{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-597613", "citation": "Res. 00159-2014 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Anulación de asiento registral y plano catastrado por traslape en titulación de reserva nacional", "title_en": "Annulment of registration and cadastral map due to overlap in national reserve titling", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario conoce de una acción de nulidad de asiento registral y plano catastrado, interpuesta por el propietario de una finca inscrita desde 1994 contra la sociedad titular de una finca vecina titulada en 2004 con base en el Reglamento para la Titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales. La parte actora alega que el plano que dio origen a la finca demandada traslapa en un 85% el plano de su propiedad, y que además presenta un desplazamiento geográfico de aproximadamente un kilómetro. La sentencia de primera instancia rechazó la demanda por falta de prueba, calificando erróneamente la acción como reivindicatoria. El Tribunal corrige la calificación jurídica, determina que se trata de una acción protectora de derechos reales dirigida a anular inscripciones y planos, y establece los presupuestos propios de esta acción. Tras examinar la prueba documental —informes técnicos del IDA y de la División Catastral— concluye que el actor probó la preexistencia de su título, el traslape y los vicios graves del procedimiento de titulación de la demandada. Revoca parcialmente la sentencia apelada: rechaza las excepciones de falta de derecho y legitimación, declara con lugar la demanda, anula el asiento registral y el plano catastrado de la sociedad demandada, y condena en costas.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court hears an action for annulment of a real estate registration and cadastral map brought by the owner of a property registered since 1994 against the corporate holder of a neighboring property titled in 2004 under the Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves. The plaintiff alleges that the map that gave rise to the defendant's property overlaps his own map by 85%, and also presents a geographical displacement of approximately one kilometer. The first instance ruling dismissed the claim for lack of evidence, erroneously classifying the action as a reivindicatory one. The Court corrects the legal classification, determines that it is a protective action of property rights aimed at annulling registrations and maps, and establishes the specific prerequisites for this action. After examining the documentary evidence —technical reports from the IDA and the Cadastral Division— it concludes that the plaintiff proved the pre-existence of his title, the overlap, and the serious defects in the defendant's titling procedure. It partially overturns the appealed judgment: it rejects the defenses of lack of right and standing, upholds the claim, annuls the defendant's registration and cadastral map, and orders the defendant to pay costs.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "25/02/2014", "year": "2014", "topic_ids": [ "property-and-titling" ], "primary_topic_id": "property-and-titling", "es_concept_hints": [ "traslape de planos", "información posesoria", "Catastro Nacional", "Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales", "principio de tracto sucesivo", "acción de nulidad de asiento registral", "IDA", "INDER" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "traslape de planos", "nulidad de inscripción registral", "información posesoria", "catastro nacional", "IDA", "INDER", "reservas nacionales", "principio de tracto sucesivo", "acción de nulidad", "concordancia registral catastral" ], "keywords_en": [ "map overlap", "annulment of registry entry", "possessory information", "national cadastre", "IDA", "INDER", "national reserves", "principle of successive tract", "action for annulment", "cadastral registration concordance" ], "excerpt_es": "el plano de la demandada resulta ser la base de la inscripción registral que se pretende anular, pues es con base en tal que se tramitó el procedimiento administrativo que le dio origen a ese asiento registral. Por ende, si el plano es erróneo y ello no fue corregido a tiempo, la titulación o título que se generó con base en tal se ve directamente afectada, al destruirse uno de los pilares fundamentales para su existencia. [...] Y se probó fehacientemente en autos que el plano A-647865-2000, traslapa en un 85% el plano que corresponde a la finca del actor [...] el plano que ella utilizó para titular no solo afectaba ya otro anteriormente catastrado, sino que además tenía problemas de ubicación. [...] Por ende, debe existir conciliación entre la información registral y la catastral.", "excerpt_en": "The defendant's map is the basis of the registration sought to be annulled, since it was on that basis that the administrative procedure that gave rise to that registry entry was processed. Therefore, if the map is erroneous and this was not corrected in time, the titling or title generated on that basis is directly affected, as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence is destroyed. [...] And it was reliably proven in the record that map A-647865-2000 overlaps by 85% the map corresponding to the plaintiff's property [...] the map she used for titling not only affected another previously registered map, but also had location problems. [...] Therefore, there must be harmony between registration and cadastral information.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The judgment is partially overturned, the claim is granted, the defendant's registry entry and cadastral map are annulled, and costs are awarded.", "summary_es": "Se revoca parcialmente la sentencia, se declara con lugar la demanda, se anula el asiento registral y el plano catastrado de la demandada, y se condena en costas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "the defendant's map is the basis of the registration sought to be annulled […] if the map is erroneous and this was not corrected in time, the titling or title generated on that basis is directly affected, as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence is destroyed.", "quote_es": "el plano de la demandada resulta ser la base de la inscripción registral que se pretende anular […] si el plano es erróneo y ello no fue corregido a tiempo, la titulación o título que se generó con base en tal se ve directamente afectada, al destruirse uno de los pilares fundamentales para su existencia." }, { "context": "Considerando X", "quote_en": "two maps that totally or partially coincide with different lands cannot subsist, and it is precisely for this reason that the parties are referred to the jurisdictional venue to define such situation and eliminate it for the sake of registry publicity and legal certainty of the parties, and when fundamental rights, such as property, are at stake.", "quote_es": "no pueden subsistir dos planos que coincidan total o parcialmente con terrenos diferentes, y precisamente por ello es que se remite a las partes a la sede jurisdiccional para que se defina dicha situación y se elimine en pro de la publicidad registral y la seguridad jurídica de las partes, y al estar de por medio derechos fundamentales, como lo es el de propiedad." }, { "context": "Considerando XI", "quote_en": "Therefore, there must be harmony between registration and cadastral information.", "quote_es": "Por ende, debe existir conciliación entre la información registral y la catastral." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-37687", "citation": "Ley 5695", "title_en": "National Registry Creation Law", "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "28/05/1975", "year": "1975" }, { "id": "norm-38469", "citation": "Ley 6545", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/03/1981", "year": "1981" }, { "id": "norm-48277", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 13607", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "24/04/1982", "year": "1982" }, { "id": "norm-49227", "citation": "Reglamento 55", "title_en": "Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves", "title_es": "Reglamento para la Titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales", "doc_type": "regulation", "date": "12/08/2002", "year": "2002" }, { "id": "norm-55371", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 26771", "title_en": "Public Registry Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento del Registro Público", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "18/02/1998", "year": "1998" }, { "id": "norm-62555", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 34331", "title_en": "Regulation to the National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "29/11/2007", "year": "2007" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-394397", "citation": "Res. 02063-2007 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Prohibition on titling lands in national reserves", "title_es": "Prohibición de titular tierras en reservas nacionales", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "14/02/2007", "year": "2007" }, { "id": "norm-37687", "citation": "Ley 5695", "title_en": "National Registry Creation Law", "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "28/05/1975", "year": "1975" }, { "id": "norm-38469", "citation": "Ley 6545", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/03/1981", "year": "1981" }, { "id": "norm-48277", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 13607", "title_en": "National Cadastre Law Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "24/04/1982", "year": "1982" }, { "id": "norm-49227", "citation": "Reglamento 55", "title_en": "Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves", "title_es": "Reglamento para la Titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales", "doc_type": "regulation", "date": "12/08/2002", "year": "2002" }, { "id": "norm-55371", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 26771", "title_en": "Public Registry Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento del Registro Público", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "18/02/1998", "year": "1998" }, { "id": "norm-62555", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 34331", "title_en": "Regulation to the National Cadastre Law", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "29/11/2007", "year": "2007" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-738965", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-738965" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-597613", "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-37687", "norm_num": "5695", "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "28/05/1975" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38469", "norm_num": "6545", "norm_name": "Ley del Catastro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "25/03/1981" }, { "doc_id": "norm-48277", "norm_num": "13607", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "24/04/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-49227", "norm_num": "55", "norm_name": "Reglamento para la Titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales", "tipo_norma": "Reglamento", "norm_fecha": "12/08/2002" }, { "doc_id": "norm-55371", "norm_num": "26771", "norm_name": "Reglamento del Registro Público", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "18/02/1998" }, { "doc_id": "norm-62555", "norm_num": "34331", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "29/11/2007" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0034-738965" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "*100002710298AG*\n\n \n\n*100002710298AG*\n\n \n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\nEXPN2\n\nPROCESO:\n\nORDINARIO\n\nACTOR/A:\n\nCHIEN HSIN CHEN HSIEN\n\nDEMANDADO/A:\n\nWHITE BECARD S. A. BLACK AND\n\nVOTO N°159-F-2014\n\n \n\nTRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las dieciséis horas y quince minutos del veinticinco de febrero de dos mil catorce.-\n\n PROCESO ORDINARIO establecido por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado, agricultor, vecino de San Francisco de Dos Ríos, San José, cédula de identidad CED1 ; contra BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA (en adelante se citará como Black), cédula de persona jurídica CED2 , representada conjuntamente por [Nombre2] , pasaporte CED3 , Oldemar Antonio Fallas Navarro, mayor, casado una vez, abogado, vecino de Ipis de Guadalupe, cédula de identidad CED4 , y [Nombre3] , cédula de residencia CED5 . Actúan como apoderados especiales judiciales: de la parte actora, Alexis Cervantes Barrantes, colegiado cinco mil seiscientos quince; y de la parte demandada, los licenciados Rodrigo Cervantes Barrantes, cédula de identidad CED6 , y Aarón Rodríguez Cruz, carné dieciocho mil cientos cincuenta y seis. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos.-\n\n RESULTANDO: \n\n 1.- La parte actora interpuso la presente demanda ordinaria, estimada en cien millones de colones, solicitando se declare en sentencia lo siguiente: \"Que se (SIC) rescinda el asiento registral del inmueble descrito en el Hecho Segundo siendo que primando el principio de primero en derecho o primacía registral y al traslapar con la finca de mi propiedad descrita en el Hecho primero no debió nacer a la finca jurídica así como tampoco el plano que la describe, antes mencionado. Que en caso de oposición de condene a la accionada al pago de ambas costas de este proceso\" (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos, archivo digital número 334643, folio 327).- \n\n 2.- La sociedad demandada contestó negativamente e interpuso las excepciones de litis pendencia, falta de derecho y genérica de sine actione agit (ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos, archivo digital número 354232).-\n\n 3.- La jueza Zoila Flor Ramírez, del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos, en sentencia Nº 03-2013 de las quince horas del ocho de enero de dos mil trece, resolvió: “POR TANTO: De conformidad con lo expuesto y citas de ley, se DECLARA : 1-) Se rechaza la excepción de Litis pendencia, interpuesta por la sociedad demandada Black And White Becard S.A. Se acogen las excepciones de falta de derecho y la denominada genérica de sine actione agit en sus modalidades de Falta de Derecho, falta de interés actual, y Falta de Legitimación; todas interpuestas por la sociedad demandada Black and White Becard S.A. 2-) SIN LUGAR EN TODOS SUS EXTREMOS LA DEMANDA ORDINARIA establecida por la [Nombre1] , contra BLACK AND WHITE BECARD S.A, 3-) Se condena al actor [Nombre1] al pago de las costas procesales y personales de la demanda\", (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos, archivo digital número 354233, folio 481).- \n\n 4.- La parte actora interpuso recurso de apelación con indicación expresa de las razones en que se apoyaron para refutar la tesis del juzgado de instancia., (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos, archivo digital número 354233, folio 484 a 492).- \n\n 5.- En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, y no existen errores u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo.-\n\nRedacta la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez y;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\n I.- El Tribunal comparte únicamente los hechos probados 1, 2, 4, por tener sustento en la prueba constante en autos, con las siguientes aclaraciones y modificaciones: Al h echo tres agréguese: Las citas originales del asiento registral de la finca de [Dirección1] CED7 (de la demandada), son 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, y se inscribió el siete de setiembre del dos mil cuatro (agregar como prueba en carpeta de documentos asociados, copia de testimonio de escritura en imágenes 155 a 180). Al h echo cuatro adiciónese: Las citas actuales del asiento registral de la finca de [Dirección2] (del actor), son 2010-00139648-01, indicándose como causa adquisitiva un remate (agréguese como elemento probatorio en carpeta de documentos asociados, a) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: imágenes 37 a 47 y 81 a 154; b) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ TOMO I PARTE II:imagenes 11 a 14, 42, 101, 149 a 161). Se rechazan los hechos probados 1 (por no ser un hecho sino la descripción de lo pretendido en el proceso), y el 2 por tratarse de una conclusión jurídica. De igual categoría, y dado lo que es objeto de debate y lo alegado en la apelación, agréguese los siguientes: 8 ) E n el proceso ordinario EXPN1, interpuesto por Corporación Fiduciaria Del Valle S. A. contra el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, ahora Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), [Nombre4] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre4] . . , [Nombre6] y Black And White Becard S.A, se pretendía se declarase: \"...Con lugar la demanda REIVINDICATORIA. Que en virtud de haberse traslapado sobre los planos e inmuebles propiedad de sus representadas, SE ORDENE LA CANCELACIÓN CORRESPONDIENTE, de los planos números A-273723-1995, con la medida de cincuenta y nueve hectáreas un mil ciento veinte con veinticinco decímetros cuadrados y A- 276578-1995, con una supuesta medida de ciento veinte hectáreas cinco mil doscientos setenta y ocho metros con cuarenta decímetros cuadrados, asimismo de los planos catastrados números A-647865-2000 y 647866-2000... Que igualmente se ordene la cancelación del asiento de inscripción de las fincas del Partido de Alajuela, inscritas al folio real matrícula número CED8 [Placa1] ... Se condene a la parte demanda al pago de ambas costas de esta acción y al pago además un los daños y perjuicios causados\". A la fecha, no ha sido resuelto en firme, dado que se encontraba con recurso planteado en tercera instancia rogada, por haber sido resuelto en segunda instancia en voto 650-F-12 (ver sentencia de primera instancia en tal proceso, en carpeta de documentos asociados, archivo EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado), imágenes: 24 a 43; información pública que consta en sistemas de información de la Sala Primera, Recurso: 845-S1-12, en http://intranet/salaprimera/index.php/proyectos-circulando; y del sistema de gestión en línea, consulta externa del Tribunal Agrario, en https://pjenlinea.poder-judicial.go.cr/SistemaGestionEnLinea/Publica/wfpDetExped.aspx?c=20110029000183&d=0029). 9) El plano A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, correspondiente al asiento registral de la finca de la parte demandada, se catastró el dieciocho de agosto del dos mil (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: certificación registral y plano, imágenes 13 a 18).- 10) El plano A-ciento ochenta mil setecientos veintiuno-noventa y cuatro, correspondiente al asiento registral de la finca de la parte actora, se catastró el veintidós de abril de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: certificación registral y plano, imagenes 9 a 13 y 19 a 21).- 11) La finca del actor se originó en venta y segregación que hizo el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, ahora Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), de su finca de Alajuela doscientos treinta y siete mil quinientos noventa y ocho-cero cero cero, a una sociedad denominada Villa Escondida S.A. el veintiuno de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro. En la escritura trece del protocolo del notario Carlos García, se describe la finca como terreno para agricultura, ubicado en el [Dirección3] , , colindante al norte: zona limítrofe; sur: camino público; este: Abdenago Vargas y oeste: Villa Frontera S.A., con una medida de doscientos ochenta y nueve hectáreas cinco mil doce metros veinticinco decímetros cuadrados, según plano A-ciento ochenta mil setecientos veintiuno-noventa y cuatro. Luego fue de Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, quien la vendió a Vakus Centroamericana S.A. y finalmente, por adquirirla en remate, pasó a ser del actor (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, a) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: imágenes 37 a 47 y 81 a 154; b) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ TOMO I PARTE II:imágenes 11 a 14, 42, 101, 149 a 161). 12) La finca de la demandada, de la provincia de Alajuela cuatrocientos un mil cuatrocientos setenta y seis-cero cero cero, fue inscrita a través de un proceso de titulación realizado con base en el Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales del antes IDA, publicado en La Gaceta 173 del 10 de setiembre de 2002. El procedimiento administrativo fue interpuesto por [Nombre4] , con base en el plano A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil. El acuerdo firme del IDA que permitió la inscripción fue el 45 de la sesión 16-04 del 3 de mayo de 2004 y con base en tal se suscribió, el veintiocho de mayo del dos mil cuatro, una escritura de \"venta y segregación\" que hizo el antiguo IDA, de su finca de Alajuela doscientos treinta y siete mil quinientos noventa y ocho-cero cero cero a favor [Nombre4] . En la escritura citada, ciento treinta y cuatro-setenta y nueve del protocolo del notario Hubert Araya, se describe la finca como terreno de reserva nacional, zona norte, Santa Rosa, ubicado en el [Dirección3] , , colindante al norte: Llanos nacionales y [Nombre7] ; sur: camino público y [Nombre8] ; este: [Nombre9] y oeste: Llanos naturales y [Nombre10] , con una medida de cincuenta y nueve hectáreas mil doscientos diez metros veinticinco decímetros cuadrados, según plano A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil. Se imponen varias limitaciones, entre ellas, que la titulación se hacía sin perjuicios de terceros con mejor derecho. Esa escritura generó el asiento registral citado en el hecho probado tres (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, archivo Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: imágenes 155 a 173; archivo Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, y Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II).\n\n II.- No se comparte lo dispuesto en cuanto a hecho s indemostrado s por tratarse de conclusiones jurídicas los dos primeros y el último por innecesario, dado lo indicado en los hechos probados. De igual naturaleza téngase como no probado: 1 / . El actor haya sido desposeído materialmente del terreno que reclama como suyo. 2/. La sociedad demandada ocupe materialmente un área que esté comprendida dentro del terreno del actor. 3/. La parte actora posea un terreno que no corresponda al título registral del mismo ni al plano catastrado que se le ha asignado registralmente. 4/. La ubicación física de la finca de la demandada sea en un lugar diverso al que se indica en el plano. \n\nIII.- Conoce este Tribunal el recurso de apelación interpuesto por la parte actora, contra la sentencia 03 -2 013 de 8 de enero de 2013, en la cual se declaró sin lugar la demanda con costas a su cargo. Expone la parte apelante los siguientes agravios en forma reiterativa , por lo q ue se resumen y ordenan para facilitar su análisis : 1) Reclama, se probó es propietario de la finca de Alajuela 287520-000, descrita en el plano A-180721-1994, que \"nació a la vida jurídica\" en escritura 13 del 21 de setiembre de 1994, del tomo 19 del protocolo del notario Carlos García Anchía (folio 37). Asegura, eso no fue controvertido por la parte demandada. Afirma, cuando el Registro Público le otorga número a una finca sigue un orden continuo, por lo que entre la finca suya y la de la sociedad demandada se otorgaron 467144 títulos, por lo que afirma su finca nació a la vida jurídica antes que la de la sociedad demandada. Por ende, reclama no es cierto lo indicado en el hecho no probado 3, respecto a que no se acreditó que su derecho registral haya nacido antes que el de la demandada. Resalta, el terreno de ella, según consta a folio 132, nació según escritura 134-79 del 28 de mayo del 2004 del protocolo del notario Hubert Rojas Araya. Concluye, su finca existía diez años antes que la de la demandada, lo cual desdice lo que la a quo dice en el hecho no probado 3. Agrega, la inconsistencia surgida por el traslape de planos y asientos registrales, según la División Catastral del Registro Público Inmobiliario, es que si existe el traslape de planos, por lo que debe declararse nulo el último plano confeccionado, que es el que describe la finca de la demandada. Eso, dice, se consignó en el ordinario 08-000717-1027CA, donde consta el informe del topógrafo Víctor [Nombre11] Salas, de la Dirección General del IDA, oficio DRHN-A-0148-2006 de 10 de marzo de 2006. En tal se dice que existe traslape en cuanto a la ubicación cartográfica de los planos de las partes, entre otros. Considera, desvirtuar esos dos estudios/periciales (sic) de dos instituciones públicas, una de ellas la máxima expresión (sic) tratándose de planos, solo es posible a través de un estudio profesional, científico y serio, no como lo dedujo la a quo cuando indica en la sentencia impugnada, sobre que no se puede tener por demostrada la identidad física del bien inmueble del actor y de la demandada, por inconsistencias en cuanto a las colindancias y a su ubicación, esto último partiendo de un tal camino que aparece en distinto lado en cada uno de los planos referidos supra, además de la inconsistencia en las medidas y la figura geométrica. Con respecto a estos dos factores, dice, remite al informe de la División Catastral, que incluye un croquis e indica el traslape es parcial, y resalta nunca se dijo en la demanda ni en otro escrito que fuese un traslape exacto o total. Reitera, quedó demostrado con la documental que la finca del actor nació a la vida jurídica primero que la de la demandada. Por ello, dice, se originó el procedimiento administrativo ante la Dirección del Catastro Nacional hoy del Registro Inmobiliario, expediente 534-2009 RIM, en el cual consta ese estudio sobre el traslape. Reclama, de haber apreciado esas pruebas, la quo habría \"colegido\" de modo diferente, apegada a derecho y en concordancia con el principio de la sana crítica racional. Por eso, dice, va en detrimento de sus derechos, la no valoración de la prueba documental. Ofrece como prueba para mejor resolver, para demostrar que se probó que su finca nació jurídicamente antes que la del demandado, certificación notarial del estudio electrónico, donde se aprecia que la advertencia administrativa retrotrae sus efectos al día de la inscripción registral de la finca, 7 de octubre de 1994. Si eso se apreciaba en todas las certificaciones registrales, la quo no debió tener por no acreditado ese hecho. 2) Refuta, se haya tenido como hecho no probado segundo, que el nacimiento a la vida jurídica del terreno fuera anómalo o ilegal; menos concluir que la demanda era ayuna de prueba para demostrar esos dos hechos. De haber apreciado la prueba habría concluido, dice, que si existe traslape, como se dedujo en los informes referidos. Reclama, se ve agraviado porque para unas cosas si se utiliza uno de esos informes, pero para decir que existe el traslape no. Considera, no se puede colegir que hubo desinterés suyo en ofrecer un peritaje como prueba, a efecto de realizarse una inspección de campo y determinar que no se trata de un error de coordenadas en los planos y que la finca existiera sin estar traslapada. Considera, no les corresponde demostrar la existencia de la materialidad de la finca de la sociedad demandada en otro lugar que no es dónde la sitúa el plano que la describe, pues dice, es ella quien debe probar que su finca no traslapa otras, como así lo indica las coordenadas del plano suyo y resalta existe un proceso ordinario previo al presente, donde se determina que se anule tanto ese plano como el asiento registral de propiedad. 3) Sostiene, la a quo no valoró toda la prueba documental aportada. Cita de nuevo lo dicho sobre el expediente administrativo 534-2009 RM y el informe del antes IDA, que por innecesario no se reitera. Transcribe datos del informe levantado por [Nombre11] , que forman parte del segundo antes referido, en especial: 1) se hizo levantamiento con GPS iniciando en el pueblo de Caño Negro hasta el fin del camino que se da en la entrada de la finca del señor [Nombre5]; 2) se sacaron del Registro Nacional copias de los planos en estudio para su comparación; 3) se montaron los planos en autocad, por medio del derrotero y dándole coordenadas según hoja cartográfica Zapote; 4) se realizó el montaje de todos los planos adyacentes encontrados en el Catastro Nacional para ver los posibles traslapes entre los mismos. También transcribe las conclusiones de dicho topógrafo, resaltando que: a) se determina que existe traslape en cuanto a la ubicación cartográfica entre los planos A-647866-2000, A-647865-2000 A-180715-94 y A-180720-94, y que el plano A-647865-2000 traslapa el A-180715-1994 y con el 180721-1994 (de Villa Escondida, [Dirección4] ) en un 85% aproximadamente. Por eso, expresa, no es cierto que la a quo haya apreciado esa prueba, pues de hacerlo, porque no habría dicho que ese estudio no citó la finca suya. b) se concluye existe un desplazamiento significativo de un kilómetro, con la información que arroja el GPS, en cuanto a la ubicación real de la [Dirección5] y por consiguiente también de la A-647865-2000. C) Sobre los planos A-180721-1994, A-180715-94, A-180720-94 y A-180716-94, se encontraron otros planos diferentes a los del señor [Nombre5] y la señora [Nombre4], que traslapan total o parcialmente. Remite al folio 20 del expediente administrativo del IDA, en el que se aprecia que los planos A-685715-2001, A-647865-2000 y A-647866-2000 traslapan la finca suya, descrita en el plano A-180721-1994. Enlista que A-685715-2001 traslapa el A-647866-2000; este el A-647865- 2000, y tal el A-180721-94 (traslapada) (resalta que debe notarse ese término). Y del expediente 534-B1, señala el folio 121, en donde se consigna la resolución del 14 de enero del 2010, donde se indica la diligencia administrativa para investigar la posible sobreposición es oficiosa, y se refiere a las fincas de Alajuela [Dirección6], [Dirección7] y [Dirección8], lo cual considera es otra prueba más de que la finca de la demandada se superpone en espacio a la suya. Todas esas prueba, no apreciadas por la a quo, dice, determinan su dicho de que le asiste todo el derecho sobre su finca y que se le debieron conceder todos los extremos de la demanda. Transcribe párrafos del considerando VI la sentencia impugnada sobre la falta de prueba de la identidad del bien y la legitimación pasiva y lo del desinterés de aportarse prueba pericial. Reclama, la jueza indica que debió apersonarse un perito a corroborar in situ el traslape aducido, pero considera era innecesario, dado que el perito del IDA se había apersonado con GPS en mano y lo había corroborado antes que el Catastro se pronunciara de la misma manera. Agrega, la a quo no tiene fundamento ni capacidad para desdecir lo indicado por aquellos. De no aceptarse como prueba documental el informe elaborado con inspección de campo por el topógrafo [Nombre11], del IDA, pide se tenga como prueba para mejor resolver. 