agency identified as Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria certified that in this case, the property has been given a compliant use according to the soil type. In addition to this, the topographic survey expressly identifies the wetland area, in order to verify, now and after its titling, respect for the cited national and international regulations, the latter having a supra-constitutional character according to the criteria repeatedly expressed by the Constitutional Chamber. Hence, the appellant does not have reason in her grievances, and the appealed judgment must be confirmed, in what was the object of appeal.
THEREFORE:
The appealed judgment is confirmed, in what has been the object of appeal.\n\n**III.-** Wetlands are ecosystems that interact with soil, water, air, plants, and animals. As defined by the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, they are ecosystems dependent on aquatic regimes, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, lentic or lotic, fresh, brackish, or salt, including marine extensions up to the posterior limit of marine phanerogams or coral reefs or, in their absence, up to six meters in depth at low tide (Article 40). The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) defines wetlands as those *\"areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.\"* Due to their importance, wetlands receive national and international protection. Wetlands are considered the most productive ecosystems on Earth; moreover, for centuries they have allowed the filtration of rainwater, which has formed large underground deposits of fresh water—also known as aquifers—which are of vital importance for human beings; they also help reduce the negative effects of natural disasters such as floods and, in general, provide stability to coastal zones. Concern for wetland conservation is relatively recent, beginning some five decades ago, when the importance of these ecosystems' functions and the consequences of their deterioration became understood, consequences that were very evident because industrialization processes had transformed the environment, causing significant damage to natural systems in many cases. For this reason, various sectors of the international community joined forces to form a worldwide organization to oversee wetland conservation, and in 1971, in the city of Ramsar, Iran, the first meeting was held, called \"The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat\" (later known as the Convention on Wetlands or the Ramsar Convention); one of the most important achievements of that event was that the participating countries committed to conserving wetlands due to their enormous importance for all forms of life, in such a way that they would ensure their rational use through national actions and international cooperation, with the purpose of achieving equitable development worldwide. In Costa Rica, both wetlands and their conservation are of public interest, as they are multiple-use ecosystems, and activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles that occur within them are prohibited. Wetlands are classified as a management category of protected wild areas (articles 32, 44, and 45 Ley Orgánica del Ambiente).\n\n**IV.** - Now, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in vote 16938-11 cited by the Procuradora, establishes that the norms of Decreto Ejecutivo 35803-MINAET, titled *\"Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales\"*, published in La Gaceta No. 73 of April 16, 2010, must be read as follows: \"Article 2. Continental Wetland Ecosystems. Continental wetland ecosystems form part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado).\" and \"Article 3. Marine Wetland Ecosystems. Marine wetland ecosystems form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, which shall be administered by MINAET through the National System of Conservation Areas.\" Therefore, the Procuradora interprets that wetlands have an immediate legal designation as public domain and cannot be subject to titling. This Court does not share this criterion, because the law itself establishes that protected wild areas, including those called wetlands, may be state, municipal, private, or mixed property (Article 60 of the Ley de Biodiversidad No. 7788, 32 and following of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente).\n\nFurthermore, as this Tribunal stated in Voto Nº 515 at fifteen hours on April thirtieth, two thousand twelve, the referenced unconstitutionality action was aimed at determining the administration of goods that are solely State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), whether declared as protected zones or areas or not, whereas in the present case we are faced with a good subject to private ownership (dominio privado) for more than ten years. As the Tribunal Agrario has expressed, on the subject of the interpretation of Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the State Natural Heritage:\n\"… IX. The Tribunal Superior Agrario had interpreted Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before being amended by the new Ley Forestal, in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this regard Votos No. 169 at 9 hours 40 minutes of March 22, 1991 and No. 251 at 14 hours of April 17, 1991). To this end, it explained: \"This Tribunal has no doubt that Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before the amendment introduced to it by Ley Forestal number 7124 of June twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety, and in its current text, departs from the general rule established in Article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias which states: 'When the applicant has not had the ten-year possession of the property, they may use the possession exercised by their transferors, according to the provisions of Article 863 of the Civil Code; but in this case they must present a public document stating the transfer of their right, even if not that of previous possessors; the foregoing is stated for the following reason: insofar as relevant, numeral 7 cited before the amendment provided: \"When the property to which the information refers contains a forest area of half or more of its extension, it will be necessary to prove due acquisition, with a public document more than ten years old from its granting.