4) Reclama, ante la contundencia de las pruebas documentales, dado el traslape de planos y por ende de fincas inscritas en el Registro Público, que se determinó en el estudio referido, afirma tal contraviene los lineamientos del principio de concordancia contenido en el artículo 18 de la Ley de Catastro 6545, Decreto Ejecutivo 33982 de 8 de agosto de 2007 y el 343311 de 29 de noviembre de 2007. Dice, en razón del principio de especialidad catastral y registral, verdad real y seguridad jurídica, se debe subsanar esa inconsistencia presente en los planos y los citados inmuebles, y de no ser así, se deberán anular tanto el asiento registral del terreno A-401476-000 como el plano A-647865-2000, por avallasar el espacio que ocupa el inmueble suyo. Sostiene, la inscripción de la finca de la demandada fue ilegal, y ella lo aceptó cuando adquirió el bien, dado que sabía que traslapaba con otro, razón por la que debe ser responsable, por oponerse a una verdad determinada por la División Catastral. 5) Reclama, la a quo puso entre comillas los términos \"anular\" y \"rescindir\", dado que se solicitó rescindir el plano y el asiento registral, cuando la Real Academia define esos términos así (solo se citan en lo que interesan): rescindir: dejar sin efecto un contrato, una obligación; anular: dejar sin fuerza una disposición, un contrato, suspender algo previamente anunciado o proyectado. Pide se acoja la apelación y se le conceda lo que pide, por ser la documental contundente y clara. Las pruebas ofrecidas para mejor resolver se rechazan, con fundamento en el artículo 52 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, al estimarse que, en función de lo debatido por las partes, resultan innecesarias .\n\n IV.- Antes de analizar los agravios en concreto, es importante resaltar los siguientes aspectos, que no son motivo de nulidad del proceso ni del fallo cuestionado, ya que no causan indefensión o bien, las partes no mostraron disconformidad oportunamente contra lo resuelto por la a quo (artículos 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria y 503 del Código de Trabajo, aplicado supletoriamente). No obstante, deben ser revisados por la Juzgadora a quo, para evitar reincidir en ellos. La acción planteada, como se explicará, no es una reivindicatoria sino una acción no típica, que si bien se relaciona con derechos reales no tiene efectos restitutorios, porque se pretende únicamente la nulidad de la inscripción registral de los asientos donde se publicita el derecho de propiedad sobre un terreno y del plano que lo grafica y con base en el cual se originó tal registro. De haberse tratado de una reivindicación, la prueba de reconocimiento judicial debió haberse realizado aún de oficio, pues es necesario que la persona juzgadora revise los presupuestos de fondo de la acción para ver si la rechaza o admite en sentencia. En este caso, pese a que la a quo la calificó incorrectamente la demanda de acción reivindicatoria, no se aprecia se haya realizado el reconocimiento judicial, pero como se indica, no resulta necesario por no tratarse de ese tipo de acción procesal. En segundo lugar, aún cuando se hubiese ofrecido solo prueba documental, la etapa o fase de conciliación debe llevarse a cabo de oficio. Dependiendo de lo debatido, la persona juzgadora debe determinar si se debe hacer en el asiento del Juzgado o en el lugar de los hechos, pues en ocasiones lo segundo resulta relevante para los acuerdos a los que se puede llegar. En el caso, se citó a conciliación por solicitud de una de las partes (ver resolución del 14 de marzo de 2011), pero aunque no se hubiese presentado tal petición, el Juzgado debe tomar en cuenta que es su obligación citar a fase de conciliación y sopesar en qué lugar debe realizarse, en función de lo debatido. También debe destacarse que la parte demandada interpuso la defensa previa de litis pendencia, que debió ser resulta interlocutoriamente (artículo 44-b) de la Ley referida) y no dejarse para ser analizada en la sentencia, como se hizo en este caso.\n\n V.- Dado que los p rimer os reclamo s se refiere n a la forma como se apreció la prueba, y las conclusiones del a quo con respecto al cuadro fáctico tenido por probado o no demostrado en la sentencia recurrida, debe tenerse presente que el numeral 54 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria exige al tribunal estudiar y seleccionar las fuentes de prueba obtenidas, a fin de establecer su eficacia para resolver el conflicto sometido a su conocimiento, a través de la percepción, la representación o reconstrucción y el razonamiento deductivo o inductivo. El tribunal debe expresar los principios de equidad o de derecho sobre los cuales basa su criterio . Al respecto, la Sala Constitucional ha explicado: \"... la apreciación de la prueba en conciencia no implica resolver en forma arbitraria, por cuanto todo juez -como funcionario público que es- se encuentra sujeto al principio de legalidad, el cual constituye un imperativo de adecuación de la acción pública, no sólo de las normas específicas sobre un objeto determinado, sino a todo el bloque de legalidad; por lo que no puede fallar con desprecio de los principios y derechos constitucionales, ya que está limitado por las reglas de la sana crítica y principios de razonabilidad, que debidamente aplicados conducen a la armonía de la apreciación jurisdiccional con la Constitución Política, tal y como lo entendió esta Sala en sentencia 3484-94, de las doce horas del ocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, en que determinó que las facultades de los jueces de apreciar la prueba en conciencia no resultan contrarias a la obligación del juez de fundamentar sus fallos, principio constitucional que integra el debido proceso... () no resulta inconstitucional el poder otorgado al juez agrario para apreciar en conciencia la prueba y valorarla sin sujeción estricta a las normas del derecho común según lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del artículo 54 impugnado, siempre y cuando dicte un fallo fundamentado, es decir analice el resultado de la prueba recogida en el proceso y exprese los principios de equidad o de derecho en que basa su criterio, respetando de tal modo los contenidos mínimos del derecho de defensa\" ( voto 3657 del 7 de mayo de 2003 . Ver en igual sentido votos N° 398 del 6 de junio del 2001 de la Sala Primera. En igual sentido veáse votos No. 206 del 26 de marzo de 1999, N°46 del 26 de abril de 1995; Nª66 del 6 de febrero de 2009 y 364 de 28 de mayo del 2009 del Tribunal Agrario).\n\n VI.- Para poder analizar los agravios expuestos, es importante primero aclarar que lo planteado por el señor [Nombre1] no es una acción reivindicatoria, dado que ni en las pretensiones ni en los hechos de la demanda reclama haber sido despojado materialmente de área alguna que le deba ser restituida, requisito esencial en una acción de tal tipo (artículo 320 del Código Civil, aplicado supletoriamente). Lo que se debate, como bien lo señala la parte actora en la demanda, es únicamente la existencia de un traslape de plano, y con base en ello, se pide la nulidad de la inscripción registral de la finca de la demandada y de su plano. Por ende, resulta incorrecta la calificación que hace la a quo, lo cual afecta el análisis de algunos de los presupuestos valorados. No obstante, como se explicó, ello no es motivo de nulidad, pues la calificación jurídica puede ser corregida en segunda instancia. La acción procesal contenida en la demanda de este asunto, es una acción protectora de los derechos reales, porque se pretende la nulidad de la inscripción registral del título que da origen a la finca de la parte demandada y de su plano. La invalidez (nulidad) de inscripciones solicitadas (tanto registral como catastral), tiene incidencia directa en el derecho real de propiedad de las partes, pero no corresponde a ninguna de las referidas en el considerando V de la sentencia impugnada, siendo posible asimilarla a la acción de nulidad de título derivado de una información posesoria (cuando se tramita en vía ordinaria y no incidental). Se reitera, lo que se planteó y debe resolverse es una acción dirigida a anular asientos registrales y catastrales, y por ende, los presupuestos a examinar, con base en la prueba aportada a los autos, son además de los usuales (derecho, legitimación e interés actual), los propios de una acción de este tipo: a) legitimación activa: la persona que demanda la nulidad de los asientos registrales y catastrales debe ser quien se ve afectada con la existencia de tales; b) legitimación pasiva: la persona demandada debe ser la titular del derecho que publicitan los asientos registrales y catastrales (planos) que se pretenden anular; c) derecho: quien demanda debe ser la titular del derecho que se reclama sea tutelado, en este caso, debe ser la titular del derecho de propiedad que publicita el asiento registral y también corresponderle a tal el plano que alega se ve afectado o traslapado con la existencia de lo que se pide anular; d) interés actual: a la fecha de plantearse la demanda y resolverse el proceso debe persistir la situación que originó el reclamo (es, decir, deben existir los asientos registrales y planos que se piden anular, pues de no ser así, el reclamo pierde interés); e) existencia de vicios de forma o de fondo que afecten la validez de la inscripción registral y del plano que se piden anular: debe probarse su existencia y gravedad (es decir, que sean errores insubsanables), para poderse aplicar la sanción de nulidad. La carga de la prueba de los presupuestos citados le corresponde a la parte actora. Al respecto, debe recordarse que en sede judicial, a cada parte le corresponde la carga de probar los hechos que le sirven de presupuesto al derecho o situación que reclama sea declarado o reconocido a su favor, cualquiera que sea su posición procesal; si no lo hace, deberá soportarse el riesgo de la falta de prueba, que se traduce en una decisión desfavorable a sus intereses (artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicado supletoriamente). \n\n VII.- Por otro lado, y dado lo que es objeto de agravios, debe también resaltarse el origen de las inscripciones que se solicita anular. Se aclara que gran parte de la prueba documental que sirve de sustento al cuadro fáctico que se tuvo por probado se encuentra en las copias del proceso 08-000717-1027AC, en el cual se debaten hechos muy parecidos a los que se conocen en este asunto, solo que se relacionan con fincas diferentes de quien reclama (actora en ese proceso, Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.), que corresponden a las números A-287519-000, plano A-180715-1994, y A-287518-000, plano A-180720-1994. En ese asunto, y para que quede claro por qué fueron incorporadas copias del mismo en este proceso, se debatía que, al igual como sucede con la finca del aquí actor, el IDA había autorizado la titulación de varios terrenos con base en planos que traslapaban otros terrenos ya inscritos; entre ellos el de [Nombre4] , quien es la que promovió el procedimiento que da origen a la finca de la sociedad acá demandada, Black and White Chen Hsien. Por tratarse de partes y terrenos diferentes, la a quo rechazó la excepción de litis pendencia, pero es evidente que el cuadro fáctico y el origen del conflicto, en ambos procesos, se basa en hechos coincidentes, que a continuación se explican.\n\n VIII.- En 1994, el IDA tituló a favor de Villa Escondida S.A. la finca A-287520-000, que reporta como plano el A-180721-94. Luego fue de Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, quien la vendió a Bakus Centroamericana S.A. y finalmente, por adquirirla en remate en el 2010, pasó a ser del actor. Varios años después y con base en el Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales N°55 de 12 de agosto de 2002, publicado en La Gaceta 173 del 10 de setiembre del 2002, el IDA tramitaba procedimientos administrativos para titular terrenos, mediante el reconocimiento del dominio en áreas de reservas nacionales en que los poseedores hubiesen adquirido derecho a la titulación registral. Con base en esa normativa, [Nombre4] interpuso una gestión a través de la cual se originó la finca A-401476-000, basada en el plano cuestionado en este caso, A-647865-2000. Su numeral 4 disponía: \"El Instituto llevará a cabo acciones de titulación de tierras en zonas del país determinadas por la Junta Directiva de este Instituto y que sean parte de las Reservas Nacionales, donde existan poseedores de tierras no inscritas en el Registro Público, cuyas cabidas no sean superiores a trescientas hectáreas\". Para el trámite de la titulación, el artículo 10 indicaba que la prueba de la posesión por 10 años en forma pública, pacífica, continua y a título de dueño corría a cargo del solicitante, exigía un plano catastrado y manifestación jurada del poseedor de que la finca no estaba inscrita en el Registro Público, y otros requisitos iguales a los que establece la Ley de Informaciones Poseedores. Si no se presentaba oposición al procedimiento, el Departamento de Ordenamiento Agrario, a través de la Dirección de Formación y Desarrollo de Asentamientos, procederá a remitir a Junta Directiva del IDA, para que ésta autorice la segregación y traspaso de la propiedad a que hace referencia dicha solicitud (dado que se decretaron zonas de titulación para aplicar este reglamento) (artículo 13). Por ello es que aparece el notario haciendo una segregación e incorrectamente se agrega \"venta\", lo cual no es técnicamente correcto, porque en realidad el IDA no vendía ningún terreno a quien titulaba, únicamente le formalizaba un título del derecho de propiedad, que se suponía, había demostrado ya había adquirido. La inscripción se aprobaba sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho y con restricciones y condiciones (artículos 17 y 18). Por ende, cuando se aprobaba un proceso de titulación con base en tal normativa, el IDA lo que hacía era segregar de la zona de titulación inscrita a su nombre, el terreno que se demostraba pertenecía a una persona privada, bajo el supuesto de que había cumplido con los requisitos legales. Era un procedimiento con exigencias muy similares a las establecidas en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. El Reglamento referido fue declarado inconstitucional en votos 2063-07 del 14 de febrero de 2007 y 4517-07 de 28 de marzo de ese año, de la Sala Constitucional. En cuanto a lo inscrito antes de esa declaratoria, si se reclama se tituló indebidamente un terreno con base en dicho procedimiento, se puede revisar el título generado, a fin de verificar si debe o no ser anulado. En este caso, eso es lo que se alega, dado que el actor reclama su finca corresponde al título que el mismo IDA generó en 1994 a favor originalmente de Villa Escondida S.A., número CED9, descrita en el plano A-180721-94. Pero luego, con base en un plano que tiene una ubicación errónea, se generó y autorizó una inscripción inválida, y que es la que corresponde a la finca hoy de la sociedad demandada. Se aclara lo anterior por cuanto no necesariamente la existencia de un traslape documental de planos genera la nulidad o invalidez de un asiento registral de un inmueble, dado que puede acontecer que dos asientos registrales estén correctamente inscritos y correspondan a fincas existentes materialmente, y lo que existe sea únicamente un problema de planos (por una equivocada ubicación o localización en uno de ellos o en ambos). Eso puede suceder porque antes se permitía la inscripción de terrenos sin su correspondiente plano (lo cual cambió a partir del Código Notarial vigente), y también porque el sistema de catastro (registro de planos), hasta épocas recientes, ha empezado a ser reformado para evitar que se puedan catastrar dos planos con ubicación parcial o totalmente coincidente. No obstante, en este caso, lo sucedido y la premisa a evaluar es diferente, dado que efectivamente el plano de la demandada resulta ser la base de la inscripción registral que se pretende anular, pues es con base en tal que se tramitó el procedimiento administrativo que le dio origen a ese asiento registral. Por ende, si el plano es erróneo y ello no fue corregido a tiempo, la titulación o título que se generó con base en tal se ve directamente afectada, al destruirse uno de los pilares fundamentales para su existencia. \n\n IX.- La parte actora efectivamente logró demostrar en este asunto, que su finca A-287520-000 (plano A-180721-94), se generó por un título que le otorgó el IDA, en escritura 13 del 21 de setiembre de 1994, sin que en autos se haya demostrado posea como tal un terreno que no corresponda al título registral, ni al plano catastrado que se le ha asignado registralmente. También probó que la finca A-401476-000 (plano A-647865-2000), se generó con base en un procedimiento administrativo de titulación que exigía que el terreno no estuviese inscrito y lógicamente un plano que no traslapase con otro. El procedimiento que generó la finca de la demandada, fue tramitado por el antes IDA a solicitud de [Nombre4] . Y se probó fehacientemente en autos que el plano A-647865-2000, traslapa en un 85% el plano que corresponde a la finca del actor (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, archivo Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II, imágenes 5 a 48 y ). Según el informe emitido por el área de Topografía de la Dirección Regional Huetar Norte del IDA, oficio DRHN-A-0148-2006, de 10 de marzo de 2006, (en el que se basa lo indicado en el oficio DRHN-AL-149-07 de 8 de mayo de 2007, de la Dirección Regional Huetar Norte del antes IDA), ese plano también tiene un problema de ubicación, dado que el ingeniero Víctor [Nombre11] concluyó que \"existe un desplazamiento significativo con la información que arroja el GPS, en cuanto a la ubicación real de la [Dirección5] y por consiguiente también de la [Dirección9]\" (esta última de la acá demandada). Concluyó que el desplazamiento era de un aproximadamente un kilómetro (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, archivo de Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, imagen 72). Por ende, este Tribunal concluye que aunque la finca que la señora [Nombre4] pretendió titular exista (lo cual no se probó en este asunto), de existir se ubicaría en otro lugar. Pero lo que si se probó fehacientemente, es que el plano que ella utilizó para titular no solo afectaba ya otro anteriormente catastrado, sino que además tenía problemas de ubicación. Y eso es precisamente el fundamento de las petitorias planteadas en la demanda que se resuelve. \n\n [Nombre12].- De acuerdo con lo explicado, los agravios 1, 2 y 3 son de recibo. Como se corrigió por este Tribunal al referirse a los hechos no demostrados, ciertamente lo indicado en los hechos dos y tres no probados de la sentencia impugnada era incorrecto. Se probó efectivamente la finca del actor \"nació\" muchos años antes que la finca del demandado, también su plano se catastró antes. Y además, no se probó que ni ese título ni el plano del actor, fuesen inválidos o no correspondiesen a la realidad de lo que tal posee. También lleva razón en que procede anular el plano de la demandada, no solo porque cuando se catastró ya existía otro catastrado, de lo cual resulta un traslape de un 85% (sin que se demostrase en autos que el plano del actor sea incorrecto), sino también porque en los informes técnicos aportados como prueba documental, consta que el plano de la finca de la demandada, tiene un problema de desplazamiento de aproximadamente un kilómetro según las coordenadas reales. Al respecto, no pueden subsistir dos planos que coincidan total o parcialmente con terrenos diferentes, y precisamente por ello es que se remite a las partes a la sede jurisdiccional para que se defina dicha situación y se elimine en pro de la publicidad registral y la seguridad jurídica de las partes, y al estar de por medio derechos fundamentales, como lo es el de propiedad. Lo concluido erróneamente por la a quo, y que el apelante reclama se debe a una equivocada apreciación de la prueba documental referida a los informes donde se demuestra el traslape de planos, se debe a la calificación equivocada de la acción planteada (que la jueza de instancia tuvo como reivindicatoria, cuando no lo era). Por ende, ciertamente lo concluido con base en la prueba valorada fue erróneo, y por ello, el Tribunal realizó enmiendas al cuadro fáctico (hechos probados y no probados). También se equivocó la a quo al concluir que no se probó que la inscripción del terreno de la demandada fuera anómalo, dado que se demostró que el plano base el procedimiento que le dio origen es erróneo y traslapa con un anterior, por lo cual debe ser anulado. Al invalidarse uno de los requisitos fundamentales de un procedimiento de titulación, como lo es ser el plano base válido y corresponder a la realidad de lo que se titula, evidentemente el procedimiento se ve directamente afectado en cuanto a su validez. Debe aclararse en ese sentido, que el Tribunal no tiene certeza, con la prueba aportada a los autos, sobre si la finca de la demandada existe en otro lugar, porque no se ofreció por las partes, ni la a quo lo ordenó, prueba de reconocimiento judicial ni peritajes al respecto. Tampoco la sociedad demandada interpuso contrademanda para permitir se analizara dicho tema. De haberse probado ese aspecto, puede que se hubiese concluido en forma diferente respecto a la nulidad del asiento registral de la demandada, si es que se probaba lo único que existía era un error en cuanto a la ubicación de su plano. Incluso, el numeral 33 de la Ley de Inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público, posibilita que cuando la ubicación geográfica de un inmueble esté mal consignada en los asientos registrales, el error se corrija en escritura pública, con la comparecencia de la persona titular del bien, y el notario debe dar fe de que la ubicación geográfica corregida es la correcta, con vista en un plano debidamente inscrito en el Catastro Nacional. Y los artículos 89 y 90 del Reglamento del Registro Público, también disponen que cuando existe un error material que afecta una inscripción (por inexactitud del título que originó la inscripción), y ese error es atribuible a la parte que lo registró, y así lo aceptara tal o se declarase en vía judicial, la rectificación del error debe hacerse mediante una nueva inscripción motivada por un nuevo documento, sin perjuicio de lo que puedan reclamar terceras personas en relación con la falsedad o nulidad de la inscripción errónea. Y también el numeral 64 del Reglamento del Catastro Nacional ofrece soluciones para subsanar asientos registrales por errores derivados de la inscripción de planos, al disponer: \"Cuando en un asiento del Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble se cite un número de plano que no corresponda al inmueble o que no se encuentre inscrito, el Catastro Nacional previa solicitud del interesado, procederá a la inscripción del plano que corresponda, de conformidad con la normativa vigente. Una vez inscrito el plano, el propietario registral deberá bajo las formalidades registrales hacer la solicitud ante el Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble, para sanear la información y ajustarla a la realidad material\". Pero nada de ello pudo ser analizado ni aplicado en este caso, porque las partes no permitieron el análisis de ese tema en lo que fue objeto de debate, y mucho menos probaron nada al respecto. La contestación de la demandada no aportada en ese sentido ningún dato aclaratorio (ver en carpeta de documentos asociados, archivo EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado, imágenes 9 a 13), ni de las pruebas documentales se extrae información en ese sentido. La sociedad accionada únicamente alega que no le consta que la finca del actor le pertenezca a tal, pese a la abundante prueba documental en ese sentido, y afirma que su finca fue adquirida al amparo de la fe pública registral en escritura pública. Aunque niega que exista traslape entre fincas y planos, no explica sus argumentos al respecto ni aporta prueba de lo primero, y también, inexplicablemente, rechaza que la finca del actor haya existido antes que la suya. No ofrece prueba documental, testimonial ni pericial que apoyen sus afirmaciones sobre no existir traslape de fincas ni de planos y solo interpone las defensas citadas en los resultandos, negando que el actor tenga derecho para plantear esta demanda. Por ende, lleva razón el apelante al reclamar que no le correspondía la carga de demostrar que lo que existía no se trataba de un error de coordenadas en los planos y que la finca de la demandada existiera sin estar traslapada materialmente con la suya. La carga de la prueba de esos hechos, dado lo debatido, correspondía a la demandada (artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil aplicado supletoriamente). El actor probó los hechos que le correspondían para dar sustento a los presupuestos de la acción de nulidad planteadas, es decir, que su título y plano fueron anteriormente registrados (y no se probó fueran inválidos ni que lo poseído con base en tales fuera diferente a lo indicado en el Registro Público Inmobiliario); así como que el plano posterior de la demandada traslapa con el suyo y dio origen a un título e inscripción registral con un defecto grave, por originarse en un plano que abarcaba documentalmente otro terreno no inscrito. Al respecto, los numerales 4 y 10 del Reglamento 55 referido, exigían que la titulación debía ser sobre terrenos no inscritos y con base en un plano catastrado, que lógicamente debía corresponder a la finca que se titulaba, sin incluir en su dibujo otros terrenos, menos si estaban ya inscritos. \n\n XI.- De igual forma, el agravio cuarto debe ser aceptado, dado que no solo no debió aprobarse la titulación del terreno de la demandada con base en un plano que traslapaba ya con otro que correspondía a una inscripción registral anterior (ni se probó ese plano del actor fuese inválido o incorrecto), sino que además, dado el traslape fehacientemente demostrado, lleva razón el apelante al reclamar que, con base los principios registrales, verdad real y seguridad jurídica, se debe subsanar la inconsistencia presente en los planos, que afecta las inscripciones registrales de los citados inmuebles. Lo anterior por cuanto, con base en un plano que traslapa con otro anterior, se originó un asiento registral que por ende, se ve afectado en su esencia, dado que la ubicación geográfica del terreno contradice lo que registralmente se había asentado en otro asiento registral anterior. Al respecto, debe tenerse presente que ninguna inscripción (ni registral ni catastral), convalida actos o contratos nulos o anulables, con las excepciones de ley referidas a terceras personas, que no resultan aplicables en este caso, por lo que no se analizan (arts. 455, 456, 457, 472, 479, 487, 848 del Código Civil). La Ley de Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en Registro Público, N°3883 de 30 de mayo de 1967, reformada por ley No.6145 del 18 de noviembre de 1967, establece que el propósito del Registro Nacional es garantizar la seguridad de los bienes o derechos inscritos con respecto a terceros, mediante la publicidad de estos bienes o derechos (artículo 1). Se establece además que no procede inscribir un documento que estuviere en contradicción con otro presentado anteriormente (artículo 8). El Reglamento del Registro Público, N°26771-J de 18 de febrero de 1998, repite lo indicado en el Código Civil, en cuanto a que a la inscripción en el Registro Público de un título generador de derechos reales no convalida los actos o contratos inscritos que sean nulos o anulables conforme a la ley. Los numerales 56 y 60 contienen además el \"principio del tracto sucesivo\", que establece que no se deben inscribir documentos en el que aparezca como titular del derecho una persona distinta de la que figura en la inscripción precedente y que no puede registrarse ningún documento cuando haya sido inscrito o anotado otro que se le oponga. En materia de publicidad registral, garantizada en los numerales 63 y siguientes de dicho Reglamento, se destaca la regla de la \"unidad de información\", que implica que cada inscripción de un inmueble contendrá además del número de matrícula, toda la información referente a este (y uno de esos datos fundamentales es precisamente el plano catastrado, máxime cuando esa inscripción se origina en un proceso de titulación como el analizado en este caso). La Ley del Catastro Nacional, 6545 del 25 de marzo de 1981, y su Reglamento 34331 del 29/11/2007, regulan, en lo que interesa resaltar para el caso, lo concerniente a las funciones del Catastro (representación y descripción gráfica, numérica, literal y estadística de todas las tierras comprendidas en el territorio nacional) y los requisitos, eficacia y validez de los planos catastrados (artículos 1, 2, 29, 30 de la Ley y 1, 2, 5, 17 a 41, 64 del Reglamento). El numeral 5 de este segundo cuerpo normativo, destaca que los alcances que se obtienen del catastro, para efectos del Registro Inmobiliario son los siguientes: a). Configurar una cartografía actualizada que permita el control técnico de los planos de agrimensura que se presentan para su registración catastral. b) Crear un banco de datos cartográfico-catastral, que permita obtener información variada, oportuna y real. c) Conciliar y depurar la información inmobiliaria, como instrumento que garantice la seguridad jurídica. Por ende, si existe un plano catastrado que contradice otro anterior y que además originó un asiento registral, dado que fue la base para titular un terreno, esa situación debe ser subsanada legalmente. Por su parte, los artículos 53 a 57 establecen la aplicación de los principios registrales compatibles al Catastro, que por su importancia para lo que se resuelve se transcriben: \"Artículo 54.—Del Principio de Rogación. El Catastro no inscribirá ni tramitará ningún plano de oficio. La presentación formal del plano al catastro, significará su solicitud de tramitación. Artículo 55.—Principio del Tracto Sucesivo. El Catastro procurará los medios necesarios para que se de una perfecta concatenación entre las inscripciones de los planos catastrados. Deberá existir una perfecta secuencia y correlación entre las inscripciones y sus modificaciones, cancelaciones o extinciones. Artículo 56.—Principio de Publicidad Catastral. La información del catastro es pública. A la Dirección le corresponde determinar el modo en que esta información puede ser consultada, sin riesgo de adulteración, pérdida o deterioro de la misma... Artículo 57.—Efectos de la publicidad catastral. El objetivo principal del plano de agrimensura es contribuir al establecimiento, mejora y mantenimiento del catastro, definir en forma gráfica el inmueble y dar publicidad a sus linderos. El plano catastrado no es de por sí prueba absoluta de lo que en él se consigna. El plano de agrimensura levantado unilateralmente por el interesado, aunque esté inscrito en el Catastro, por sí mismo no puede afectar a terceros, no constituye título traslativo de dominio, no comprueba la propiedad ni la posesión de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 301 del Código Civil. ... La registración catastral no convalida los documentos que sean nulos o anulables conforme con la ley, ni subsanará sus defectos... (lo subrayado no es del original). Por ende, debe existir conciliación entre la información registral y la catastral. Incluso, luego de que entrara en vigencia del Código Notarial, y a partir de mayo de 1999 según sus transitorios, se exige plano catastrado en todo movimiento registral referido a un inmueble, salvo que se trate de cancelaciones hipotecarias, la afectación a patrimonio familiar y el embargo (artículo 30 de la Ley del Catastro Nacional). Con la Ley Nº 8710, vigente a partir del 2009, se reformó el art. 2 de la Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional, Nº 5695, con el fin de crear el Registro Inmobiliario. El objetivo de dicha reforma era fortalecer la seguridad inmobiliaria registral, a través de la integración de las funciones del Catastro Nacional y el Registro Público de Bienes Inmuebles, en un solo Registro y bajo una sola dirección del denominado Registro Inmobiliario. Con este cambio se pretende lograr hacer coincidir plenamente la información gráfica que consta en el Catastro con la información literal del Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, y de esta forma tener un Registro con información gráfica y jurídica unívoca, de acuerdo con los fines del Programa de Regularización del Catastro y el Registro. Finalmente, es importante los votos 870 de 30 de agosto de 2006 y 110 de 16 de febrero de 2006, en los cuales se concluye, al igual como sucede en este caso, que debe existir, por disponerlo así el ordenamiento jurídico, concordancia entre plano catastrado e información registral y que la inscripción del plano no convalida la existencia de defectos. En cuanto a al quinto agravio, se rechaza, dado que el apelante no expone inconformidad concreta alguna, solo destaca que la a quo puso entre comillas los términos \"anular\" y \"rescindir\",pero no explica cómo o en qué le afecta eso. No obstante, se aclara, que aunque la parte actora pide se \"rescinda\" la inscripción registral, esa petición se entiende como de nulidad, dado lo alegado en su demanda y por ser técnicamente lo correcto, en función de la normativa que ella misma cita como fundamento legal (artículos 456 y siguientes del Código Civil).\n\n [Nombre12] II.- De conformidad con lo expuesto, en lo apelado, por las razones dadas por este Tribunal, procede revocar parcialmente la sentencia recurrida , en cuanto \"acogió las excepciones de falta de derecho y la denominada genérica de sine actione agit en sus modalidades de falta de interés actual, y falta de legitimación interpuesta por la demandada Black And White Becard S.A. y declaró sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos imponiendo al actor el pago de las costas procesales y personales\". En en su lugar, se rechazan las excepciones de falta de derecho y la incorrectamente interpuesta como genérica de sine actione agit, en sus modalidades de falta de interés actual, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, interpuestas por la demandada Black And White Becard S.A. Se declara con lugar la demanda en la forma que se dirá, entendiéndose por denegado lo que expresamente no se indique: 1. Se anula el asiento registral de la finca de [Dirección10] , al que corresponden las citas 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, a nombre de BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. 2. Se anula el plano catastrado A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, catastrado el dieciocho de agosto del dos mil, correspondiente a ese asiento registral. 3. Se impone el pago de las costas procesales y personales a cargo de la parte demanda (artículo 55 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria). Una vez firme esta sentencia, remítase por el Juzgado de instancia, las ejecutorias correspondiente al Registro Público Inmobiliario, Subdirección Registral y Subidirección Catastral respectivamente, para los efectos legales correspondientes de las nulidades declaradas (artículo 11 de la Ley de Inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público). En lo demás no modificado (entiéndase en cuanto se rechazó la excepción de litis pendencia), se mantiene firme lo resuelto. Se aclara, dado que lo resuelto en el proceso 08-000717-1027CA, a la fecha de emitirse esta sentencia, no estaba firme, se resolvió lo acá planteado sin tomarse en cuenta lo ahí dispuesto (lo anterior por cuanto aunque en tal se pedía igualmente la nulidad del asiento registral de la demandada y de su plano, la causa de pedir se basa en la afectación de una finca diferente, la número CED10, a nombre de Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.). Aunque por lo pedido existe influencia de un proceso en otro, no procedía efectivamente declarar una litis pendencia, como lo resolvió la a quo. Los efectos de lo que se resuelva en firme en ese asunto, si es necesario, deberán ser valorados en su momento por las partes y los tribunales, en relación con lo que se ha resuelto en este caso.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\n Se rechaza la prueba para mejor resolver ofrecida por la parte recurrente. En lo apelado, se revoca parcialmente la sentencia recurrida , únicamente en cuanto \"acogió las excepciones de falta de derecho y la denominada genérica de sine actione agit en sus modalidades de falta de interés actual, y falta de legitimación interpuesta por la demandada Black And White Becard S.A. y declaró sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos imponiendo al actor el pago de las costas procesales y personales\". En en su lugar, se rechazan las excepciones de falta de derecho y la incorrectamente interpuesta como genérica de sine actione agit, en sus modalidades de falta de interés actual, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, interpuestas por la demandada Black And White Becard S.A. Se declara con lugar la demanda en la forma que se dirá, entendiéndose por denegado lo que expresamente no se indique: 1. Se anula el asiento registral de la finca de Alajuela cuatrocientos un mil cuatrocientos setenta y seis-cero cero cero, al que corresponden las citas 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, a nombre de BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. 2. Se anula el plano catastrado A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, catastrado el dieciocho de agosto del dos mil, correspondiente a ese asiento registral. 3. Se impone el pago de las costas procesales y personales a cargo de la parte demanda. Una vez firme esta sentencia, remítase por el Juzgado de instancia, las ejecutorias correspondiente al Registro Público Inmobiliario, Subdirección Registral y Subidirección Catastral respectivamente, para los efectos legales correspondientes de las nulidades declaradas.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nYUYZ2P8SXEG61\n\nRUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUEZ/A\n\nDECISOR/A\n\n \n\n \n\nHCAT2M14JE861\n\n[Nombre13] -\n\nJUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\nG6A3LYW5ABI61\n\n[Nombre14] -\n\nJUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nEXP: EXPN2\n\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección11] , , [Dirección12] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]", "body_en_text": "*100002710298AG*\n\n*100002710298AG*\n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\nEXPN2\n\nPROCESO:\n\nORDINARIO\n\nACTOR/A:\n\nCHIEN HSIN CHEN HSIEN\n\nDEMANDADO/A:\n\nWHITE BECARD S. A. BLACK AND\n\nVOTO N°159-F-2014\n\nAGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.- At sixteen hours and fifteen minutes on February twenty-fifth, two thousand fourteen.-\n\nORDINARY PROCEEDING established by [Nombre1], of legal age, married, farmer, resident of San Francisco de Dos Ríos, San José, identity card CED1; against BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA (hereinafter cited as Black), legal entity identification number CED2, jointly represented by [Nombre2], passport CED3, Oldemar Antonio Fallas Navarro, of legal age, married once, attorney, resident of Ipis de Guadalupe, identity card CED4, and [Nombre3], residency card CED5. Acting as special judicial attorneys-in-fact: for the plaintiff, Alexis Cervantes Barrantes, bar number five thousand six hundred fifteen; and for the defendant, attorneys Rodrigo Cervantes Barrantes, identity card CED6, and Aarón Rodríguez Cruz, bar number eighteen thousand one hundred fifty-six. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos.-\n\nWHEREAS:\n\n1.- The plaintiff filed this ordinary lawsuit, valued at one hundred million colones, requesting that the judgment declare the following: \"That the registry entry of the property described in Fact Two be rescinded, given that, with the principle of first in right or registry priority prevailing and upon overlapping with the farm of my property described in Fact One, the legal farm should not have been created, nor should the plan that describes it, previously mentioned. That in case of opposition, the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding\" (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 334643, folio 327).-\n\n2.- The defendant company answered negatively and filed the defenses of lis pendens, lack of right, and the generic defense of sine actione agit (see Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 354232).-\n\n3.- Judge Zoila Flor Ramírez, of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, in judgment No. 03-2013 at fifteen hours on January eighth, two thousand thirteen, resolved: \"THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing and legal citations, IT IS DECLARED: 1-) The defense of Lis pendens, filed by the defendant company Black And White Becard S.A., is rejected. The defenses of lack of right and the one called generic of sine actione agit in its modalities of Lack of Right, lack of current interest, and Lack of Standing are upheld; all filed by the defendant company Black and White Becard S.A. 2-) WITHOUT MERIT IN ALL ITS EXTREMES THE ORDINARY LAWSUIT established by [Nombre1], against BLACK AND WHITE BECARD S.A. 3-) The plaintiff [Nombre1] is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of the lawsuit.\" (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 354233, folio 481).-\n\n4.- The plaintiff filed an appeal with an express indication of the reasons on which they relied to refute the lower court's thesis (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 354233, folios 484 to 492).-\n\n5.- In the substantiation of the proceeding, the legal requirements have been observed, and there are no errors or omissions capable of causing the nullity of the ruling.-\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez and;\n\nWHEREAS\n\nI.- The Tribunal shares only proven facts 1, 2, and 4, as they have support in the evidence contained in the case file, with the following clarifications and modifications: To fact three add: The original citations of the registry entry of the farm of [Dirección1] CED7 (of the defendant), are 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, and it was registered on September seventh, two thousand four (add as evidence in the associated documents folder, copy of the deed testimony in images 155 to 180). To fact four add: The current citations of the registry entry of the farm of [Dirección2] (of the plaintiff), are 2010-00139648-01, indicating a foreclosure auction as the acquisitive cause (add as evidentiary element in the associated documents folder, a) Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 37 to 47 and 81 to 154; b) Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART II: images 11 to 14, 42, 101, 149 to 161). Proven facts 1 (because it is not a fact but the description of what is sought in the proceeding) and 2 because it is a legal conclusion, are rejected. Of the same category, and given what is under debate and what is alleged in the appeal, add the following: 8) In the ordinary proceeding EXPN1, filed by Corporación Fiduciaria Del Valle S. A. against the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), [Nombre4], [Nombre5], [Nombre4] . . , [Nombre6] and Black And White Becard S.A, it was sought to declare: \"...The REPLEVIN lawsuit to be upheld. That by virtue of having overlapped on the plans and properties of its represented parties, THE CORRESPONDING CANCELLATION IS ORDERED, of plans numbers A-273723-1995, with the measurement of fifty-nine hectares one thousand one hundred twenty and twenty-five square decimeters and A-276578-1995, with a supposed measurement of one hundred twenty hectares five thousand two hundred seventy-eight meters and forty square decimeters, likewise of the cadastral plans numbers A-647865-2000 and 647866-2000... That equally the cancellation of the registration entry of the farms of the Party of Alajuela, registered at real folio registration number CED8 [Placa1] be ordered... The defendant party be ordered to pay both costs of this action and, additionally, the damages caused.\" To date, it has not been finally resolved, given that it was under appeal in a third requested instance, having been resolved in the second instance in vote 650-F-12 (see first instance judgment in such proceeding, in the associated documents folder, file EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Digitalized Document), images: 24 to 43; public information that appears in the information systems of the First Chamber, Appeal: 845-S1-12, at http://intranet/salaprimera/index.php/proyectos-circulando; and of the online management system, external consultation of the Agrarian Tribunal, at https://pjenlinea.poder-judicial.go.cr/SistemaGestionEnLinea/Publica/wfpDetExped.aspx?c=20110029000183&d=0029). 9) Plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, corresponding to the registry entry of the defendant party's farm, was cadastrally registered on August eighteenth, two thousand (see in associated documents folder, Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: registry certification and plan, images 13 to 18).- 10) Plan A-one hundred eighty thousand seven hundred twenty-one-ninety-four, corresponding to the registry entry of the plaintiff party's farm, was cadastrally registered on April twenty-second, nineteen ninety-four (see in associated documents folder, Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: registry certification and plan, images 9 to 13 and 19 to 21).- 11) The plaintiff's farm originated from a sale and segregation made by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), of its Alajuela farm two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-zero zero zero, to a company called Villa Escondida S.A. on September twenty-first, nineteen ninety-four. In deed thirteen of the protocol of notary Carlos García, the farm is described as agricultural land, located in [Dirección3], , bordering north: border zone; south: public road; east: Abdenago Vargas and west: Villa Frontera S.A., with a measurement of two hundred eighty-nine hectares five thousand twelve meters twenty-five square decimeters, according to plan A-one hundred eighty thousand seven hundred twenty-one-ninety-four. Later it belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, which sold it to Vakus Centroamericana S.A. and finally, by acquiring it at a foreclosure auction, it became the plaintiff's (see in associated documents folder, a) Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 37 to 47 and 81 to 154; b) Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART II: images 11 to 14, 42, 101, 149 to 161). 12) The defendant's farm, of the province of Alajuela four hundred one thousand four hundred seventy-six-zero zero zero, was registered through a titling process carried out based on the Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales of the former IDA, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002. The administrative procedure was initiated by [Nombre4], based on plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand. The final agreement of the IDA that allowed the registration was 45 of session 16-04 of May 3, 2004, and based on it, on May twenty-eighth, two thousand four, a deed of \"sale and segregation\" was executed by the former IDA, of its Alajuela farm two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-zero zero zero in favor of [Nombre4]. In the cited deed, one hundred thirty-four-seventy-nine of the protocol of notary Hubert Araya, the farm is described as national reserve land, northern zone, Santa Rosa, located in [Dirección3], , bordering north: National plains and [Nombre7]; south: public road and [Nombre8]; east: [Nombre9] and west: Natural plains and [Nombre10], with a measurement of fifty-nine hectares one thousand two hundred ten meters twenty-five square decimeters, according to plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand. Several limitations are imposed, among them, that the titling was done without prejudice to third parties with a better right. That deed generated the registry entry cited in proven fact three (see in associated documents folder, file Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 155 to 173; file Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, and Digitalized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II).\n\nII.- What was ordered regarding unproven facts is not shared because the first two are legal conclusions and the last one is unnecessary, given what was indicated in the proven facts. Of the same nature, consider as not proven: 1/. That the plaintiff was materially dispossessed of the land he claims as his own. 2/. That the defendant company materially occupies an area that is included within the plaintiff's land. 3/. That the plaintiff possesses land that does not correspond to its registry title or to the cadastral plan that has been assigned to it registry-wise. 4/. That the physical location of the defendant's farm is in a place different from what is indicated in the plan.\n\nIII.- This Tribunal hears the appeal filed by the plaintiff, against judgment 03-2013 of January 8, 2013, in which the lawsuit was declared without merit, with costs at his charge. The appellant party states the following grievances repeatedly, so they are summarized and ordered to facilitate their analysis: 1) He claims it was proven he is the owner of the Alajuela farm 287520-000, described in plan A-180721-1994, which \"came into legal existence\" in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, from volume 19 of the protocol of notary Carlos García Anchía (folio 37). He assures this was not contested by the defendant party. He states that when the Public Registry assigns a number to a farm, it follows a continuous order, so between his farm and that of the defendant company, 467144 titles were assigned, therefore he affirms his farm came into legal existence before that of the defendant company. Consequently, he claims what is indicated in unproven fact 3, regarding that it was not accredited that his registry right was created before that of the defendant, is not true. He highlights that her land, as stated on folio 132, was created according to deed 134-79 of May 28, 2004, of the protocol of notary Hubert Rojas Araya. He concludes his farm existed ten years before that of the defendant, which contradicts what the a quo says in unproven fact 3. He adds that the inconsistency arising from the overlap of plans and registry entries, according to the Cadastral Division of the Public Property Registry, is that the plan overlap does exist, so the last plan prepared, which is the one describing the defendant's farm, must be declared null. That, he says, was recorded in ordinary proceeding 08-000717-1027CA, which contains the report of topographer Víctor [Nombre11] Salas, of the General Directorate of the IDA, official communication DRHN-A-0148-2006 of March 10, 2006. In it, it says there is an overlap regarding the cartographic location of the parties' plans, among others. He considers that to refute those two studies/expert reports (sic) from two public institutions, one of them the highest authority (sic) regarding plans, is only possible through a professional, scientific, and serious study, not as the a quo deduced when she indicates in the challenged judgment that the physical identity of the real property of the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be considered demonstrated, due to inconsistencies in the boundaries and their location, the latter based on a certain road that appears on a different side in each of the plans referred to supra, in addition to the inconsistency in the measurements and the geometric figure. Regarding these two factors, he says, he refers to the report from the Cadastral Division, which includes a sketch and indicates the overlap is partial, and highlights it was never said in the lawsuit or in any other brief that it was an exact or total overlap. He reiterates, it was demonstrated with the documentary evidence that the plaintiff's farm came into legal existence before that of the defendant. Therefore, he says, the administrative procedure before the Directorate of the National Cadastre, now the Property Registry, file 534-2009 RIM, was initiated, which contains that study on the overlap. He claims that, had she assessed that evidence, the a quo would have \"inferred\" differently, in accordance with the law and in concordance with the principle of sound rational criticism. Therefore, he says, the non-assessment of the documentary evidence is detrimental to his rights. He offers as evidence for a better resolution, to demonstrate that it was proven that his farm legally came into existence before the defendant's, a notarial certification of the electronic study, where it can be seen that the administrative warning retroacts its effects to the day of the farm's registry inscription, October 7, 1994. If that was evident in all the registry certifications, the a quo should not have considered that fact as not accredited. 2) He refutes that the creation of the land's legal existence was held to be anomalous or illegal as the second unproven fact; much less to conclude that the lawsuit lacked evidence to demonstrate those two facts. Had she assessed the evidence, he says, she would have concluded that an overlap does exist, as deduced in the referenced reports. He claims to be aggrieved because for some things one of those reports is used, but not to say that the overlap exists. He considers that one cannot infer that there was a lack of interest on his part in offering an expert report as evidence, for the purpose of conducting a field inspection and determining that it is not a coordinate error in the plans and that the farm existed without being overlapped. He considers it is not for them to demonstrate the material existence of the defendant company's farm in another place that is not where the plan describing it situates it, because he says, it is they who must prove that their farm does not overlap others, as indicated by the coordinates of their plan, and he highlights there is a previous ordinary proceeding to this one, where it is determined that both that plan and the property's registry entry be annulled. 3) He maintains that the a quo did not assess all the documentary evidence provided. He again cites what was said about administrative file 534-2009 RM and the report from the former IDA, which, being unnecessary, will not be reiterated. He transcribes data from the report prepared by [Nombre11], which forms part of the second aforementioned file, especially: 1) a survey was conducted with GPS starting in the town of Caño Negro to the end of the road that leads to the entrance of Mr. [Nombre5]'s farm; 2) copies of the plans under study were obtained from the National Registry for their comparison; 3) the plans were mounted in AutoCAD, via the route and giving them coordinates according to the Zapote cartographic sheet; 4) the assembly of all adjacent plans found in the National Cadastre was carried out to see the possible overlaps between them. He also transcribes the conclusions of said topographer, highlighting that: a) it is determined that there is an overlap regarding the cartographic location between plans A-647866-2000, A-647865-2000 A-180715-94 and A-180720-94, and that plan A-647865-2000 overlaps A-180715-1994 and 180721-1994 (of Villa Escondida, [Dirección4]) by approximately 85%. Therefore, he expresses, it is not true that the a quo assessed that evidence, because if she had, she would not have said that that study did not cite his farm. b) it is concluded there is a significant displacement of one kilometer, with the information provided by the GPS, regarding the real location of the [Dirección5] and consequently also of A-647865-2000. c) Regarding plans A-180721-1994, A-180715-94, A-180720-94 and A-180716-94, other plans different from those of Mr. [Nombre5] and Mrs. [Nombre4] were found that overlap totally or partially. He refers to folio 20 of the administrative file of the IDA, in which it is seen that plans A-685715-2001, A-647865-2000, and A-647866-2000 overlap his farm, described in plan A-180721-1994. He lists that A-685715-2001 overlaps A-647866-2000; this one overlaps A-647865-2000, and this one overlaps A-180721-94 (overlapped) (he highlights that this term should be noted). And from file 534-B1, he points out folio 121, where the resolution of January 14, 2010, is recorded, stating the administrative diligence to investigate the possible overposition is ex officio, and refers to Alajuela farms [Dirección6], [Dirección7] and [Dirección8], which he considers is yet another proof that the defendant's farm superimposes in space upon his. All that evidence, not assessed by the a quo, he says, determines his statement that he is fully entitled by right over his farm and that all the extremes of his lawsuit should have been granted to him. He transcribes paragraphs from considering VI of the challenged judgment regarding the lack of proof of the identity of the property and passive legal standing, and the lack of interest in providing expert evidence. He claims the judge indicates that an expert should have appeared to corroborate the alleged overlap in situ, but he considers it was unnecessary, given that the IDA expert had appeared with a GPS in hand and had corroborated it before the Cadastre pronounced in the same manner. He adds that the a quo has no basis or capacity to contradict what was indicated by those. If the report prepared with a field inspection by topographer [Nombre11], of the IDA, is not accepted as documentary evidence, he requests it be considered as evidence for a better resolution. 4) He claims, given the strength of the documentary evidence, the overlap of plans and therefore of farms registered in the Public Registry, which was determined in the referenced study, he affirms this contravenes the guidelines of the concordance principle contained in Article 18 of Ley de Catastro 6545, Decreto Ejecutivo 33982 of August 8, 2007, and 343311 of November 29, 2007. He says, by reason of the principle of cadastral and registry specificity, real truth, and legal certainty, that inconsistency present in the plans and the cited properties must be corrected, and if not, both the registry entry of land A-401476-000 and plan A-647865-2000 must be annulled, for encroaching upon the space that his property occupies. He maintains that the registration of the defendant's farm was illegal, and she accepted it when she acquired the property, given that she knew it overlapped with another, which is why she must be responsible for opposing a truth determined by the Cadastral Division. 5) He claims that the a quo put the terms \"cancel\" and \"rescind\" in quotation marks, given that it was requested to rescind the plan and the registry entry, when the Royal Academy defines those terms thus (only cited as relevant): rescindir: to leave a contract, an obligation, without effect; anular: to leave a provision, a contract, without force, to suspend something previously announced or projected. He requests that the appeal be upheld and that what he requests be granted, as the documentary evidence is overwhelming and clear. The evidence offered for a better resolution is rejected, based on Article 52 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, as it is estimated that, in light of what was debated by the parties, it is unnecessary.\n\nIV.- Before analyzing the specific grievances, it is important to highlight the following aspects, which are not grounds for the nullity of the proceeding or the challenged ruling, since they do not cause defenselessness or, the parties did not show disagreement in a timely manner against what was resolved by the a quo (articles 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 503 of the Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily). However, they must be reviewed by the lower court judge, to avoid recurrence. The action filed, as will be explained, is not a replevin action but an atypical action, which, although related to rights in rem, does not have restitutory effects, because only the nullity of the registry inscription of the entries where the property right over a land and the plan that graphs it and based on which such registration originated is published is sought. Had it been a replevin action, the judicial inspection evidence should have been carried out even ex officio, as it is necessary for the judging person to review the substantive presuppositions of the action to see whether to reject or admit it in the judgment. In this case, despite the fact that the a quo incorrectly classified the lawsuit as a replevin action, it is not observed that the judicial inspection was carried out, but as indicated, it is not necessary because it is not that type of procedural action. Secondly, even if only documentary evidence had been offered, the conciliation stage or phase must be carried out ex officio. Depending on what is debated, the judging person must determine whether it should be done at the Court's seat or at the location of the facts, since sometimes the latter is relevant for the agreements that can be reached. In the case, conciliation was scheduled by request of one of the parties (see resolution of March 14, 2011), but even if such a request had not been presented, the Court must take into account that it is its obligation to schedule a conciliation phase and weigh in which place it should be carried out, depending on what is debated. It should also be noted that the defendant party filed the preliminary defense of lis pendens, which should have been resolved interloctorily (article 44-b) of the referenced Law) and not left to be analyzed in the judgment, as was done in this case.