\" If the applicant in the latter case was required to provide a public document more than ten years old from its granting that proved the acquisition of the property to be titled, it was because it was intended that in those cases, the ten-year possession had been exercised by the applicant personally, since that proof guaranteed the direct possession of the person promoting the possessory information, as no one would provide a title granted more than ten years earlier if they had not personally retained possession. With the amendment, what happened was that it was expressly stated what was implicitly stated before it, because now it is established that when the property is located within a zone declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone, the applicant must demonstrate having exercised ten-year possession at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree creating the respective wilderness area…\". However, that interpretation of Article 7 of the Ley Forestal was challenged as \"unconstitutional\" by the applicant here, and the Sala Constitucional, in Voto No. 4587-97 (published in Boletín Judicial No. 188 dated October 1, 1997) declared, in what is relevant, the following: \"The action is partially granted and, consequently, the interpretation of Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by Ley Forestal No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, according to which to title lands comprised in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protective zones, personal possession is required with ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating the protected wilderness area, and that possession transmitted by previous possessors does not apply in these cases, is unconstitutional. This ruling is declaratory and its effects retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith…\". Therefore, current possessors may use transmitted possession.\" (Voto No. 113 at 14:50 hours of February 20, 1998).\n\n**V.-** Thus, the possessor seeking to acquire by usucaption (usucapión) land covered by forest or with wetlands (humedales) must demonstrate the ten-year possession (original or transmitted), and having conserved the natural resources: forestry, water, biodiversity, etc. In this case, the requirement demanded by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in Articles 1, 6, and 7, is deemed proven. Indeed, the applicant provided registered plan No. […], where it is noted that the property is pastureland and has a yolillal zone (see registered plan at folio 123). In the study of land use conformity (uso conforme del suelo), it is indicated that the land is 75% pasture and 25% wetland and \"the land use conformity has been exercised for the activity carried out. The certifier recommends \"allowing natural forest regeneration in the protection zones of the wetland and the stream. If the possessor wishes to introduce cattle again, they must prevent the animals from entering the wetland and the stream. In that case, drinking troughs must also be installed for the animals to drink water.\"\" This means that a sustainable agricultural activity has been carried out. It is not observed on the land that the interruption of its natural cycles has occurred, with the construction of dikes, drainage, desiccation, landfill, or any other alteration that causes the deterioration and elimination of such ecosystems, as established by Articles 98, 100, and 128 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 70 subsection f) of Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 34433-MINAE of March 11, 2008, Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad Nº 7788 of April 30, 1998, as well as Decreto Ejecutivo 35803-MINAET called \"_Technical criteria for the identification, classification, and conservation of wetlands_\" (Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales). Quite the contrary, the technical body identified as the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria, certified that in this case the property has been given a use conformity (uso conforme) according to the type of soil. In addition to this, in the topographical survey the wetland area is expressly identified to verify, from now on, and after its titling, respect for the cited national and international regulations, the latter having a supra-constitutional nature according to the criteria repeatedly expressed by the Sala Constitucional. Hence, the appellant is not correct in their grievances, and the appealed judgment must be confirmed, in what was the subject of appeal.\"\n\nIt is considered that wetlands are the most productive ecosystems on Earth; moreover, for centuries they have allowed the filtration of rainwater, which has formed large underground deposits of fresh water—also known as aquifers (mantos acuíferos)—which are of vital importance for human beings; they also contribute to reducing the negative effects of natural disasters such as floods and generally provide stability to coastal areas. The concern for conserving wetlands is relatively recent, beginning some five decades ago, when the importance of the functions of these ecosystems and the consequences of their deterioration became understood—consequences made very evident because industrialization processes had transformed the environment, causing significant damage to natural systems in many cases.\n\nFor this reason, various sectors of the international community joined efforts to form a global organization that would oversee the conservation of wetlands, and in 1971, in the city of Ramsar, Iran, the first meeting was held, called \"The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat\" (later known as the Convention on Wetlands or the Ramsar Convention); one of the most important achievements of that event was that the participating countries committed to conserving wetlands because of their enormous importance for all forms of life, in such a way that they would ensure their rational use through national actions and international cooperation, with the purpose of achieving equitable development worldwide. In Costa Rica, both wetlands and their conservation are of public interest, as they are multiple-use ecosystems, and those activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles that occur within them are prohibited. Wetlands are classified as a management category of protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) (Articles 32, 44, and 45 of the Organic Environmental Law, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente).\n\n**IV.** - Now then, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in ruling Vote 16938-11 cited by the Procuradora, establishes that the norms of Executive Decree 35803-MINAET, called *\"Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales\"*, published in La Gaceta No. 73 of April 16, 2010, must be read as follows: \"Article 2. Continental Wetland Ecosystems. Continental wetland ecosystems form part of the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado).\" and \"Article 3. Marine Wetland Ecosystems. Marine wetland ecosystems form part of the State's Natural Heritage, which shall be administered by MINAET through the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación).\" For this reason, the Procuradora interprets that wetlands have an immediate legal encumbrance (afectación) to public domain and cannot be subject to titling. This Court does not share that criterion, because the same law establishes that protected wilderness areas, including those called wetlands, may be state, municipal, private, or mixed property (Article 60 of the Biodiversity Law No. 7788, Ley de Biodiversidad, 32 and following of the Organic Environmental Law). Furthermore, as this Court stated in Vote No. 515 of fifteen hours on April thirty, two thousand twelve, the referenced unconstitutionality action was aimed at determining the administration of goods that are solely State's Natural Heritage, whether declared or not as protected zones or areas, whereas in the present case we are dealing with a good subject to private domain for more than ten years. As the Agrarian Court (Tribunal Agrario) has expressed, on the subject of the interpretation of Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) and the State's Natural Heritage: *“... IX. The Superior Agrarian Court (Tribunal Superior Agrario), had interpreted Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, before being reformed by the new Forest Law (Ley Forestal), in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this sense Votes No. 169 of 9 hours 40 minutes on March 22, 1991 and No. 251 of 14 hours on April 17, 1991). For this purpose, it explained: 'This Court has no doubt that Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, before the reform introduced to it by Forest Law number 7124 of June twenty-eight, nineteen hundred ninety and in its current text, departs from the general rule established in Article 1 of the Possessory Information Law which establishes: \"When the title applicant has not had decennial possession of the property, they may avail themselves of the possession exercised by their transferors, as provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code; but in this case, they must present a public document attesting to the transfer of their right, even if not that of previous possessors\"; the foregoing is stated for the following: in what concerns us, the aforementioned numeral 7 before the reform provided: \"When the property to which the information refers contains a forest area of half or more of its extension, it will be necessary to prove the proper acquisition, with a public document more than ten years old.\" If the title applicant in the latter case was required to provide a public document more than ten years old proving the acquisition of the property to be titled, it was because it was intended that, in those cases, the decennial possession had been exercised by the title applicant personally, since that proof guaranteed the direct possession of whoever promoted the possessory information, because no one would contribute a title granted more than ten years prior if they had not personally retained possession. With the reform, what happened was that what was implicitly stated before it was now expressly stated, because now it is indeed established that when the property is located within a zone declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone (zona protectora), the title applicant will have to demonstrate having exercised decennial possession at least ten years prior to the date of entry into force of the respective law or decree creating the respective wilderness area....'. However, that interpretation of Article 7 of the Forest Law was challenged as 'unconstitutional' by the title applicant herein, and the Constitutional Chamber, in Vote No. 4587-97 (published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 188 dated October 1, 1997) declared, in what concerns us, the following: 'The action is partially granted and, consequently, that the interpretation of Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the reform produced by Forest Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, according to which, in order to title lands included in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protective zones, personal possession is required ten years prior to the date of entry into force of the law or decree creating the protected wilderness area, and that the possession transmitted by previous possessors does not apply in these cases, is unconstitutional. This judgment is declaratory and its retroactive effects are without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith...'. Such that current possessors can avail themselves of transmitted possession”* (Vote No. 113 of 14:50 hours on February 20, 1998).\n\n**V.-** So that the possessor who intends to acquire by usucapión (adverse possession) land covered with forest or with wetlands must demonstrate decennial possession (original or transmitted) and having conserved the natural resources: forest, water, biodiversity, etc. In this case, the requirement demanded by the Possessory Information Law, in Articles 1, 6, and 7, is deemed proven. Indeed, the title applicant provided cadastral map (plano catastrado) No. […], where it is noted that the property is pastureland and has a yolillal zone (see cadastral map on folio 123). In the compliant land-use study (estudio de uso conforme del suelo), it is indicated that the land is pasture (potrero) in 75% and wetland in 25% and \"the compliant use of the soil has been exercised for the activity carried out.\" The certifier recommends \"allowing natural forest regeneration in the protection zones of the wetland and the stream (quebrada). If the possessor wishes to introduce livestock again, they must prevent the animals from entering the wetland and the stream. In that case, drinking troughs must also be installed for the animals to drink water.\" Which means that a sustainable agricultural activity has taken place. No interruption of its natural cycles is observed on the land, with the construction of dikes, drainage, desiccation, filling, or any other alteration causing the deterioration and elimination of such ecosystems, as established in Articles 98, 100, and 128 of the Organic Environmental Law, Article 70 subsection f) of Executive Decree No. 34433-MINAE of March 11, 2008, Regulation to the Biodiversity Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, as well as Executive Decree 35803-MINAET called *\"Criterios técnicos para la identificación, clasificación y conservación de humedales\"*. Quite the contrary, the technical body identified as the National Institute of Innovation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria) certified that in this case the property has been given a compliant use according to the soil type. Coupled with this, in the topographic survey the wetland area is expressly identified so as to verify, from now, and after its titling, respect for the cited national and international regulations, the latter having a supra-constitutional character according to the criteria repeatedly expressed by the Constitutional Chamber. Hence, the appellant is not correct in her grievances, and the appealed judgment must be confirmed, in what was the subject of the appeal.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nThe appealed judgment is confirmed, in what has been the subject of appeal.\n\n| | | |\n|---|---|---|\n| | | |\n|
| *4QZOPPAFGEK61*
4QZOPPAFGEK61
[Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | |\n| *VEP43J4W4DQ061*
VEP43J4W4DQ061
[Nombre5] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | *SCF43ESJRVOM61*
SCF43ESJRVOM61
[Nombre6] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: EXPN2\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección3] , , [Dirección4] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]"
}