\n\nV.- Given that the first claims refer to the manner in which the evidence was assessed, and the conclusions of the a quo regarding the factual framework held as proven or not demonstrated in the appealed judgment, it must be borne in mind that number 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria requires the tribunal to study and select the sources of evidence obtained, in order to establish their effectiveness to resolve the conflict submitted to its knowledge, through perception, representation or reconstruction, and deductive or inductive reasoning. The tribunal must express the principles of equity or law on which it bases its criterion. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has explained: \"... the assessment of evidence in conscience does not imply resolving arbitrarily, since every judge - as a public official that they are - is subject to the principle of legality, which constitutes an imperative of adequacy of public action, not only to the specific norms on a determined object, but to the entire block of legality; therefore, they cannot rule with disregard for constitutional principles and rights, since they are limited by the rules of sound criticism and principles of reasonableness, which, duly applied, lead to the harmony of jurisdictional assessment with the Political Constitution, as this Chamber understood in judgment 3484-94, at twelve hours on July eighth, nineteen ninety-four, in which it determined that the powers of judges to assess evidence in conscience are not contrary to the judge's obligation to justify their rulings, a constitutional principle that integrates due process... () the power granted to the agrarian judge to assess evidence in conscience and value it without strict subjection to the norms of common law according to the provisions of the second paragraph of the challenged article 54, is not unconstitutional, provided they issue a reasoned ruling, that is, they analyze the result of the evidence gathered in the proceeding and express the principles of equity or law on which they base their criterion, thus respecting the minimum contents of the right of defense\" (vote 3657 of May 7, 2003. See in the same sense votes No. 398 of June 6, 2001 of the First Chamber. In the same sense see votes No. 206 of March 26, 1999, No. 46 of April 26, 1995; No. 66 of February 6, 2009 and 364 of May 28, 2009 of the Agrarian Tribunal).\n\nVI.- In order to analyze the grievances set forth, it is important first to clarify that what Mr. [Nombre1] has filed is not a replevin action, given that neither in the claims nor in the facts of the lawsuit does he claim to have been materially dispossessed of any area that must be restored to him, an essential requirement in an action of such type (article 320 of the Código Civil, applied supplementarily). What is debated, as the plaintiff rightfully points out in the lawsuit, is solely the existence of a plan overlap, and based on it, the nullity of the registry inscription of the defendant's farm and its plan is requested. Therefore, the classification made by the a quo is incorrect, which affects the analysis of some of the evaluated presuppositions. However, as explained, this is not grounds for nullity, since the legal classification can be corrected in the second instance. The procedural action contained in the lawsuit of this matter is a protective action of rights in rem, because the nullity is sought of the registry inscription of the title that gives rise to the defendant party's farm and its plan. The invalidity (nullity) of the requested inscriptions (both registry and cadastral) has a direct impact on the rights in rem of the parties, but it does not correspond to any of those referred to in considering V of the challenged judgment, it being possible to assimilate it to the action for nullity of title derived from a possessory information (when processed through ordinary rather than incidental proceedings).\n\nIt is reiterated: what was raised and must be resolved is an action aimed at annulling registry and cadastral entries, and therefore, the premises to be examined, based on the evidence provided in the case file, are, in addition to the usual ones (right, standing (legitimación), and current interest), those specific to an action of this type: a) active standing (legitimación activa): the person demanding the nullity of the registry and cadastral entries must be the one affected by their existence; b) passive standing (legitimación pasiva): the person sued must be the holder of the right publicized by the registry and cadastral entries (maps (planos)) sought to be annulled; c) right: the plaintiff must be the holder of the right claimed for protection, in this case, they must be the holder of the property right publicized by the registry entry, and the map that they claim is affected or overlapped by the existence of what is sought to be annulled must also correspond to them; d) current interest: at the date of filing the lawsuit and resolving the proceeding, the situation that gave rise to the claim must persist (that is, the registry entries and maps sought to be annulled must exist, because otherwise, the claim loses interest); e) existence of procedural or substantive defects (vicios de forma o de fondo) affecting the validity of the registry inscription and the map sought to be annulled: their existence and severity must be proven (that is, that they are irremediable errors (errores insubsanables)), in order to apply the sanction of nullity. The burden of proof for the cited premises lies with the plaintiff. In this regard, it should be remembered that in the judicial venue, each party bears the burden of proving the facts that serve as a premise for the right or situation they claim should be declared or recognized in their favor, whatever their procedural position; if they do not do so, they must bear the risk of the lack of proof, which translates into a decision unfavorable to their interests (article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applied supplementarily).\n\nVII.- On the other hand, and given what is the object of the grievances (agravios), the origin of the inscriptions sought to be annulled must also be highlighted. It is clarified that a large part of the documentary evidence supporting the factual framework (cuadro fáctico) that was taken as proven is found in the copies of proceeding 08-000717-1027AC, in which facts very similar to those heard in this matter are debated, only they relate to different properties of the claimant (plaintiff in that proceeding, Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.), corresponding to numbers A-287519-000, map A-180715-1994, and A-287518-000, map A-180720-1994. In that matter, and so that it is clear why copies of it were incorporated into this proceeding, it was debated that, just as with the property of the plaintiff here, the IDA had authorized the titling of several lands based on maps that overlapped other already registered lands; among them that of [Nombre4], who is the one who promoted the procedure that gave rise to the property of the defendant company here, Black and White Chen Hsien. Because they involve different parties and lands, the lower court (a quo) rejected the plea of litis pendencia, but it is evident that the factual framework and the origin of the conflict, in both proceedings, are based on coincident facts, which are explained below.\n\nVIII.- In 1994, the IDA titled in favor of Villa Escondida S.A. the property A-287520-000, which reports map A-180721-94. It then belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, who sold it to Bakus Centroamericana S.A. and finally, by acquiring it at a judicial auction (remate) in 2010, it passed to the plaintiff. Several years later and based on the Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales N°55 of August 12, 2002, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002, the IDA processed administrative procedures to title lands, through the recognition of ownership (dominio) in national reserve areas where possessors had acquired the right to registry titling. Based on that regulation, [Nombre4] filed a petition through which property A-401476-000 originated, based on the map questioned in this case, A-647865-2000. Its numeral 4 provided: \"The Institute shall carry out land titling actions in areas of the country determined by the Board of Directors of this Institute and that are part of the National Reserves, where there are possessors of lands not registered in the Public Registry, whose areas (cabidas) are no larger than three hundred hectares.\" For the processing of the titling, article 10 indicated that the proof of possession (posesión) for 10 years in a public, peaceful, continuous manner and as owner was the responsibility of the applicant, required a cadastral map (plano catastrado) and a sworn statement from the possessor that the property was not registered in the Public Registry, and other requirements identical to those established by the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). If no opposition to the procedure was filed, the Department of Agrarian Planning (Departamento de Ordenamiento Agrario), through the Directorate of Settlement Formation and Development (Dirección de Formación y Desarrollo de Asentamientos), would proceed to submit it to the Board of Directors of the IDA, so that it could authorize the segregation (segregación) and transfer of the property referred to in said application (given that titling zones were decreed to apply this regulation) (article 13). That is why the notary appears making a segregation and incorrectly adds \"sale,\" which is not technically correct, because in reality the IDA was not selling any land to whomever it was titling; it was merely formalizing a title of property right, which, it was supposed, had already been proven acquired. The inscription was approved without prejudice to third parties with better right and with restrictions and conditions (articles 17 and 18). Therefore, when a titling process based on such regulation was approved, what the IDA did was segregate from the titling zone registered in its name, the land that was proven to belong to a private person, under the assumption that they had met the legal requirements. It was a procedure with requirements very similar to those established in the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). The referred Regulation was declared unconstitutional in votes 2063-07 of February 14, 2007, and 4517-07 of March 28 of that year, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). As for what was registered before that declaration, if it is claimed that a land was improperly titled based on said procedure, the generated title can be reviewed, in order to verify whether or not it should be annulled. In this case, that is what is alleged, given that the plaintiff claims his property corresponds to the title that the IDA itself generated in 1994 originally in favor of Villa Escondida S.A., number CED9, described in map A-180721-94. But later, based on a map that has an erroneous location, an invalid inscription was generated and authorized, which is the one corresponding to the property now belonging to the defendant company. The foregoing is clarified because the existence of a documentary map overlap does not necessarily generate the nullity or invalidity of a registry entry for a real estate property, given that it can happen that two registry entries are correctly registered and correspond to materially existing properties, and what exists is solely a problem of maps (due to a mistaken location in one of them or both). That could happen because previously the registration of lands without their corresponding map was allowed (which changed with the current Notarial Code (Código Notarial)), and also because the cadastral system (map registry), until recent times, has begun to be reformed to prevent two maps with partially or totally coincident locations from being cadastrally registered. However, in this case, what happened and the premise to evaluate is different, given that effectively the defendant's map is the basis of the registry inscription sought to be annulled, since the administrative procedure that gave rise to that registry entry was processed based on it. Therefore, if the map is erroneous and this was not corrected in time, the titling or title that was generated based on it is directly affected, as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence is destroyed.\n\nIX.- The plaintiff indeed managed to demonstrate in this matter, that their property A-287520-000 (map A-180721-94), was generated by a title granted by the IDA, in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, without it being demonstrated in the case file that they possess as such a land that does not correspond to the registry title, nor to the cadastral map that has been assigned registrally to it. They also proved that property A-401476-000 (map A-647865-2000), was generated based on an administrative titling procedure that required that the land not be registered and logically a map that did not overlap with another. The procedure that generated the defendant's property was processed by the former IDA at the request of [Nombre4]. And it was reliably proven in the case file that map A-647865-2000 overlaps by 85% the map that corresponds to the plaintiff's property (see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II, images 5 to 48). According to the report issued by the Topography area of the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the IDA, official letter DRHN-A-0148-2006, of March 10, 2006, (on which what is indicated in official letter DRHN-AL-149-07 of May 8, 2007, of the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the former IDA is based), that map also has a location problem, given that engineer Víctor [Nombre11] concluded that \"there is a significant displacement with the information provided by the GPS, regarding the real location of [Dirección5] and consequently also of [Dirección9]\" (the latter of the defendant here). He concluded that the displacement was approximately one kilometer (see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, image 72). Therefore, this Court concludes that even if the property that Mrs. [Nombre4] intended to title exists (which was not proven in this matter), if it existed, it would be located elsewhere. But what was reliably proven, is that the map she used for titling not only affected another previously cadastrally registered one, but also had location problems. And that is precisely the basis of the petitions raised in the lawsuit being resolved.\n\n[Nombre12].- According to the explanation, grievances 1, 2, and 3 are accepted. As corrected by this Court when referring to the facts not proven, certainly what was indicated in unproven facts two and three of the contested judgment was incorrect. It was proven that the plaintiff's property \"was born\" many years before the defendant's property, and its map was also cadastrally registered earlier. And furthermore, it was not proven that either that title or the plaintiff's map were invalid or did not correspond to the reality of what the latter possesses. The appellant is also correct that it is appropriate to annul the defendant's map, not only because when it was cadastrally registered, another one already existed in the cadastre, resulting in an 85% overlap (without it being demonstrated in the case file that the plaintiff's map is incorrect), but also because the technical reports provided as documentary evidence state that the map of the defendant's property has a displacement problem of approximately one kilometer according to the real coordinates. In this regard, two maps that totally or partially coincide for different lands cannot subsist, and precisely for that reason the parties are referred to the jurisdictional venue to define that situation and eliminate it in favor of registry publicity (publicidad registral) and the legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) of the parties, fundamental rights being at stake, such as the right to property. What was erroneously concluded by the lower court, and which the appellant claims is due to an incorrect assessment of the documentary evidence referring to the reports demonstrating the map overlap, is due to the erroneous classification of the action filed (which the trial judge considered as an action for recovery of possession (reivindicatoria), when it was not). Therefore, certainly what was concluded based on the evaluated evidence was erroneous, and for that reason, the Court made amendments to the factual framework (proven and unproven facts). The lower court also erred by concluding that it was not proven that the registration of the defendant's land was anomalous, given that it was demonstrated that the base map for the procedure that gave rise to it is erroneous and overlaps with a previous one, for which reason it must be annulled. When one of the fundamental requirements of a titling procedure is invalidated, such as the base map being valid and corresponding to the reality of what is being titled, the procedure is evidently directly affected in its validity. It should be clarified in that sense, that the Court does not have certainty, with the evidence provided in the case file, as to whether the defendant's property exists in another place, because the parties did not offer, nor did the lower court order, judicial inspection evidence (prueba de reconocimiento judicial) or expert appraisals (peritajes) in that regard. Neither did the defendant company file a counterclaim to allow said issue to be analyzed. Had that aspect been proven, a different conclusion might have been reached regarding the nullity of the defendant's registry entry, if it were proven that what existed was only an error in the location of its map. Even numeral 33 of the Law of Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público) makes it possible that when the geographic location of a real estate property is poorly recorded in the registry entries, the error can be corrected in a public deed (escritura pública), with the appearance of the person holding title to the good, and the notary must attest that the corrected geographic location is correct, with a view to a map duly registered in the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional). And articles 89 and 90 of the Regulations of the Public Registry (Reglamento del Registro Público) also provide that when there is a material error affecting an inscription (due to inaccuracy of the title that originated the inscription), and that error is attributable to the party that registered it, and the latter so accepts or it is declared via judicial channels, the rectification of the error must be done through a new inscription motivated by a new document, without prejudice to what third parties may claim in relation to the falsity or nullity of the erroneous inscription. And also numeral 64 of the Regulations of the National Cadastre (Reglamento del Catastro Nacional) offers solutions to remedy registry entries for errors derived from the registration of maps, by providing: \"When a registry entry of the Public Registry of Real Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble) cites a map number that does not correspond to the real estate property or that is not registered, the National Cadastre, upon the request of the interested party, shall proceed with the registration of the map that corresponds, in accordance with current regulations. Once the map is registered, the registry owner shall, under registry formalities, make the request before the Public Registry of Real Property, to rectify the information and adjust it to material reality.\" But none of that could be analyzed or applied in this case, because the parties did not allow the analysis of that topic in what was the object of debate, and much less proved anything in that regard. The defendant's answer did not provide, in that sense, any clarifying data (see in the associated documents folder, file EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado, images 9 to 13), nor is information in that sense extracted from the documentary evidence. The sued company only alleges that it has no knowledge (no le consta) that the plaintiff's property belongs to the latter, despite abundant documentary evidence in that sense, and affirms that its property was acquired under the protection of registry good faith (fe pública registral) in a public deed. Although it denies that there is an overlap between properties and maps, it does not explain its arguments in that regard nor provide proof of the first, and also, inexplicably, rejects that the plaintiff's property existed before its own. It offers no documentary, testimonial, or expert evidence to support its claims of no existing overlap of properties or maps and only files the defenses cited in the resultandos, denying that the plaintiff has the right to bring this lawsuit. Therefore, the appellant is correct in claiming that it did not bear the burden of demonstrating that what existed was not an error of coordinates in the maps and that the defendant's property existed without materially overlapping with the plaintiff's. The burden of proof for those facts, given what was debated, lay with the defendant (article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) applied supplementarily). The plaintiff proved the facts corresponding to them to support the premises of the nullity action filed, that is, that their title and map were previously registered (and it was not proven they were invalid or that what was possessed based on them was different from what was indicated in the Public Real Property Registry); as well as that the defendant's later map overlaps with theirs and gave rise to a title and registry inscription with a serious defect, for originating in a map that documentarily encompassed another unregistered land. In this regard, numerals 4 and 10 of the cited Regulation 55 required that the titling must be over unregistered lands and based on a cadastral map, which logically had to correspond to the property being titled, without including other lands in its drawing, even less if they were already registered.\n\nXI.- Similarly, the fourth grievance must be accepted, given that not only should the titling of the defendant's land based on a map that already overlapped with another corresponding to a prior registry inscription not have been approved (nor was it proven that the plaintiff's map was invalid or incorrect), but also, given the reliably demonstrated overlap, the appellant is correct in claiming that, based on registry principles, real truth (verdad real), and legal certainty, the inconsistency present in the maps must be remedied, which affects the registry inscriptions of the cited real estate properties. The foregoing because, based on a map that overlaps with a prior one, a registry entry originated that is consequently affected in its essence, given that the geographic location of the land contradicts what had been registrally recorded in another prior registry entry. In this regard, it must be borne in mind that no inscription (neither registry nor cadastral) validates null or voidable (nulos o anulables) acts or contracts, with the legal exceptions referring to third parties, which are not applicable in this case, and therefore are not analyzed (arts. 455, 456, 457, 472, 479, 487, 848 of the Civil Code (Código Civil)). The Law of Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en Registro Público), N°3883 of May 30, 1967, amended by law No.6145 of November 18, 1967, establishes that the purpose of the National Registry (Registro Nacional) is to guarantee the security of registered goods or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of these goods or rights (article 1). It is also established that it is not appropriate to register a document that is in contradiction with another previously presented (article 8). The Regulations of the Public Registry (Reglamento del Registro Público), N°26771-J of February 18, 1998, repeats what is indicated in the Civil Code, insofar as the inscription in the Public Registry of a title generating real rights does not validate registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to law. Numerals 56 and 60 also contain the \"principle of tracto sucesivo,\" which establishes that no documents shall be registered in which a person different from the one appearing in the preceding inscription appears as the holder of the right, and that no document can be registered when another that opposes it has been inscribed or annotated. In matters of registry publicity, guaranteed in numerals 63 and following of said Regulation, the rule of \"information unit\" (unidad de información) is highlighted, which implies that each inscription of a real estate property will contain, in addition to the registration number (número de matrícula), all the information referring to it (and one of those fundamental data is precisely the cadastral map, especially when that inscription originates in a titling process like the one analyzed in this case). The Law of the National Cadastre (Ley del Catastro Nacional), 6545 of March 25, 1981, and its Regulations 34331 of 11/29/2007, regulate, insofar as it is important to highlight for this case, matters concerning the functions of the Cadastre (representation and graphic, numerical, literal and statistical description of all lands comprised in the national territory) and the requirements, effectiveness, and validity of cadastral maps (articles 1, 2, 29, 30 of the Law and 1, 2, 5, 17 to 41, 64 of the Regulations). Numeral 5 of this second regulatory body highlights that the scopes obtained from the cadastre, for purposes of the Real Property Registry, are the following: a). Configure updated cartography that allows technical control of the survey maps (planos de agrimensura) presented for cadastral registration. b) Create a cartographic-cadastral data bank, that allows obtaining varied, timely, and real information. c) Reconcile and purge real property information, as an instrument that guarantees legal certainty. Therefore, if there is a cadastral map that contradicts a prior one and that also originated a registry entry, given that it was the basis for titling land, that situation must be legally remedied. For their part, articles 53 to 57 establish the application of registry principles compatible with the Cadastre, which, due to their importance for what is resolved, are transcribed: \"Article 54.—Of the Principle of Rogation (Principio de Rogación). The Cadastre shall not register or process any map ex officio. The formal presentation of the map to the cadastre shall signify its request for processing. Article 55.—Principle of Tracto Sucesivo. The Cadastre shall procure the necessary means so that there is a perfect concatenation between the inscriptions of the cadastral maps. There must be a perfect sequence and correlation between the inscriptions and their modifications, cancellations, or extinctions. Article 56.—Principle of Cadastral Publicity (Principio de Publicidad Catastral). Cadastre information is public. The Directorate is responsible for determining the manner in which this information can be consulted, without risk of adulteration, loss, or deterioration of the same... Article 57.—Effects of cadastral publicity. The main objective of the survey map is to contribute to the establishment, improvement, and maintenance of the cadastre, to define the real estate property graphically, and to give publicity to its boundaries. The cadastral map is not in itself absolute proof of what is recorded in it. The survey map raised unilaterally by the interested party, even if it is registered in the Cadastre, by itself cannot affect third parties, does not constitute a translative title of ownership (título traslativo de dominio), does not prove property or possession (posesión) in accordance with the provisions of article 301 of the Civil Code. ... Cadastral registration does not validate documents that are null or voidable (nulos o anulables) according to law, nor will it remedy their defects... (the underlining is not from the original). Therefore, there must be conciliation between the registry and cadastral information. Even after the Notarial Code entered into force, and as of May 1999 according to its transitory provisions, a cadastral map is required for every registry transaction referring to a real estate property, except for mortgage cancellations, the encumbrance of family assets (patrimonio familiar), and seizure (embargo) (article 30 of the Law of the National Cadastre). With Law Nº 8710, in force as of 2009, art. 2 of the Law of Creation of the National Registry (Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional), Nº 5695, was reformed, in order to create the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario). The objective of that reform was to strengthen real property registry security, through the integration of the functions of the National Cadastre and the Public Registry of Real Property, into a single Registry and under a single direction of the so-called Real Property Registry. With this change, the aim is to achieve full coincidence between the graphic information contained in the Cadastre and the literal information of the Real Property Registry, and in this way have a Registry with unequivocal graphic and legal information, in accordance with the goals of the Cadastre and Registry Regularization Program (Programa de Regularización del Catastro y el Registro). Finally, votes 870 of August 30, 2006, and 110 of February 16, 2006, are important, in which it is concluded, just as happens in this case, that there must exist, as the legal system so provides, concordance between the cadastral map and registry information, and that the inscription of the map does not validate the existence of defects. As for the fifth grievance, it is rejected, given that the appellant does not set forth any specific disagreement, only highlights that the lower court put the terms \"annul\" (anular) and \"rescind\" (rescindir) in quotation marks, but does not explain how or in what way that affects them. However, it is clarified that although the plaintiff requests that the registry inscription be \"rescinded\", that petition is understood as one of nullity, given what was alleged in their lawsuit and because it is technically the correct thing, based on the regulations they themselves cite as legal foundation (articles 456 and following of the Civil Code).\n\n[Nombre12] II.- In accordance with the foregoing, in the appealed matter, for the reasons given by this Court, it is appropriate to partially revoke the appealed judgment, insofar as it \"upheld the pleas of lack of right (falta de derecho) and the so-called generic of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest, and lack of standing (falta de legitimación) filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A. and declared the lawsuit dismissed in all its aspects, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales).\" In its place, the pleas of lack of right and the one incorrectly filed as the generic of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The lawsuit is declared with merit in the manner that will be stated, understanding as denied what is not expressly indicated: 1. The registry entry for the property of [Dirección10], corresponding to citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, in the name of BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is annulled. 2. The cadastral map A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, cadastrally registered on eighteen August two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. The payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party (article 55 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria)). Once this judgment is final (firme), let the trial court send the corresponding notifications (ejecutorias) to the Public Real Property Registry, Subdirección Registral, and Subidirección Catastral respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the declared nullities (article 11 of the Law of Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry). In all other respects not modified (understood as the rejection of the plea of litis pendencia being upheld), the resolved matter remains final. It is clarified, given that what was resolved in proceeding 08-000717-1027CA was not final (firme) as of the date of issuing this judgment, what was raised here was resolved without taking into account what was ordered therein (the foregoing because although the nullity of the defendant's registry entry and its map was equally requested in that proceeding, the cause of action (causa de pedir) is based on the affecting of a different property, number CED10, in the name of Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.). Although, due to what was requested, there is influence of one proceeding in another, it was indeed not appropriate to declare litis pendencia, as the lower court resolved. The effects of what is resolved with finality in that matter, if necessary, must be assessed in due course by the parties and the courts, in relation to what has been resolved in this case.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe evidence for a better resolution offered by the appealing party is rejected. In the appealed matter, the appealed judgment is partially revoked, only insofar as it \"upheld the pleas of lack of right and the so-called generic of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest, and lack of standing filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A. and declared the lawsuit dismissed in all its aspects, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of procedural and personal costs.\" In its place, the pleas of lack of right and the one incorrectly filed as the generic of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The lawsuit is declared with merit in the manner that will be stated, understanding as denied what is not expressly indicated: 1. The registry entry for the property of Alajuela cuatrocientos un mil cuatrocientos setenta y seis-cero cero cero, corresponding to citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, in the name of BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is annulled. 2. The cadastral map A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, cadastrally registered on eighteen August two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. The payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party.\n\nOnce this judgment becomes final, the trial court shall forward the corresponding enforcement orders to the Real Property Registry, the Registry Subdirectorate, and the Cadastral Subdirectorate, respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the declared nullities.\n\n\n\n \n\nYUYZ2P8SXEG61\n\nRUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUDGE\n\nDECISION-MAKER\n\n \n\n \n\nHCAT2M14JE861\n\n[Nombre13] -\n\nJUDGE DECISION-MAKER\n\nG6A3LYW5ABI61\n\n[Nombre14] -\n\nJUDGE DECISION-MAKER\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nEXP: EXPN2\n\nSecond Judicial Circuit of San José, [Dirección11] , , [Dirección12] de Goicoechea across from the Hospital Hotel La Católica parking lot Telephone: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] or [Telf3]. Email: [...]\n\nagainst the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), [Nombre4], [Nombre5], [Nombre4], [Nombre6] and Black And White Becard S.A, it was sought to have it declared: \"...That the REPLEVIN claim be granted. That by virtue of having overlapped the plans and properties owned by its represented parties, THE CORRESPONDING CANCELLATION BE ORDERED, of plans numbers A-273723-1995, with a measurement of fifty-nine hectares, one thousand one hundred twenty and twenty-five square decimeters and A-276578-1995, with a supposed measurement of one hundred twenty hectares, five thousand two hundred seventy-eight meters and forty square decimeters, likewise of cadastral plans numbers A-647865-2000 and 647866-2000... That the cancellation of the registration entry for the properties of the Partido de Alajuela, registered under real folio registration number CED8 [Placa1] also be ordered... That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of this action and also to pay the damages caused\". To date, it has not been finally resolved, given that it was pending a recourse filed in a third rogated instance, having been resolved in second instance in vote 650-F-12 (see first instance judgment in that proceeding, in the associated documents folder, file EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado), images: 24 to 43; public information that appears in the information systems of the Sala Primera, Recurso: 845-S1-12, at http://intranet/salaprimera/index.php/proyectos-circulando; and of the online management system, external consultation of the Tribunal Agrario, at https://pjenlinea.poder-judicial.go.cr/SistemaGestionEnLinea/Publica/wfpDetExped.aspx?c=20110029000183&d=0029). 9) Plan A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil, corresponding to the registration entry of the defendant's property, was surveyed (catastró) on August 18, two thousand (see in associated documents folder, Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: registration certification and plan, images 13 to 18).- 10) Plan A-ciento ochenta mil setecientos veintiuno-noventa y cuatro, corresponding to the registration entry of the plaintiff's property, was surveyed (catastró) on April 22, nineteen ninety-four (see in associated documents folder, Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: registration certification and plan, images 9 to 13 and 19 to 21).- 11) The plaintiff's property originated from a sale and segregation made by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA, now Instituto de Desarrollo Rural, INDER), of its Alajuela property two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-cero cero cero, to a company called Villa Escondida S.A. on September 21, nineteen ninety-four. In deed thirteen of the protocol of notary Carlos García, the property is described as land for agriculture, located at [Dirección3], bordering to the north: border zone; south: public road; east: Abdenago Vargas and west: Villa Frontera S.A., with a measurement of two hundred eighty-nine hectares, five thousand twelve meters, twenty-five square decimeters, according to plan A-ciento ochenta mil setecientos veintiuno-noventa y cuatro. Later it belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, who sold it to Vakus Centroamericana S.A. and finally, by acquiring it at auction, it became the plaintiff's (see in associated documents folder, a) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: images 37 to 47 and 81 to 154; b) Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ TOMO I PARTE II: images 11 to 14, 42, 101, 149 to 161). 12) The defendant's property, of the province of Alajuela four hundred one thousand four hundred seventy-six-cero cero cero, was registered through a titling process carried out based on the Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales of the former IDA, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002. The administrative procedure was initiated by [Nombre4], based on plan A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil. The final agreement of the IDA that allowed the registration was 45 from session 16-04 of May 3, 2004, and based on it, on May twenty-eight, two thousand four, a deed of \"sale and segregation\" was executed by the former IDA, of its Alajuela property two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-cero cero cero in favor of [Nombre4]. In the cited deed, one hundred thirty-four-seventy-nine of the protocol of notary Hubert Araya, the property is described as national reserve land, northern zone, Santa Rosa, located at [Dirección3], bordering to the north: Llanos nacionales and [Nombre7]; south: public road and [Nombre8]; east: [Nombre9] and west: Llanos naturales and [Nombre10], with a measurement of fifty-nine hectares, one thousand two hundred ten meters, twenty-five square decimeters, according to plan A-seiscientos cuarenta y siete mil ochocientos sesenta y cinco-dos mil. Several limitations are imposed, among them, that the titling was done without prejudice to third parties with better rights. That deed generated the registration entry cited in proven fact three (see in associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin asociar/ TOMO I PARTE I: images 155 to 173; file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, and Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II).\n\nII.- What is ordered regarding unproven facts is not shared, as the first two are legal conclusions and the last one is unnecessary, given what is indicated in the proven facts. Of the same nature, the following are deemed unproven: 1/. That the plaintiff has been materially dispossessed of the land he claims as his. 2/. That the defendant company materially occupies an area that is included within the plaintiff's land. 3/. That the plaintiff possesses land that does not correspond to its registration title or the cadastral plan that has been assigned to it registrally. 4/. That the physical location of the defendant's property is in a place different from that indicated in the plan.\n\nIII.- This Tribunal hears the appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment 03-2013 of January 8, 2013, in which the claim was dismissed with costs to be borne by him. The appellant presents the following grievances reiteratively, which are summarized and organized to facilitate their analysis: 1) He claims it was proven he is the owner of the Alajuela property 287520-000, described in plan A-180721-1994, which \"was born to legal life\" in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, from volume 19 of the protocol of notary Carlos García Anchía (folio 37). He asserts this was not controverted by the defendant. He affirms that when the Registro Público assigns a number to a property, it follows a continuous order, so between his property and that of the defendant company, 467144 titles were granted, thus he affirms his property was born to legal life before that of the defendant company. Therefore, he claims what is indicated in unproven fact 3 is not true, regarding the failure to prove that his registration right was born before that of the defendant. He highlights that her land, as stated on folio 132, was born according to deed 134-79 of May 28, 2004, from the protocol of notary Hubert Rojas Araya. He concludes his property existed ten years before the defendant's, which contradicts what the a quo judge says in unproven fact 3. He adds that the inconsistency arising from the overlapping of plans and registration entries, according to the División Catastral of the Registro Público Inmobiliario, is that the overlapping of plans does exist, so the last plan prepared, which describes the defendant's property, must be declared null. That, he says, was recorded in ordinary file 08-000717-1027CA, which contains the report of surveyor Víctor [Nombre11] Salas, from the Dirección General of IDA, official letter DRHN-A-0148-2006 of March 10, 2006. In it, it states there is an overlap regarding the cartographic location of the parties' plans, among others. He considers that disproving those two studies/expert reports (sic) from two public institutions, one of them the highest authority (sic) regarding plans, is only possible through a professional, scientific, and serious study, not as the a quo judge deduced when she indicates in the contested judgment that the physical identity of the plaintiff's and the defendant's real estate cannot be considered proven, due to inconsistencies regarding the boundaries and their location, the latter based on a certain road that appears on a different side in each of the aforementioned plans, in addition to the inconsistency in measurements and the geometric figure. Regarding these two factors, he says, he refers to the report of the División Catastral, which includes a sketch and indicates the overlap is partial, and he highlights it was never said in the claim or in any other writing that it was an exact or total overlap. He reiterates, it was demonstrated with the documentary evidence that the plaintiff's property was born to legal life before the defendant's. For this reason, he says, the administrative procedure before the Dirección del Catastro Nacional, now of the Registro Inmobiliario, file 534-2009 RIM, was initiated, in which that study on the overlap appears. He claims that, had those pieces of evidence been appreciated, the a quo judge would have \"inferred\" differently, in accordance with the law and in concordance with the principle of sound critical judgment. Therefore, he says, the failure to assess the documentary evidence is to the detriment of his rights. As evidence for better resolution, to demonstrate that it was proven his property was juridically born before the defendant's, he offers a notarial certification of the electronic study, where it is seen that the administrative warning retroacts its effects to the day of the property's registration entry, October 7, 1994. If that was seen in all the registration certifications, the a quo judge should not have considered that fact unproven. 2) He refutes that the legal birth of the land was considered as the second unproven fact, as anomalous or illegal; much less to conclude that the claim was devoid of evidence to prove those two facts. Had the evidence been appreciated, he says, it would have been concluded that an overlap does exist, as deduced in the referred reports. He claims he is aggrieved because one of those reports is used for some things, but not to state that the overlap exists. He considers it cannot be deduced that he was disinterested in offering an expert opinion as evidence, in order to carry out a field inspection and determine that it is not a coordinate error in the plans and that the property existed without being overlapped. He considers they do not have to demonstrate the existence of the materiality of the defendant company's property in another location that is not where the plan that describes it places it, because he says, it is she who must prove that her property does not overlap others, as the coordinates of his plan indicate, and he highlights there is an ordinary process prior to this one, where it is determined that both that plan and the ownership registration entry be annulled. 3) He maintains that the a quo judge did not assess all the documentary evidence provided. He again cites what was said about administrative file 534-2009 RM and the report of the former IDA, which, being unnecessary, is not reiterated. He transcribes data from the report prepared by [Nombre11], which are part of the second aforementioned, especially: 1) a GPS survey was conducted starting from the town of Caño Negro to the end of the road at the entrance to Mr. [Nombre5]'s property; 2) copies of the plans under study were taken from the Registro Nacional for comparison; 3) the plans were mounted in Autocad, using the route and assigning coordinates according to the Zapote cartographic sheet; 4) the assembly of all adjacent plans found in the Catastro Nacional was carried out to see the possible overlaps between them. He also transcribes the conclusions of that surveyor, highlighting that: a) it is determined that there is an overlap in the cartographic location between plans A-647866-2000, A-647865-2000, A-180715-94, and A-180720-94, and that plan A-647865-2000 overlaps A-180715-1994 and 180721-1994 (of Villa Escondida, [Dirección4]) by approximately 85%. Therefore, he states, it is not true that the a quo judge appreciated that evidence, because if she had, she would not have said that that study did not cite his property. b) it is concluded there is a significant displacement of one kilometer, with the information yielded by the GPS, regarding the real location of [Dirección5] and consequently also of A-647865-2000. C) Regarding plans A-180721-1994, A-180715-94, A-180720-94, and A-180716-94, other plans different from those of Mr. [Nombre5] and Mrs. [Nombre4] were found that overlap totally or partially. He refers to folio 20 of the IDA's administrative file, where it is seen that plans A-685715-2001, A-647865-2000, and A-647866-2000 overlap his property, described in plan A-180721-1994. He lists that A-685715-2001 overlaps A-647866-2000; the latter overlaps A-647865-2000, and that one overlaps A-180721-94 (overlapped) (he stresses that this term should be noted). And from file 534-B1, he points out folio 121, which records the resolution of January 14, 2010, where it indicates the administrative diligence to investigate the possible overlap is ex officio, and refers to the Alajuela properties [Dirección6], [Dirección7], and [Dirección8], which he considers is further evidence that the defendant's property superimposes in space onto his. All that evidence, not appreciated by the a quo judge, he says, determines his assertion that he has every right over his property and that all the petitions of the claim should have been granted. He transcribes paragraphs from considerando VI of the contested judgment about the lack of proof of the identity of the good and the passive legitimation, and about the lack of interest in providing expert evidence. He claims the judge indicates that an expert should have appeared to corroborate in situ the alleged overlap, but he considers it was unnecessary, given that the IDA's expert had appeared with a GPS in hand and had corroborated it before the Catastro pronounced in the same manner. He adds that the a quo judge has no basis or capacity to contradict what those indicated. If the report prepared with a field inspection by surveyor [Nombre11] of the IDA is not accepted as documentary evidence, he requests it be considered as evidence for better resolution. 4) He claims, given the forcefulness of the documentary evidence, based on the overlapping of plans and therefore of properties registered in the Registro Público, which was determined in the referred study, he affirms this contravenes the guidelines of the principle of concordance contained in Article 18 of the Ley de Catastro 6545, Decreto Ejecutivo 33982 of August 8, 2007, and 343311 of November 29, 2007. He says, by reason of the principle of cadastral and registry specialty, real truth, and legal certainty, that inconsistency present in the plans and the cited real estate must be corrected, and if not, both the registration entry of land A-401476-000 and plan A-647865-2000 must be annulled, for encroaching on the space occupied by his real estate. He maintains that the registration of the defendant's property was illegal, and she accepted it when she acquired the good, knowing that it overlapped with another, which is why she must be held responsible, for opposing a truth determined by the División Catastral. 5) He claims the a quo judge put the terms \"annul\" and \"rescind\" in quotes, given that the rescission of the plan and the registration entry was requested, when the Real Academia defines those terms like this (only cited as relevant): rescindir: to render a contract, an obligation, null and void; anular: to void a provision, a contract, to suspend something previously announced or planned. He asks that the appeal be granted and that what he requests be conceded, as the documentary evidence is forceful and clear. The evidence offered for better resolution is rejected, based on Article 52 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, as it is deemed that, in light of what was debated by the parties, it is unnecessary.\n\nIV.- Before analyzing the specific grievances, it is important to highlight the following aspects, which are not grounds for nullity of the process or the questioned ruling, as they do not cause defenselessness, or else the parties did not show disagreement in a timely manner against what was resolved by the a quo judge (Articles 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 503 of the Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily). However, they must be reviewed by the a quo Judge, to avoid repeating them. The action filed, as will be explained, is not a replevin action (reivindicatoria) but an atypical action, which, although related to real rights, does not have restitutory effects, because only the nullity of the registration entry of the entries where the property right over land is publicized and of the plan that depicts it and based on which that registration originated is sought. Had it been a replevin action (reivindicación), the judicial inspection evidence should have been conducted even ex officio, as it is necessary for the judge to review the substantive requirements of the action to see whether to reject or admit it in the judgment. In this case, although the a quo judge incorrectly classified the claim as a replevin action (acción reivindicatoria), it is not noted that a judicial inspection was conducted, but as indicated, it is not necessary because it is not that type of procedural action. Secondly, even if only documentary evidence had been offered, the conciliation stage or phase must be carried out ex officio. Depending on what is debated, the judge must determine whether it should be done at the Court's seat or at the place of the events, as on occasions the latter is relevant for the agreements that can be reached. In the case, a conciliation hearing was scheduled at the request of one of the parties (see resolution of March 14, 2011), but even if such a petition had not been filed, the Court must take into account that it is its obligation to schedule a conciliation phase and weigh where it should be held, based on what is debated.\n\nIt should also be noted that the defendant raised the preliminary defense of lis pendens, which should have been resolved interlocutorily (Article 44-b) of the referenced Law) and not left to be analyzed in the judgment, as was done in this case.\n\n**V.-** Given that the first claims refer to the manner in which the evidence was assessed, and the conclusions of the lower court (a quo) regarding the factual matrix held as proven or not demonstrated in the appealed judgment, it must be kept in mind that numeral 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria requires the court to study and select the sources of evidence obtained, in order to establish their efficacy to resolve the conflict submitted to its consideration, through perception, representation or reconstruction, and deductive or inductive reasoning. The court must express the principles of equity or law upon which it bases its criterion. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has explained: \"... the assessment of evidence in conscience does not imply resolving in an arbitrary manner, since every judge—as a public official that they are—is subject to the principle of legality, which constitutes an imperative of adequacy of public action, not only to the specific norms on a determined object, but to the entire block of legality; therefore, they cannot rule with contempt for constitutional principles and rights, since they are limited by the rules of sound criticism and principles of reasonableness, which, properly applied, lead to the harmony of jurisdictional assessment with the Political Constitution, as this Chamber understood in judgment 3484-94, at twelve o'clock on July eighth, nineteen ninety-four, in which it determined that the powers of judges to assess evidence in conscience are not contrary to the judge's obligation to substantiate their rulings, a constitutional principle that comprises due process... () the power granted to the agrarian judge to assess evidence in conscience and weigh it without strict subjection to the rules of common law, as provided in the second paragraph of the challenged Article 54, is not unconstitutional, provided they issue a substantiated ruling, that is, analyze the result of the evidence gathered in the proceeding and express the principles of equity or law on which they base their criterion, thus respecting the minimum contents of the right of defense\" (*Voto 3657 of May 7, 2003* . See also *Votos N° 398 of June 6, 2001 of the First Chamber (Sala Primera). In the same sense, see Votos No. 206 of March 26, 1999, N°46 of April 26, 1995; Nª66 of February 6, 2009 and 364 of May 28, 2009 of the Agrarian Court (Tribunal Agrario)*).\n\n**VI.-** In order to analyze the grievances raised, it is first important to clarify that what was proposed by Mr. [Name1] is not a replevin action (acción reivindicatoria), given that neither in the pleadings nor in the facts of the complaint does he claim to have been materially dispossessed of any area that must be returned to him, an essential requirement in an action of this type (Article 320 of the Civil Code, applied supplementally). What is debated, as the plaintiff correctly points out in the complaint, is solely the existence of a plane overlap, and based on that, the nullity of the registry inscription of the defendant’s farm and its plane is requested. Therefore, the characterization made by the lower court (a quo) is incorrect, which affects the analysis of some of the evaluated factual presuppositions. However, as explained, this is not grounds for nullity, since the legal characterization can be corrected in the second instance. The procedural action contained in the complaint of this matter is a protective action of real rights (acción protectora de los derechos reales), because it seeks the nullity of the registry inscription of the title that gives rise to the defendant's farm and its plane. The invalidity (nullity) of the requested inscriptions (both registry and cadastral), directly impacts the real property right of the parties, but it does not correspond to any of those referred to in considerando V of the contested judgment, being possible to assimilate it to the action for nullity of title derived from a possessory information (acción de nulidad de título derivado de una información posesoria) (when processed in the ordinary and not incidental path). It is reiterated, what was proposed and must be resolved is an action aimed at annulling registry and cadastral entries, and therefore, the factual presuppositions to examine, based on the evidence provided to the case records, are, in addition to the usual ones (right, legal standing (legitimación), and current interest), those proper to an action of this type: a) active legal standing (legitimación activa): the person suing for the nullity of the registry and cadastral entries must be the one affected by their existence; b) passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva): the defendant must be the holder of the right publicized by the registry and cadastral entries (planes) sought to be annulled; c) right: the complainant must be the holder of the right claimed to be protected, in this case, must be the holder of the property right publicized by the registry entry and also be the one to whom the plane that they allege is affected or overlapped by the existence of what is sought to be annulled corresponds; d) current interest: at the date of filing the complaint and resolving the proceeding, the situation that gave rise to the claim must persist (that is, the registry entries and planes sought to be annulled must exist, because if not, the claim loses interest); e) existence of formal or substantive defects that affect the validity of the registry inscription and the plane sought to be annulled: their existence and gravity (that is, that they are irremediable errors) must be proven, in order to apply the sanction of nullity. The burden of proof for the cited factual presuppositions corresponds to the plaintiff. In this regard, it must be remembered that in a judicial venue, each party bears the burden of proving the facts that serve as the factual presupposition for the right or situation they claim be declared or recognized in their favor, whatever their procedural position; if they do not do so, they must bear the risk of lack of proof, which translates into a decision unfavorable to their interests (*Article 317 of the Civil Procedural Code, applied supplementally).\n\n**VII.-** On the other hand, and given what is the object of the grievances, the origin of the inscriptions sought to be annulled must also be highlighted. It is clarified that a large part of the documentary evidence that supports the factual matrix held as proven is found in the copies of proceeding 08-000717-1027AC, in which facts very similar to those heard in this matter are debated, except that they relate to different farms of the claimant (plaintiff in that proceeding, Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.), corresponding to numbers A-287519-000, plane A-180715-1994, and A-287518-000, plane A-180720-1994. In that matter, and so that it is clear why copies of it were incorporated into this proceeding, it was debated that, just as occurs with the farm of the plaintiff here, the IDA had authorized the titling of several lands based on planes that overlapped other already inscribed lands; among them that of [Name4], who is the one who promoted the procedure that gives rise to the farm of the defendant company here, Black and White Chen Hsien. Because the parties and lands are different, the lower court (a quo) rejected the exception of lis pendens, but it is evident that the factual matrix and the origin of the conflict, in both proceedings, are based on coincident facts, which are explained below.\n\n**VIII.-** In 1994, the IDA titled in favor of Villa Escondida S.A. the farm A-287520-000, which reports plane A-180721-94 as its plane. It later belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, who sold it to Bakus Centroamericana S.A., and finally, by acquiring it at public auction in 2010, it became the plaintiff's. Several years later, and based on the Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves No. 55 of August 12, 2002, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002, the IDA processed administrative procedures to title lands, through the recognition of dominion in areas of national reserves where possessors had acquired the right to registry titling. Based on that regulation, [Name4] filed a petition through which farm A-401476-000 originated, based on the plane questioned in this case, A-647865-2000. Its numeral 4 provided: *\"The Institute will carry out land titling actions in areas of the country determined by the Board of Directors of this Institute and that are part of the National Reserves, where there are possessors of lands **not inscribed** in the Public Registry, whose areas are not greater than three hundred hectares\"*. For the titling procedure, Article 10 indicated that the proof of possession for 10 years in a public, peaceful, continuous manner and as owner was the responsibility of the applicant, required a cadastral plane and a sworn declaration by the possessor that the farm was not inscribed in the Public Registry, and other requirements equal to those established by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. If no opposition to the procedure was presented, the Department of Agrarian Planning, through the Directorate of Formation and Development of Settlements, would proceed to send it to the IDA Board of Directors, so that it could authorize the segregation and transfer of the property referred to in said request (given that titling zones were decreed to apply this regulation) (Article 13). That is why the notary appears making a segregation and \"sale\" is incorrectly added, which is not technically correct, because in reality the IDA did not sell any land to whom it titled, it merely formalized a title of the property right, which it was supposed they had demonstrated they had already acquired. The inscription was approved without prejudice to third parties with superior right and with restrictions and conditions (Articles 17 and 18). Therefore, when a titling procedure based on such regulation was approved, the IDA was segregating, from the inscribed titling zone in its name, the land that was demonstrated to belong to a private person, under the assumption that they had complied with the legal requirements. It was a procedure with requirements very similar to those established in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The referenced Regulation was declared unconstitutional in Votos 2063-07 of February 14, 2007, and 4517-07 of March 28 of that year, of the Constitutional Chamber. As for what was inscribed before that declaration, if it is claimed that a land was improperly titled based on said procedure, the generated title can be reviewed, in order to verify whether or not it should be annulled. In this case, that is what is alleged, given that the plaintiff claims his farm corresponds to the title that the IDA itself generated in 1994 originally in favor of Villa Escondida S.A., number CED9, described in plane A-180721-94. But later, based on a plane that has an erroneous location, an invalid inscription was generated and authorized, and that is the one corresponding to the farm currently owned by the defendant company. The above is clarified because the existence of a documentary overlap of planes does not necessarily generate the nullity or invalidity of a registry entry for a property, given that it can happen that two registry entries are correctly inscribed and correspond to materially existing farms, and what exists is solely a problem of planes (due to an erroneous location or localization in one of them or in both). This can happen because previously the inscription of lands without their corresponding plane was permitted (which changed starting from the current Notarial Code), and also because the cadastre system (plane registry), until recent times, has begun to be reformed to prevent two planes with partially or totally coincident locations from being able to be cadastered. However, in this case, what happened and the premise to be evaluated is different, given that effectively the defendant's plane turns out to be the basis of the registry inscription sought to be annulled, since it is based on it that the administrative procedure that gave rise to that registry entry was processed. Therefore, if the plane is erroneous and that was not corrected in time, the titling or title generated based on it is directly affected, as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence is destroyed.\n\n**IX.-** The plaintiff effectively managed to demonstrate in this matter that his farm A-287520-000 (plane A-180721-94), was generated by a title granted to him by the IDA, in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, without it having been demonstrated in the case records that he possesses as such a land that does not correspond to the registry title, nor to the cadastral plane that has been assigned to it registrally. He also proved that farm A-401476-000 (plane A-647865-2000), was generated based on an administrative titling procedure that required the land not to be inscribed and logically a plane that did not overlap with another. The procedure that generated the defendant's farm was processed by the former IDA at the request of [Name4]. And it was convincingly proved in the case records that plane A-647865-2000 overlaps by 85% the plane that corresponds to the plaintiff's farm *(see in associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II, images 5 to 48 and )*. According to the report issued by the Topography area of the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the IDA, official communication DRHN-A-0148-2006, of March 10, 2006, (on which what is indicated in official communication DRHN-AL-149-07 of May 8, 2007, of the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the former IDA is based), that plane also has a location problem, given that engineer Víctor [Name11] concluded that \"*there is a significant displacement with the information yielded by the GPS, regarding the real location of the [Address5] and consequently also of the [Address9]*\" (the latter of the defendant here). He concluded that the displacement was approximately one kilometer *(see in associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, image 72)*. Therefore, this Court concludes that even if the farm that Mrs. [Name4] attempted to title exists (which was not proven in this matter), if it exists, it would be located in another place. But what was convincingly proven is that the plane she used to title not only affected another previously cadastered one, but also had location problems. And that is precisely the basis of the petitions raised in the complaint being resolved.\n\n**[Name12].-** According to what has been explained, grievances 1, 2 and 3 are receivable. As corrected by this Court when referring to the facts not demonstrated, certainly what was indicated in the unproven facts two and three of the contested judgment was incorrect. It was effectively proven that the plaintiff's farm \"was born\" many years before the defendant's farm, and its plane was also cadastered first. And in addition, it was not proven that either that title or the plaintiff's plane were invalid or did not correspond to the reality of what he possesses. He is also correct that it is proper to annul the defendant's plane, not only because when it was cadastered another one already existed in the cadastre, resulting in an 85% overlap (without it being demonstrated in the case records that the plaintiff's plane is incorrect), but also because in the technical reports provided as documentary evidence, it is recorded that the plane of the defendant's farm has a displacement problem of approximately one kilometer according to the real coordinates. In this regard, two planes that coincide totally or partially with different lands cannot subsist, and precisely for that reason the parties are referred to the jurisdictional venue so that said situation can be defined and eliminated in favor of registry publicity and the legal certainty of the parties, and because fundamental rights, such as property, are at stake. What was erroneously concluded by the lower court (a quo), and which the appellant claims is due to a mistaken assessment of the documentary evidence referring to the reports where the plane overlap is demonstrated, is due to the mistaken characterization of the action filed (which the trial judge considered as a replevin action (reivindicatoria), when it was not). Therefore, what was concluded based on the assessed evidence was certainly erroneous, and for that reason, the Court made amendments to the factual matrix (proven and unproven facts). The lower court (a quo) also erred in concluding that it was not proven that the inscription of the defendant's land was anomalous, given that it was demonstrated that the plane forming the basis of the procedure that gave rise to it is erroneous and overlaps with a previous one, which is why it must be annulled. When one of the fundamental requirements of a titling procedure is invalidated, such as the base plane being valid and corresponding to the reality of what is titled, the procedure is evidently directly affected regarding its validity. It must be clarified in that sense, that the Court does not have certainty, with the evidence provided to the case records, about whether the defendant's farm exists in another place, because the parties did not offer, nor did the lower court (a quo) order, evidence of judicial inspection or expert opinions on the matter. Nor did the defendant company file a counterclaim to allow said issue to be analyzed. Had that aspect been proven, a different conclusion might have been reached regarding the nullity of the defendant's registry entry, if it were proven that the only thing that existed was an error regarding the location of its plane. Even numeral 33 of the Law on Registration of documents in the Public Registry, makes it possible that when the geographic location of a property is wrongly recorded in the registry entries, the error be corrected in a public deed, with the appearance of the titleholder of the property, and the notary must attest that the corrected geographic location is the correct one, in view of a plane duly inscribed in the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional). And Articles 89 and 90 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, also provide that when a material error exists that affects an inscription (due to inaccuracy of the title that originated the inscription), and that error is attributable to the party that registered it, and it is so accepted by them or declared in judicial proceedings, the rectification of the error must be done through a new inscription motivated by a new document, without prejudice to what third parties may claim in relation to the falsity or nullity of the erroneous inscription. And also numeral 64 of the Regulations of the National Cadastre offers solutions to rectify registry entries for errors derived from the inscription of planes, by providing: **\"When a plane number is cited in an entry of the Public Registry of Real Property that does not correspond to the property or that is not inscribed, the National Cadastre, upon prior request of the interested party, will proceed to the inscription of the corresponding plane, in accordance with current regulations. Once the plane is inscribed, the registry owner must, under the registry formalities, make the request before the Public Registry of Real Property, to rectify the information and adjust it to the material reality\"**. But none of this could be analyzed or applied in this case, because the parties did not allow the analysis of that topic in what was the object of debate, and much less proved anything in that regard. The defendant's answer did not provide any clarifying data in that sense *(see in associated documents folder, file EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado, images 9 to 13)*, nor is information in that sense extracted from the documentary evidence. The defendant company solely alleges that it cannot confirm that the plaintiff's farm belongs to him, despite the abundant documentary evidence in that sense, and affirms that its farm was acquired under the protection of registry public faith in a public deed. Although it denies that there is an overlap between farms and planes, it does not explain its arguments in that regard nor provide proof of the former, and also, inexplicably, rejects that the plaintiff's farm existed before its own. It does not offer documentary, testimonial, or expert evidence that supports its claims about there being no overlap of farms or planes and only raises the defenses cited in the resultandos, denying that the plaintiff has the right to file this complaint. Therefore, the appellant is correct in claiming that he did not bear the burden of demonstrating that what existed was not an error of coordinates in the planes and that the defendant's farm existed without being materially overlapped with his own. The burden of proof for those facts, given what was debated, corresponded to the defendant (Article 317 of the Civil Procedural Code applied supplementally). The plaintiff proved the facts that corresponded to him to give support to the factual presuppositions of the nullity action filed, that is, that his title and plane were previously registered (and it was not proven that they were invalid or that what was possessed based on them was different from what was indicated in the Real Property Public Registry); as well as that the defendant's later plane overlaps with his own and gave rise to a title and registry inscription with a serious defect, because it originated from a plane that documentarily encompassed another non-inscribed land.\n\nIn this regard, numerals 4 and 10 of the aforementioned Regulation 55 required that the titling must be over unregistered lands and based on a cadastral survey (plano catastrado), which logically had to correspond to the property being titled, without including other lands in its drawing, least of all if they were already registered.\n\n**XI.-** Likewise, **the fourth grievance (agravio cuarto)** must be accepted, given that not only should the titling of the defendant's land not have been approved based on a survey that already overlapped with another corresponding to a prior registration entry (nor was it proven that the plaintiff's survey was invalid or incorrect), but also, given the demonstrably proven overlap, the appellant is correct in claiming that, based on registry principles, real truth, and legal certainty, the inconsistency present in the surveys must be corrected, as it affects the registration entries of the aforementioned properties. The foregoing because, based on a survey that overlaps with a prior one, a registration entry was originated, which therefore is affected in its essence, given that the geographic location of the land contradicts what had been registered in another prior registration entry. In this regard, it must be kept in mind that no registration (neither registry nor cadastral) validates null or voidable acts or contracts, with the legal exceptions referring to third parties, which are not applicable in this case and thus are not analyzed (*arts. 455, 456, 457, 472, 479, 487, 848 of the Civil Code*). The Law for the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry, No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, amended by Law No. 6145 of November 18, 1967, establishes that the purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of registered property or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of these properties or rights (article 1). It also establishes that a document that contradicts another presented previously shall not be registered (article 8). The Regulations of the Public Registry, No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, reiterate what is indicated in the Civil Code, in that the registration in the Public Registry of a title generating real rights does not validate registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to law. Numerals 56 and 60 further contain the \"principle of successive tract (principio del tracto sucesivo),\" which establishes that documents in which a person different from the one appearing in the preceding entry appears as the holder of the right shall not be registered, and that no document may be registered when another that opposes it has been registered or annotated. In matters of registry publicity, guaranteed in numerals 63 and following of said Regulations, the rule of \"unity of information\" stands out, which implies that each registration of a property will contain, in addition to the registration number, all the information referring to it (and one of those fundamental pieces of data is precisely the cadastral survey, especially when that registration originates from a titling process like the one analyzed in this case). The National Cadastre Law, 6545 of March 25, 1981, and its Regulation 34331 of 11/29/2007, regulate, as relevant to highlight for the case, matters concerning the functions of the Cadastre (graphic, numerical, literal, and statistical representation and description of all lands within the national territory) and the requirements, efficacy, and validity of cadastral surveys (articles 1, 2, 29, 30 of the Law and 1, 2, 5, 17 to 41, 64 of the Regulation). Numeral 5 of this second regulatory body highlights that the scopes obtained from the cadastre, for the purposes of the Real Estate Registry, are the following: a). To configure an updated cartography that allows the technical control of the land survey plans submitted for their cadastral registration. b) To create a cartographic-cadastral data bank that allows obtaining varied, timely, and real information. c) To reconcile and depurate real estate information, as an instrument that guarantees legal certainty. Therefore, if there exists a cadastral survey that contradicts a prior one and that furthermore originated a registration entry, given that it was the basis for titling a land, that situation must be legally corrected. For their part, articles 53 to 57 establish the application of the registry principles compatible with the Cadastre, which due to their importance for what is decided are transcribed: *\"Article 54.—Of the Principle of Rogation (Principio de Rogación). The Cadastre shall not register or process any survey ex officio. The formal presentation of the survey to the cadastre shall signify its request for processing. Article 55.—Principle of Successive Tract (Principio del Tracto Sucesivo). The Cadastre shall provide the necessary means for a perfect concatenation between the inscriptions of cadastral surveys. There must be a perfect sequence and correlation between the inscriptions and their modifications, cancellations, or extinctions. Article 56.—Principle of Cadastral Publicity (Principio de Publicidad Catastral). Cadastre information is public. The Directorate is responsible for determining the manner in which this information can be consulted, without risk of adulteration, loss, or deterioration of the same... Article 57.—Effects of cadastral publicity. The main objective of the land survey plan is to contribute to the establishment, improvement, and maintenance of the cadastre, to graphically define the property, and to give publicity to its boundaries. The cadastral survey is not, in itself, absolute proof of what is recorded in it. The land survey plan raised unilaterally by the interested party, even if inscribed in the Cadastre, by itself cannot affect third parties, does not constitute a title transferring ownership, does not prove property or possession in accordance with the provisions of article 301 of the Civil Code. ... Cadastral registration does not validate documents that are null or voidable according to the law, nor shall it remedy their defects...\"* (the underlining is not from the original). **Therefore, there must be conciliation between the registry information and the cadastral information**. Even after the Notary Code came into effect, and as of May 1999 according to its transitional provisions, a cadastral survey is required in every registry transaction referring to a property, except for mortgage cancellations, the constitution of a family patrimony (patrimonio familiar), and attachments (*article 30 of the National Cadastre Law*). With Law No. 8710, in effect as of 2009, art. 2 of the Law for the Creation of the National Registry, No. 5695, was amended in order to create the Real Estate Registry. The objective of said amendment was to strengthen real estate registry security, through the integration of the functions of the National Cadastre and the Public Registry of Real Property, into a single Registry and under a single direction of the so-called Real Estate Registry. This change aims to achieve a full matching of the graphic information contained in the Cadastre with the literal information of the Real Property Registry, and in this way to have a Registry with unequivocal graphic and legal information, in accordance with the aims of the Cadastre and Registry Regularization Program. Finally, votes 870 of August 30, 2006, and 110 of February 16, 2006, are important, in which it is concluded, just as occurs in this case, that there must be, as the legal system so provides, concordance between cadastral survey and registry information, and that the registration of the survey does not validate the existence of defects. Regarding the **fifth grievance (quinto agravio)**, it is rejected, given that the appellant does not set forth any specific disagreement, only highlights that the lower court put the terms \"annul\" and \"rescind\" in quotation marks, but does not explain how or in what way that affects them. Nevertheless, it is clarified that although the plaintiff requests that the registry entry be \"rescinded\" (rescinda), that petition is understood as one of nullity, given what was alleged in their claim and because it is technically correct, in light of the regulations that they themselves cite as legal foundation (articles 456 and following of the Civil Code).\n\n[Nombre12] II.- In accordance with the foregoing, regarding the appealed matter, for the reasons given by this Court, it is appropriate to partially reverse the appealed judgment, in that it *\"upheld the exceptions of lack of right and the so-called generic exception of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest, and lack of standing raised by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A. and dismissed the claim in all its aspects, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of procedural and personal costs.\"* In its place, the exceptions of lack of right and the incorrectly raised generic exception of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, raised by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The claim is granted in the manner to be stated, anything not expressly indicated being understood as denied: 1. The registration entry of property [Dirección10], to which correspond the citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, in the name of **BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA,** is annulled. 2. The cadastral survey A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, registered on August eighteenth, two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. The payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party (article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria). Once this judgment is final, the trial court shall forward the corresponding enforcements (ejecutorias) to the Registro Público Inmobiliario, Subdirección Registral and Subdirección Catastral, respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the nullities declared (article 11 of the Law for the Registration of documents in the Public Registry). In all other respects not modified (understood as the rejection of the exception of litis pendencia), the decision stands firm. It is clarified, given that what was decided in process 08-000717-1027CA, as of the date of issuing this judgment, was not final, the matter raised herein was resolved without taking into account what was ordered there (the foregoing because although the nullity of the defendant's registry entry and its survey was also requested in that case, the cause of action is based on the affectation of a different property, number CED10, in the name of Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.). Even though, given what is requested, there is an influence of one proceeding on the other, it was indeed not appropriate to declare a litis pendencia, as the lower court resolved. The effects of what is finally decided in that matter, if necessary, must be evaluated in due course by the parties and the courts, in relation to what has been resolved in this case.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe evidence offered by the appellant for a better provision (prueba para mejor resolver) is rejected. Regarding the appealed matter, the appealed judgment is partially reversed, only in that it *\"upheld the exceptions of lack of right and the so-called generic exception of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest, and lack of standing raised by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A. and dismissed the claim in all its aspects, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of procedural and personal costs.\"* In its place, the exceptions of lack of right and the incorrectly raised generic exception of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, raised by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The claim is granted in the manner to be stated, anything not expressly indicated being understood as denied: 1. The registration entry of the property of Alajuela four hundred one thousand four hundred seventy-six-zero zero zero, to which correspond the citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, in the name of **BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA,** is annulled. 2. The cadastral survey A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, registered on August eighteenth, two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. The payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party. Once this judgment is final, the trial court shall forward the corresponding enforcements (ejecutorias) to the Registro Público Inmobiliario, Subdirección Registral and Subdirección Catastral, respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the nullities declared.\n\n\n\n| YUYZ2P8SXEG61 |\n| RUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUDGE |\n| DECISOR/A |\n\n| HCAT2M14JE861 | G6A3LYW5ABI61 |\n| [Nombre13] - | [Nombre14] - |\n| JUDGE DECISOR/A | JUDGE DECISOR/A |\n\n\n\nEXP: EXPN2\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección11] , , [Dirección12] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3].\n\nEmail: [...]

 

\n\nVI.- In order to analyze the grievances presented, it is important first to clarify that what was raised by Mr. [Name1] is not an action for recovery of possession (acción reivindicatoria), given that neither in the claims nor in the facts of the complaint does he allege having been materially dispossessed of any area that must be restored to him, an essential requirement in such an action (Article 320 of the Civil Code, applied supplementarily).\n\nWhat is being debated, as the plaintiff correctly indicates in the complaint, is solely the existence of a plan overlap (traslape de plano), and based on that, the nullity of the registry inscription of the defendant's property and its survey plan is requested. Therefore, the qualification made by the trial judge is incorrect, which affects the analysis of some of the prerequisites evaluated. However, as explained, this is not grounds for nullity, since the legal qualification can be corrected in the second instance. The procedural action contained in the complaint in this matter is an action protecting real property rights, because it seeks the nullity of the registry inscription of the title that gives rise to the defendant's property and its survey plan. The invalidity (nullity) of the requested inscriptions (both registry and cadastral) has a direct impact on the right of real property of the parties, but it does not correspond to any of those referred to in Considerando V of the appealed judgment, and it is possible to assimilate it to an action for nullity of title derived from possessory information (possessory information proceeding, información posesoria) (when processed in ordinary proceedings and not incidentally). It is reiterated that what was raised and must be resolved is an action aimed at annulling registry and cadastral entries, and therefore, the prerequisites to be examined, based on the evidence provided in the case file, are, in addition to the usual ones (right, standing (legitimación), and current interest), those specific to an action of this type: a) active standing (legitimación activa): the person who demands the nullity of the registry and cadastral entries must be the one affected by their existence; b) passive standing (legitimación pasiva): the defendant must be the holder of the right publicized by the registry and cadastral entries (survey plans) sought to be annulled; c) right: the plaintiff must be the holder of the right claimed to be protected, in this case, they must be the holder of the property right publicized by the registry entry and the survey plan that they allege is affected or overlapped by the existence of what is sought to be annulled; d) current interest: at the date of filing the complaint and resolving the process, the situation that gave rise to the claim must persist (that is, the registry entries and survey plans sought to be annulled must exist, because if not, the claim loses interest); e) existence of formal or substantive defects that affect the validity of the registry inscription and the survey plan sought to be annulled: their existence and seriousness must be proven (that is, that they are irremediable errors), in order to apply the sanction of nullity. The burden of proof for the cited prerequisites falls on the plaintiff. In this regard, it must be remembered that in court, each party bears the burden of proving the facts that serve as a prerequisite for the right or situation they claim to be declared or recognized in their favor, regardless of their procedural position; if they fail to do so, they must bear the risk of a lack of proof, which results in a decision unfavorable to their interests (Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applied supplementarily).\n\n\n\n\n**VII.-** On the other hand, and given what is the subject of grievances, the origin of the inscriptions sought to be annulled must also be highlighted. It is clarified that a large part of the documentary evidence that supports the factual framework that was taken as proven is found in the copies of case 08-000717-1027AC, in which facts very similar to those heard in this matter are debated, only they relate to different properties of the claimant (plaintiff in that case, Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.), corresponding to numbers A-287519-000, survey plan A-180715-1994, and A-287518-000, survey plan A-180720-1994. In that matter, and to make clear why copies of it were incorporated into this process, it was debated that, just as happens with the property of the plaintiff here, the IDA had authorized the titling of several lands based on survey plans that overlapped other already registered lands; among them that of [Nombre2], who is the one who promoted the procedure that gives rise to the property of the defendant company here, Black and White Chen Hsien. Because they involve different parties and lands, the trial judge rejected the exception of lis pendens, but it is evident that the factual framework and the origin of the conflict, in both processes, are based on coincident facts, which are explained below.\n\n\n\n\n**VIII.-** In 1994, the IDA titled in favor of Villa Escondida S.A. the property A-287520-000, which reports survey plan A-180721-94. It later belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, who sold it to Bakus Centroamericana S.A., and finally, upon acquiring it at a public auction in 2010, it passed to the plaintiff. Several years later, and based on the Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves (Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales) No. 55 of August 12, 2002, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002, the IDA processed administrative procedures to title lands, through the recognition of ownership (dominio) in areas of national reserves where possessors had acquired the right to registry titling. Based on that regulation, [Nombre2] filed a proceeding through which property A-401476-000 originated, based on the survey plan questioned in this case, A-647865-2000. Its numeral 4 provided: \"The Institute shall carry out land titling actions in areas of the country determined by the Board of Directors of this Institute and that are part of the National Reserves, where there are possessors of unregistered lands, whose areas are no larger than three hundred hectares\". For the titling process, Article 10 indicated that the proof of possession for 10 years in a public, peaceful, continuous manner and as owner was borne by the applicant, and it required a cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) and a sworn statement from the possessor that the property was not registered in the Public Registry, and other requirements identical to those established by the Law of Possessory Proceedings (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). If no opposition was presented to the proceeding, the Department of Agrarian Land Management (Departamento de Ordenamiento Agrario), through the Directorate of Formation and Settlement Development (Dirección de Formación y Desarrollo de Asentamientos), would proceed to refer it to the Board of Directors of the IDA, so that it could authorize the segregation and transfer of the property referred to in said application (given that zones were decreed for titling to apply this regulation) (Article 13). That is why the notary appears making a segregation and incorrectly adds \"sale,\" which is not technically correct, because in reality the IDA was not selling any land to whom it titled, it was only formalizing a title of the property right, which, it was supposed, the recipient had already proven to have acquired. The inscription was approved without prejudice to third parties with better right and with restrictions and conditions (Articles 17 and 18). Therefore, when a titling process was approved based on such regulations, what the IDA did was segregate from the titling zone registered in its name the land that was demonstrated to belong to a private person, under the assumption that they had complied with the legal requirements. It was a procedure with requirements very similar to those established in the Law of Possessory Proceedings (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). The referenced Regulation was declared unconstitutional in votes 2063-07 of February 14, 2007, and 4517-07 of March 28 of that year, of the Constitutional Chamber. Regarding what was registered before that declaration, if it is claimed that a land was improperly titled based on said procedure, the generated title can be reviewed, in order to verify whether or not it should be annulled. In this case, that is what is alleged, given that the plaintiff claims his property corresponds to the title that the same IDA generated in 1994 originally in favor of Villa Escondida S.A., number CED1, described in survey plan A-180721-94. But later, based on a survey plan that has an erroneous location, an invalid inscription was generated and authorized, and this is the one corresponding to the property now belonging to the defendant company. The foregoing is clarified because the existence of a documentary plan overlap (traslape) does not necessarily generate the nullity or invalidity of a registry entry for a property, given that it may happen that two registry entries are correctly registered and correspond to materially existing properties, and what exists is only a problem of survey plans (due to an erroneous location or positioning in one of them or both). This could happen because previously, the inscription of lands without their corresponding survey plan was permitted (which changed as of the current Notarial Code), and also because the cadastre system (survey plan registry), until recent times, has begun to be reformed to prevent two survey plans with partially or totally coincident locations from being cadastrally registered. However, in this case, what happened and the premise to be evaluated is different, given that the defendant's survey plan effectively turns out to be the basis of the registry inscription that is sought to be annulled, since it is based on it that the administrative procedure that gave rise to that registry entry was processed. Therefore, if the survey plan is erroneous and that was not corrected in time, the titling or title that was generated based on it is directly affected, as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence is destroyed.\n\n\n\n\n**IX.-** The plaintiff effectively managed to demonstrate in this matter that his property A-287520-000 (survey plan A-180721-94) was generated by a title granted to him by the IDA, in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, without it being demonstrated in the case file that he possesses, as such, land that does not correspond to the registry title, nor to the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) that has been assigned to him registrally. He also proved that property A-401476-000 (survey plan A-647865-2000) was generated based on an administrative titling procedure that required the land to be unregistered and, logically, a survey plan that did not overlap with another. The procedure that generated the defendant's property was processed by the former IDA at the request of [Nombre2]. And it was reliably proven in the case file that survey plan A-647865-2000 overlaps by 85% the survey plan corresponding to the plaintiff's property (see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II, images 5 to 48 and ). According to the report issued by the Topography area of the IDA's Huetar Norte Regional Directorate, official communication DRHN-A-0148-2006, dated March 10, 2006, (on which what is indicated in official communication DRHN-AL-149-07 of May 8, 2007, from the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the former IDA is based), that survey plan also has a location problem, given that engineer Víctor Pizarro concluded that \"there is a significant displacement with respect to the information yielded by the GPS, in terms of the real location of [Dirección1] and consequently also of [Dirección2]\" (the latter belonging to the defendant here). He concluded that the displacement was approximately one kilometer (see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, image 72). Therefore, this Court concludes that even if the property that Mrs. [Nombre2] intended to title exists (which was not proven in this matter), if it exists, it would be located elsewhere. But what was reliably proven is that the survey plan she used to title not only already affected another previously cadastrally registered one, but also had location problems. And that is precisely the basis for the petitions raised in the complaint being resolved.\n\n\n\n\n**[Nombre3].-** In accordance with what has been explained, grievances (agravios) 1, 2, and 3 are admissible. As corrected by this Court when referring to the facts not proven, certainly what was indicated in the unproven facts two and three of the appealed judgment was incorrect. It was indeed proven that the plaintiff's property \"was born\" many years before the defendant's property, and its survey plan was also cadastrally registered earlier. Furthermore, it was not proven that either that title or the plaintiff's survey plan were invalid or did not correspond to the reality of what he possesses. He is also correct that it is appropriate to annul the defendant's survey plan, not only because when it was cadastrally registered, another one already existed, resulting in an 85% overlap (without it being demonstrated in the case file that the plaintiff's survey plan is incorrect), but also because the technical reports provided as documentary evidence state that the defendant's property survey plan has a displacement problem of approximately one kilometer according to the real coordinates. In this regard, two survey plans that coincide totally or partially with different lands cannot subsist, and precisely for this reason, the parties are referred to the jurisdictional venue to define this situation and eliminate it in favor of registry publicity and the legal certainty of the parties, especially when fundamental rights, such as the property right, are at stake. The erroneous conclusion of the trial judge, which the appellant claims is due to a mistaken appreciation of the documentary evidence referring to the reports demonstrating the plan overlap (traslape), is due to the mistaken qualification of the action filed (which the instance judge considered as replevin (acción reivindicatoria), which it was not). Therefore, what was concluded based on the evidence evaluated was certainly erroneous, and for this reason, the Court made amendments to the factual framework (proven and unproven facts). The trial judge also erred in concluding that it was not proven that the inscription of the defendant's land was anomalous, given that it was demonstrated that the base survey plan for the procedure that gave it origin is erroneous and overlaps with a previous one, for which reason it must be annulled. When one of the fundamental requirements of a titling procedure is invalidated, such as the base survey plan being valid and corresponding to the reality of what is being titled, the procedure is evidently directly affected in terms of its validity. It must be clarified in this sense that the Court does not have certainty, with the evidence provided to the case file, about whether the defendant's property exists elsewhere, because judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) evidence or expert opinions in that regard were not offered by the parties, nor ordered by the trial judge. Neither did the defendant company file a counterclaim to allow that issue to be analyzed. If that aspect had been proven, a different conclusion might have been reached regarding the nullity of the defendant's registry entry, if it were proven that the only thing existing was an error regarding the location of its survey plan. Even numeral 33 of the Law on Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público) makes it possible that, when the geographic location of a property is incorrectly recorded in the registry entries, the error may be corrected in a public deed, with the appearance of the titleholder of the property, and the notary must attest that the corrected geographic location is the correct one, in view of a survey plan duly registered in the National Cadastre. And Articles 89 and 90 of the Public Registry Regulations (Reglamento del Registro Público) also provide that when there is a material error affecting an inscription (due to inaccuracy of the title that originated the inscription), and that error is attributable to the party who registered it, and it is accepted by them or declared judicially, the rectification of the error must be done by means of a new inscription based on a new document, without prejudice to what third parties may claim in relation to the falseness or nullity of the erroneous inscription. And also, numeral 64 of the National Cadastre Regulations (Reglamento del Catastro Nacional) offers solutions to rectify registry entries for errors derived from the inscription of survey plans, by providing: \"When a survey plan number is cited in an entry of the Public Registry of Real Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble) that does not correspond to the property or that is not registered, the National Cadastre, upon request of the interested party, shall proceed to register the corresponding survey plan, in accordance with current regulations. Once the survey plan is registered, the registry owner must, under registry formalities, make the request before the Public Registry of Real Property, to correct the information and adjust it to the material reality\". But none of this could be analyzed or applied in this case, because the parties did not allow the analysis of that issue in what was the subject of debate, and much less proved anything about it. The defendant's response did not provide in that sense any clarifying information (see in the associated documents folder, file EXPN1- TOMO II_Parte1 (Documento Digitalizado, images 9 to 13), nor is information in that sense extracted from the documentary evidence. The defendant company only alleges that it cannot verify that the plaintiff's property belongs to him, despite the abundant documentary evidence in that sense, and affirms that its property was acquired under the protection of the public faith of the registry (fe pública registral) in a public deed. Although it denies the existence of an overlap (traslape) between properties and survey plans, it does not explain its arguments in this regard nor provide proof of the first point, and also, inexplicably, rejects that the plaintiff's property existed before its own. It offers no documentary, testimonial, or expert evidence to support its affirmations about there being no property or survey plan overlap (traslape) and only files the defenses cited in the recitals, denying that the plaintiff has the right to file this complaint. Therefore, the appellant is correct in claiming that he did not bear the burden of proving that what existed was not a coordinate error in the survey plans and that the defendant's property existed without being materially overlapped with his own. The burden of proof for those facts, given what was debated, fell on the defendant (Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applied supplementarily). The plaintiff proved the facts corresponding to him to support the prerequisites of the nullity action filed, that is, that his title and survey plan were previously registered (and it was not proven they were invalid or that what was possessed based on them was different from what is indicated in the Public Registry of Real Property (Registro Público Inmobiliario)); as well as that the subsequent survey plan of the defendant overlaps with his own and gave rise to a title and registry inscription with a serious defect, because it originated from a survey plan that documentarily encompassed other unregistered land. In this regard, numerals 4 and 10 of the referenced Regulation 55 required that the titling had to be on unregistered lands and based on a cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado), which logically had to correspond to the property being titled, without including other lands in its drawing, even less so if they were already registered.\n\n\n\n\n**XI.-** Likewise, the fourth grievance (agravio cuarto) must be accepted, given that not only should the titling of the defendant's land not have been approved based on a survey plan that already overlapped with another corresponding to a prior registry inscription (nor was it proven that this plaintiff's survey plan was invalid or incorrect), but also, given the reliably proven overlap (traslape), the appellant is correct in claiming that, based on registry principles, true reality and legal certainty, the inconsistency present in the survey plans, which affects the registry inscriptions of the cited properties, must be rectified. The foregoing because, based on a survey plan that overlaps with a previous one, a registry entry was originated that is, therefore, affected in its essence, given that the geographic location of the land contradicts what had been registrally recorded in another prior registry entry. In this regard, it must be kept in mind that no inscription (neither registry nor cadastral) validates null or voidable acts or contracts, with the exceptions of law referring to third parties, which are not applicable in this case and are therefore not analyzed (arts. 455, 456, 457, 472, 479, 487, 848 of the Civil Code (Código Civil)). The Law on Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público), No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, reformed by law No. 6145 of November 18, 1967, establishes that the purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of the registered goods or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of these goods or rights (Article 1). It is further established that it is not appropriate to register a document that is in contradiction with another previously filed (Article 8). The Public Registry Regulations (Reglamento del Registro Público), No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, repeats what is indicated in the Civil Code, in that the inscription in the Public Registry of a title generating real rights does not validate the registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to the law. Numerals 56 and 60 also contain the \"principle of successive tract,\" which establishes that documents in which a person other than the one appearing in the preceding inscription appears as the holder of the right should not be registered, and that no document can be registered when another opposing it has been registered or noted. Regarding registry publicity, guaranteed in numerals 63 and following of said Regulation, the rule of \"unity of information\" stands out, which implies that each inscription of a property will contain, in addition to the registration number, all the information referring to it (and one of those fundamental pieces of data is precisely the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado), especially when that inscription originates in a titling process like the one analyzed in this case). The Law of the National Cadastre (Ley del Catastro Nacional), 6545 of March 25, 1981, and its Regulation 34331 of 11/29/2007, regulate, as is relevant to highlight for this case, what concerns the functions of the Cadastre (graphic, numerical, literal, and statistical representation and description of all lands included in the national territory) and the requirements, effectiveness, and validity of cadastral survey plans (planos catastrados) (Articles 1, 2, 29, 30 of the Law and 1, 2, 5, 17 to 41, 64 of the Regulation). Numeral 5 of this second regulatory body highlights that the scopes obtained from the cadastre, for purposes of the Real Property Registry are the following: a).\n\na) Configure an updated cartography that allows for the technical control of survey plans (planos de agrimensura) submitted for their cadastral registration. b) Create a cartographic-cadastral data bank, which allows for varied, timely, and accurate information to be obtained. c) Reconcile and debug real estate information, as an instrument that guarantees legal certainty. Therefore, if a cadastral plan (plano catastrado) exists that contradicts a previous one and which also originated a registry entry, given that it was the basis for titling a property, that situation must be legally corrected. For their part, Articles 53 to 57 establish the application of registry principles compatible with the Cadastre, which, due to their importance for what is resolved, are transcribed: \"Article 54.—On the Principle of Application. The Cadastre shall not register or process any plan ex officio. The formal submission of the plan to the cadastre shall signify its request for processing. Article 55.—Principle of Chain of Title. The Cadastre shall provide the necessary means so that there is a perfect concatenation between the inscriptions of cadastral plans (planos catastrados). There must be a perfect sequence and correlation between the inscriptions and their modifications, cancellations, or extinctions. Article 56.—Principle of Cadastral Publicity. The cadastre's information is public. The Directorate is responsible for determining the way in which this information may be consulted, without risk of adulteration, loss, or deterioration thereof... Article 57.—Effects of cadastral publicity. The main objective of the survey plan (plano de agrimensura) is to contribute to the establishment, improvement, and maintenance of the cadastre, to graphically define the property, and to give publicity to its boundaries. The cadastral plan (plano catastrado) is not in itself absolute proof of what is recorded therein. The survey plan drawn up unilaterally by the interested party, even if inscribed in the Cadastre, by itself cannot affect third parties, does not constitute a title transferring ownership of property, does not prove ownership or possession in accordance with the provisions of Article 301 of the Civil Code. ... Cadastral registration does not validate documents that are null or voidable according to the law, nor shall it correct their defects... (the underlining is not part of the original). Therefore, there must be conciliation between the registry information and the cadastral information. Indeed, after the Notarial Code came into force, and as of May 1999 according to its transitional provisions, a cadastral plan (plano catastrado) is required in every registry movement referring to a property, except in cases of mortgage cancellations, the creation of a family patrimony, and seizure (Article 30 of the Ley del Catastro Nacional). With Ley Nº 8710, effective as of 2009, Art. 2 of the Creation of the National Registry Law, Nº 5695, was reformed, in order to create the Real Property Registry. The objective of this reform was to strengthen real estate registry security, through the integration of the functions of the Catastro Nacional and the Public Registry of Real Property, into a single Registry under the sole direction of the so-called Registro Inmobiliario. This change intends to achieve a complete match between the graphic information contained in the Cadastre and the literal information of the Real Property Registry, and thus have a Registry with unequivocal graphic and legal information, in accordance with the purposes of the Program for the Regularization of the Cadastre and the Registry. Finally, votes 870 of August 30, 2006, and 110 of February 16, 2006, are important, in which it is concluded, as also happens in this case, that there must be, as the legal system so provides, concordance between cadastral plan (plano catastrado) and registry information and that the inscription of the plan does not validate the existence of defects. Regarding the fifth grievance, it is rejected, given that the appellant does not state any specific disagreement, only highlighting that the lower court put the terms \"annul\" and \"rescind\" in quotes, but does not explain how or in what way this affects him. Nevertheless, it is clarified that although the plaintiff asks that the registry inscription be \"rescinded,\" that request is understood as one for nullity, given what is alleged in his lawsuit and because it is technically correct, in accordance with the regulations that she herself cites as legal grounds (Articles 456 and following of the Civil Code).\"\n\n2-) THE ORDINARY LAWSUIT DISMISSED IN ALL ITS ASPECTS filed by **[Nombre1]** against BLACK AND WHITE BECARD S.A is without merit, 3-) The plaintiff [Nombre1] is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of the lawsuit\", (See Virtual Desk of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 354233, folio 481).-\n\n---\n\n**4.-** The plaintiff filed an appeal with an express indication of the reasons relied upon to refute the thesis of the trial court., (See Virtual Desk of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, digital file number 354233, folio 484 to 492).-\n\n---\n\n**5.-** In the substantiation of the process, the legal prescriptions have been observed, and there are no errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the judgment.-\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez and;\n\n**CONSIDERANDO**\n\n---\n\n**I.-** The Tribunal shares only proven facts 1, 2, 4, as they have support in the evidence contained in the case file, with the following clarifications and modifications: To **fact three** add: The original citations of the registry entry for the property of [Dirección1] CED7 (of the defendant), are 0536-00002779-01-0026-001, and it was registered on September seventh, two thousand four (add as evidence in the associated documents folder, a copy of the deed testimony in images 155 to 180). To **fact four** add: The current citations of the registry entry for the property of [Dirección2] (of the plaintiff), are 2010-00139648-01, indicating a public auction as the acquisitive cause (add as an evidentiary element in the associated documents folder, a) Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 37 to 47 and 81 to 154; b) Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without asso/ VOLUME I PART II: images 11 to 14, 42, 101, 149 to 161). Proven facts 1 (for not being a fact but a description of what was sought in the process), and 2 for being a legal conclusion are rejected. Of the same category, and given what is the subject of debate and what was alleged in the appeal, add the following: **8** ) In the ordinary process EXPN1, filed by Corporación Fiduciaria Del Valle S. A. against the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, IDA, now Institute of Rural Development, INDER), [Nombre4] , [Nombre5] , [Nombre4] ., [Nombre6] and Black And White Becard S.A, it was sought to declare: \"...With merit the REIVINDICATION lawsuit. That by virtue of having overlapped the survey plans and properties owned by their represented parties, THE CORRESPONDING CANCELLATION BE ORDERED, of survey plans numbers A-273723-1995, with the measurement of fifty-nine hectares one thousand one hundred and twenty and twenty-five square decimeters and A- 276578-1995, with a supposed measurement of one hundred twenty hectares five thousand two hundred seventy-eight meters and forty square decimeters, also of the cadastral survey plans (planos catastrados) numbers A-647865-2000 and 647866-2000... That the cancellation of the registration entry for the properties of the Partido de Alajuela, registered under real folio registration number CED8 [Placa1] ... likewise be ordered. The defendant is condemned to pay both costs of this action and also the payment of the damages caused\". To date, it has not been finally resolved, given that it was pending an appeal filed in a requested third instance, having been resolved in the second instance in vote 650-F-12 (see first instance judgment in such process, in the associated documents folder, file EXPN2 VOLUME II_Part1 (Digitized Document), images: 24 to 43; public information contained in the information systems of the First Chamber, Appeal: 845-S1-12, at http://intranet/salaprimera/index.php/proyectos-circulando; and from the online management system, external consultation of the Agrarian Tribunal, at https://pjenlinea.poder-judicial.go.cr/SistemaGestionEnLinea/Publica/wfpDetExped.aspx?c=20110029000183&d=0029). **9)** The survey plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, corresponding to the registry entry of the defendant's property, was surveyed (catastró) on August eighteenth, two thousand (see in the associated documents folder, Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: registry certification and survey plan, images 13 to 18).- **10)** The survey plan A-one hundred eighty thousand seven hundred twenty-one-ninety-four, corresponding to the registry entry of the plaintiff's property, was surveyed (catastró) on April twenty-second, nineteen ninety-four (see in the associated documents folder, Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: registry certification and survey plan, images 9 to 13 and 19 to 21).- **11)** The plaintiff's property originated from a sale and segregation made by the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, IDA, now Institute of Rural Development, INDER), from its Alajuela property two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-zero zero zero, to a company called Villa Escondida S.A. on September twenty-first, nineteen ninety-four. In deed thirteen of the protocol of notary Carlos García, the property is described as land for agriculture, located in the [Dirección3] , , bordering to the north: border zone; south: public road; east: Abdenago Vargas and west: Villa Frontera S.A., with a measurement of two hundred eighty-nine hectares five thousand twelve meters twenty-five square decimeters, according to survey plan A-one hundred eighty thousand seven hundred twenty-one-ninety-four. Later it belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, which sold it to Vakus Centroamericana S.A. and finally, by acquiring it at a public auction, it passed to the plaintiff (see in the associated documents folder, a) Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 37 to 47 and 81 to 154; b) Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without asso/ VOLUME I PART II: images 11 to 14, 42, 101, 149 to 161). **12)** The defendant's property, of the province of Alajuela four hundred one thousand four hundred seventy-six-zero zero zero, was registered through a land titling process carried out based on the Regulation for Land Titling in National Reserves (Reglamento para la titulación de Tierras en Reservas Nacionales) of the former IDA, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002. The administrative procedure was filed by [Nombre4] , based on the survey plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand. The final agreement of the IDA that allowed the registration was 45 of session 16-04 of May 3, 2004, and based on that, a deed of \"sale and segregation\" was executed on May twenty-eighth, two thousand four, by the former IDA, of its Alajuela property two hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred ninety-eight-zero zero zero in favor of [Nombre4] . In the cited deed, one hundred thirty-four-seventy-nine of the protocol of notary Hubert Araya, the property is described as national reserve land, northern zone, Santa Rosa, located in the [Dirección3] , , bordering to the north: Llanos nacionales and [Nombre7] ; south: public road and [Nombre8] ; east: [Nombre9] and west: Llanos naturales and [Nombre10] , with a measurement of fifty-nine hectares one thousand two hundred ten meters twenty-five square decimeters, according to survey plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand. Several limitations are imposed, among them, that the titling was done without prejudice to third parties with better rights. That deed generated the registry entry cited in proven fact three (see in the associated documents folder, file Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without associating/ VOLUME I PART I: images 155 to 173; file Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without asso/ I EVIDENCE PART I, and Digitized File/Incorporate External Document without asso/ I EVIDENCE PART II).\n\n---\n\n**II.-** What is provided regarding unproven facts is not shared, as the first two are legal conclusions and the last is unnecessary, given what is indicated in the proven facts. Of the same nature, consider as not proven: **1** / . That the plaintiff was materially dispossessed of the land he claims as his own. **2/.** That the defendant company materially occupies an area that is within the plaintiff's land. **3/**. That the plaintiff possesses land that does not correspond to its registry title nor to the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) that has been assigned to it in the registry. **4/.** That the physical location of the defendant's property is in a different place from that indicated on the survey plan.\n\n**III.-** This Tribunal hears the appeal filed by the plaintiff, against judgment 03 -2 013 of January 8, 2013, in which the lawsuit was declared without merit with costs at his charge. The appellant party states the following grievances in a reiterative manner, so they are summarized and ordered to facilitate their analysis: **1)** He claims, it was proven he is the owner of the Alajuela property 287520-000, described in survey plan A-180721-1994, which \"came into legal existence\" in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, of volume 19 of the protocol of notary Carlos García Anchía (folio 37). He assures, this was not controverted by the defendant. He affirms, when the Public Registry assigns a number to a property it follows a continuous order, so between his property and that of the defendant company, 467144 titles were granted, therefore he affirms his property came into legal existence before that of the defendant company. Therefore, he claims what is indicated in unproven fact 3 is not true, regarding that it was not accredited that his registry right was born before that of the defendant. He highlights, her land, as stated on folio 132, came into existence according to deed 134-79 of May 28, 2004, of the protocol of notary Hubert Rojas Araya. He concludes, his property existed ten years before that of the defendant, which contradicts what the court a quo says in unproven fact 3. He adds, the inconsistency arising from the overlap of survey plans and registry entries, according to the Cadastral Division (División Catastral) of the Public Property Registry (Registro Público Inmobiliario), is that the overlap of survey plans does exist, so the last survey plan prepared, which describes the defendant's property, must be declared null. That, he says, was recorded in the ordinary process 08-000717-1027CA, where the report of the topographer Víctor [Nombre11] Salas, from the General Directorate of IDA, official letter DRHN-A-0148-2006 of March 10, 2006, appears. In it, it is said that there is an overlap regarding the cartographic location of the parties' survey plans, among others. He considers, refuting those two studies/expert reports (sic) from two public institutions, one of them the highest authority (sic) regarding survey plans, is only possible through a professional, scientific, and serious study, not as the a quo deduced when it indicates in the challenged judgment, that the physical identity of the plaintiff's and defendant's real property cannot be taken as demonstrated, due to inconsistencies in the boundaries and their location, the latter based on a certain road that appears on a different side in each of the aforementioned survey plans, in addition to the inconsistency in the measurements and the geometric shape. With respect to these two factors, he says, he refers to the report of the Cadastral Division (División Catastral), which includes a sketch and indicates the overlap is partial, and he highlights, it was never said in the lawsuit or in another brief that it was an exact or total overlap. He reiterates, it was demonstrated with the documentary evidence that the plaintiff's property came into legal existence before that of the defendant. For this reason, he says, the administrative procedure was started before the Directorate of the National Cadastre (Dirección del Catastro Nacional), now of the Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario), file 534-2009 RIM, in which that study about the overlap is recorded. He claims, having assessed that evidence, the a quo would have \"deduced\" differently, in accordance with the law and in concordance with the principle of sound rational criticism. For this reason, he says, the non-assessment of the documentary evidence is to the detriment of his rights. He offers as evidence for a better provision, to demonstrate that it was proven his property was born legally before the defendant's, a notarial certification of the electronic study, where it is seen that the administrative warning retroacts its effects to the day of the property's registry inscription, October 7, 1994. If that was seen in all the registry certifications, the a quo should not have considered that fact as unaccredited. **2)** He refutes, that the second fact was considered unproven, that the coming into legal existence of the land was anomalous or illegal; much less concluding that the lawsuit was devoid of evidence to demonstrate those two facts. Having assessed the evidence he would have concluded, he says, that an overlap does exist, as was deduced in the referred reports. He claims, he is aggrieved because for some things one of those reports is used, but to say that an overlap exists it is not. He considers, it cannot be deduced that there was a lack of interest on his part in offering an expert opinion as evidence, in order to conduct a field inspection and determine that it is not a coordinate error in the survey plans and that the property existed without being overlapped. He considers, it is not their responsibility to demonstrate the existence of the materiality of the defendant company's property in another location other than where the survey plan that describes it places it, as he says, it is she who must prove that her property does not overlap others, as the coordinates of his survey plan indicate, and he highlights there is an ordinary process prior to this one, where it is determined that both that survey plan and the property's registry entry be annulled.\n\n**3)** He argues that the lower court did not assess all the documentary evidence provided. He again cites what was said about administrative file 534-2009 RM and the report from the former IDA, which need not be reiterated as it is unnecessary. He transcribes data from the report prepared by [Name11], which forms part of the second aforementioned file, specifically: 1) a survey was conducted with GPS starting in the town of Caño Negro up to the end of the road at the entrance to the farm of Mr. [Name5]; 2) copies of the plans under study were obtained from the National Registry for comparison; 3) the plans were mounted in AutoCAD, using the traverse and assigning coordinates according to the Zapote cartographic sheet; 4) all adjacent plans found in the National Cadastre were assembled to check for possible overlaps between them. He also transcribes the conclusions of that surveyor, highlighting that: a) it is determined that there is an overlap in terms of cartographic location between plans A-647866-2000, A-647865-2000, A-180715-94, and A-180720-94, and that plan A-647865-2000 overlaps A-180715-1994 and 180721-1994 (of Villa Escondida, [Address4]) by approximately 85%. Therefore, he states, it is not true that the lower court assessed this evidence, because if it had, it would not have said that this study did not cite his farm. b) it is concluded that there is a significant displacement of one kilometer, based on the GPS information, regarding the real location of [Address5] and consequently also of A-647865-2000. c) Regarding plans A-180721-1994, A-180715-94, A-180720-94, and A-180716-94, other plans were found, different from those of Mr. [Name5] and Mrs. [Name4], that overlap totally or partially. He refers to folio 20 of the IDA administrative file, in which it can be seen that plans A-685715-2001, A-647865-2000, and A-647866-2000 overlap his farm, described in plan A-180721-1994. He lists that A-685715-2001 overlaps A-647866-2000; the latter overlaps A-647865-2000, and that one overlaps A-180721-94 (overlapped) (he stresses that this term should be noted). And from file 534-B1, he points out folio 121, which contains the resolution of January 14, 2010, indicating that the administrative proceeding to investigate the possible overlap is ex officio, and it refers to the farms of Alajuela [Address6], [Address7], and [Address8], which he considers further proof that the defendant's farm spatially overlaps his own. All of this evidence, he says, not assessed by the lower court, establishes his claim that he has every right over his farm and that all the claims of the lawsuit should have been granted to him. He transcribes paragraphs from recital VI of the challenged judgment regarding the lack of proof of the property's identity and lack of passive standing, and about the disinterest in providing expert evidence. He complains that the judge indicated that an expert should have appeared to corroborate the alleged overlap in situ, but he considers this was unnecessary, given that the IDA expert had appeared with GPS in hand and had corroborated it before the Cadastre ruled likewise. He adds that the lower court has no basis or capacity to contradict what was indicated by those bodies. If the report prepared with a field inspection by surveyor [Name11] of the IDA is not accepted as documentary evidence, he requests that it be admitted as evidence for better resolution.\n\n**4)** He argues that, given the overwhelming documentary evidence and the overlap of plans, and therefore of farms registered in the Public Registry, as determined in the referenced study, this contravenes the guidelines of the principle of concordance contained in Article 18 of the Cadastre Law 6545, Executive Decree 33982 of August 8, 2007, and 343311 of November 29, 2007. He says that, based on the principle of cadastral and registry specificity, real truth, and legal certainty, this inconsistency present in the plans and the cited properties must be corrected, and if not, both the registry entry for land A-401476-000 and plan A-647865-2000 must be annulled, for encroaching upon the space occupied by his property. He argues that the registration of the defendant's farm was illegal, and she accepted this when she acquired the property, knowing that it overlapped with another, which is why she must be held responsible for opposing a truth determined by the Cadastral Division. **5)** He complains that the lower court placed the terms \"annul\" and \"rescind\" in quotation marks, given that he requested the rescission of the plan and the registry entry, when the Royal Academy defines these terms as follows (only cited as relevant): rescind: to render a contract or obligation without effect; annul: to render a provision or contract without force, to suspend something previously announced or projected. He requests that the appeal be granted and that his requests be granted, as the documentary evidence is overwhelming and clear. The evidence offered for better resolution is rejected, based on Article 52 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, as it is deemed unnecessary in light of what was debated by the parties.\n\n**IV.-** Before analyzing the specific grievances, it is important to highlight the following aspects, which are not grounds for nullity of the proceeding or the contested judgment, as they do not cause defenselessness, or the parties did not express disagreement in a timely manner against the lower court's decision (Articles 26 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law and 503 of the Labor Code, applied supplementarily). Nevertheless, they must be reviewed by the lower court Judge to avoid repeating them. The action filed, as will be explained, is not a reivindicatory action (acción reivindicatoria) but an atypical action, which, although related to property rights, does not have restitutory effects, because it solely seeks the annulment of the registry inscription of the entries where the property right over a piece of land is publicized, and of the plan that depicts it and based on which such registration was originated. Had it been a reivindicatory action, the judicial inspection evidence should have been conducted even ex officio, as it is necessary for the judge to review the substantive elements of the action to decide whether to reject or admit it in the judgment. In this case, although the lower court incorrectly classified the lawsuit as a reivindicatory action, it is not observed that a judicial inspection was carried out, but as indicated, it is not necessary because it is not that type of procedural action. Secondly, even if only documentary evidence had been offered, the conciliation stage or phase must be conducted ex officio. Depending on what is debated, the judge must determine whether it should be held at the seat of the Court or at the location of the facts, as sometimes the latter is relevant for the agreements that can be reached. In this case, a conciliation hearing was scheduled at the request of one of the parties (see resolution of March 14, 2011), but even if such a request had not been filed, the Court must take into account that it is its obligation to schedule a conciliation phase and weigh where it should be held, based on what is debated. It should also be noted that the defendant filed the preliminary defense of lis pendens, which should have been resolved interlocutorily (Article 44-b) of the referenced Law) and not left to be analyzed in the judgment, as was done in this case.\n\n**V.-** Given that the first grievances refer to the manner in which the evidence was assessed, and the conclusions of the lower court regarding the factual framework held as proven or not proven in the appealed judgment, it must be borne in mind that numeral 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law requires the court to study and select the sources of evidence obtained, in order to establish their efficacy for resolving the conflict submitted to its cognizance, through perception, representation or reconstruction, and deductive or inductive reasoning. The court must express the principles of equity or law on which it bases its criterion. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has explained: \"... the assessment of evidence in conscience does not imply resolving arbitrarily, since every judge - as a public official - is subject to the principle of legality, which constitutes an imperative of adaptation of public action, not only to specific norms on a determined subject, but to the entire block of legality; therefore, they cannot rule in disregard of constitutional principles and rights, since they are limited by the rules of sound criticism and principles of reasonableness, which, when properly applied, lead to the harmony of jurisdictional assessment with the Political Constitution, as this Chamber understood in judgment 3484-94, at twelve o'clock on July eighth, nineteen ninety-four, in which it determined that the powers of judges to assess evidence in conscience are not contrary to the judge's obligation to provide grounds for their decisions, a constitutional principle that comprises due process... () it is not unconstitutional to grant the agrarian judge the power to assess evidence in conscience and to value it without strict adherence to the rules of common law as provided in the second paragraph of the challenged Article 54, provided that a reasoned judgment is issued, that is, it analyzes the result of the evidence gathered in the proceeding and expresses the principles of equity or law on which it bases its criterion, thereby respecting the minimum contents of the right of defense\" (*vote 3657 of May 7, 2003*. See in the same sense *votes No. 398 of June 6, 2001, of the First Chamber. In the same sense, see votes No. 206 of March 26, 1999, No. 46 of April 26, 1995; No. 66 of February 6, 2009, and 364 of May 28, 2009, of the Agrarian Tribunal*).\n\n**VI.-** In order to analyze the grievances presented, it is important to first clarify that what was filed by Mr. [Name1] is not a reivindicatory action (acción reivindicatoria), given that neither in the claims nor in the facts of the lawsuit does he claim to have been materially dispossessed of any area that must be returned to him, an essential requirement in an action of that type (Article 320 of the Civil Code, applied supplementarily). What is debated, as the claimant correctly points out in the lawsuit, is solely the existence of a plan overlap, and based on that, the annulment of the registry inscription of the defendant's farm and its plan is requested. Therefore, the lower court's classification is incorrect, which affects the analysis of some of the assessed elements. However, as explained, this is not grounds for nullity, as the legal classification can be corrected in the second instance. The procedural action contained in the lawsuit of this matter is a protective action for property rights, because it seeks the annulment of the registry inscription of the title that gives rise to the defendant's farm and its plan. The invalidity (nullity) of requested inscriptions (both registry and cadastral) has a direct impact on the parties' right of property, but it does not correspond to any of those mentioned in recital V of the challenged judgment, and it is possible to assimilate it to the action for annulment of a title derived from a possessory information proceeding (when processed via ordinary proceedings and not incidental). It is reiterated that what was filed and must be resolved is an action aimed at annulling registry and cadastral entries, and therefore, the elements to be examined, based on the evidence provided in the case file, are, in addition to the usual ones (right, standing, and current interest), those specific to an action of this type: a) active standing: the person seeking the annulment of the registry and cadastral entries must be the one affected by their existence; b) passive standing: the defendant must be the holder of the right publicized by the registry and cadastral entries (plans) sought to be annulled; c) right: the plaintiff must be the holder of the right claimed to be protected; in this case, they must be the holder of the property right publicized by the registry entry and the plan they claim is affected or overlapped with the existence of what is sought to be annulled must also correspond to it; d) current interest: at the date of filing the lawsuit and resolving the proceeding, the situation that gave rise to the claim must persist (that is, the registry entries and plans sought to be annulled must exist, since otherwise the claim loses interest); e) existence of formal or substantive defects that affect the validity of the registry inscription and the plan sought to be annulled: their existence and seriousness must be proven (that is, that they are irreparable errors), in order to apply the sanction of annulment. The burden of proof for the cited elements falls on the claimant. In this regard, it must be remembered that in a judicial forum, each party bears the burden of proving the facts that serve as a basis for the right or situation claimed to be declared or recognized in their favor, regardless of their procedural position; if they fail to do so, they must bear the risk of lack of proof, which translates into a decision unfavorable to their interests (Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied supplementarily).\n\n**VII.-** On the other hand, and given what is the subject of the grievances, the origin of the inscriptions sought to be annulled must also be highlighted. It is clarified that a large part of the documentary evidence supporting the factual framework held as proven is found in the copies of proceeding 08-000717-1027AC, in which facts very similar to those heard in this case are debated, except that they relate to different farms belonging to the claimant (plaintiff in that proceeding, Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.), corresponding to numbers A-287519-000, plan A-180715-1994, and A-287518-000, plan A-180720-1994. In that matter, and to make clear why copies of it were incorporated into this proceeding, it was debated that, just as with the farm of the plaintiff here, the IDA had authorized the titling of several lands based on plans that overlapped other already registered lands; among them that of [Name4], who is the one who promoted the procedure that gave rise to the farm of the defendant company here, Black and White Chen Hsien. Because they involve different parties and lands, the lower court rejected the exception of lis pendens, but it is evident that the factual framework and the origin of the conflict in both proceedings are based on coincident facts, which are explained below.\n\n**VIII.-** In 1994, the IDA titled in favor of Villa Escondida S.A. farm A-287520-000, which reports plan A-180721-94. It subsequently belonged to Corporación Fiduciaria Círculo, which sold it to Bakus Centroamericana S.A., and finally, by acquiring it at a public auction in 2010, it became the property of the plaintiff. Several years later, and based on the Regulation for the Titling of Lands in National Reserves No. 55 of August 12, 2002, published in La Gaceta 173 of September 10, 2002, the IDA was processing administrative procedures to title lands, through the recognition of ownership in national reserve areas where the possessors had acquired the right to registry titling. Based on this regulation, [Name4] filed a petition through which farm A-401476-000 was originated, based on the plan questioned in this case, A-647865-2000. Its numeral 4 provided: *\"The Institute shall carry out land titling actions in areas of the country determined by the Board of Directors of this Institute and which are part of the National Reserves, where there are possessors of unregistered lands (tierras no inscritas) in the Public Registry, whose areas do not exceed three hundred hectares\"*. For the processing of the titling, Article 10 indicated that the proof of possession for 10 years in a public, peaceful, continuous manner and as owner (a título de dueño) was the responsibility of the applicant, requiring a cadastral plan and a sworn statement from the possessor that the farm was not registered in the Public Registry, and other requirements identical to those established by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. If no opposition to the procedure was filed, the Department of Agrarian Land Management, through the Directorate of Settlement Formation and Development, would proceed to submit it to the Board of Directors of the IDA, so that it could authorize the segregation and transfer of the property referred to in said application (given that titling zones were decreed to apply this regulation) (Article 13). This is why it appears that the notary is making a segregation and incorrectly adds \"sale,\" which is not technically correct, because in reality, the IDA did not sell any land to those whom it titled; it merely formalized a title of the right of property, which it was assumed had been proven to have already been acquired. The inscription was approved without prejudice to third parties with better rights and with restrictions and conditions (Articles 17 and 18). Therefore, when a titling process based on such regulation was approved, what the IDA did was segregate from the registered titling zone in its name, the land that was proven to belong to a private person, under the assumption that it had met the legal requirements. It was a procedure with requirements very similar to those established in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The referenced Regulation was declared unconstitutional in votes 2063-07 of February 14, 2007, and 4517-07 of March 28 of that year, by the Constitutional Chamber. Regarding what was inscribed before that declaration, if it is claimed that a land was improperly titled based on this procedure, the generated title can be reviewed to verify whether it should or should not be annulled. In this case, that is what is alleged, given that the plaintiff claims his farm corresponds to the title that the same IDA generated in 1994 originally in favor of Villa Escondida S.A., number CED9, described in plan A-180721-94. But later, based on a plan that has an erroneous location, an invalid inscription was generated and authorized, which is the one corresponding to the farm now owned by the defendant company. The foregoing is clarified because the existence of a documentary overlap of plans does not necessarily generate the annulment or invalidity of a registry entry for a property, given that two registry entries can happen to be correctly inscribed and correspond to materially existing farms, and what exists is merely a problem with plans (due to an incorrect location or placement in one or both of them). This could happen because previously the inscription of lands without their corresponding plan was allowed (which changed as of the current Notarial Code), and also because the cadastre system (registry of plans) has only recently begun to be reformed to prevent two plans from being able to be cadastral registered with a partially or totally coincident location. However, in this case, what happened and the premise to evaluate is different, given that the defendant's plan indeed turns out to be the basis of the registry inscription sought to be annulled, as it is based on that plan that the administrative procedure that gave rise to that registry entry was processed. Therefore, if the plan is erroneous and this was not corrected in time, the titling or title that was generated based on it is directly affected, by destroying one of the fundamental pillars for its existence.\n\n**IX.-** The claimant effectively managed to prove in this matter that his farm A-287520-000 (plan A-180721-94) was generated by a title granted by the IDA, in deed 13 of September 21, 1994, without it having been proven in the case file that he possesses a piece of land as such that does not correspond to the registry title, nor to the cadastral plan that has been registrally assigned to it. He also proved that farm A-401476-000 (plan A-647865-2000) was generated based on an administrative titling procedure that required the land not to be registered and logically a plan that did not overlap with another. The procedure that generated the defendant's farm was processed by the former IDA at the request of [Name4]. And it was conclusively proven in the case file that plan A-647865-2000 overlaps plan A-180721-94, which corresponds to the plaintiff's farm, by 85% (*see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE II, images 5 to 48 and*). According to the report issued by the Topography area of the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the IDA, official letter DRHN-A-0148-2006, of March 10, 2006, (on which what is indicated in official letter DRHN-AL-149-07 of May 8, 2007, from the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate of the former IDA is based), this plan also has a location problem, given that engineer Víctor [Name11] concluded that *\"there is a significant displacement with the information provided by the GPS, regarding the real location of [Address5] and consequently also of [Address9]\"* (the latter belonging to the defendant here). He concluded that the displacement was approximately one kilometer (*see in the associated documents folder, file Expediente Digitalizado/Incorporar Documento Externo sin aso/ I PRUEBAS PARTE I, image 72*). Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that even if the farm that Mrs. [Name4] intended to title exists (which was not proven in this matter), if it exists, it would be located elsewhere.\n\nBut what was reliably proven is that the plan she used for titling not only affected another previously registered plan, but also had location problems. And that is precisely the basis for the claims raised in the lawsuit being resolved.

          [Nombre12].- According to what has been explained, grievances 1, 2, and 3 are accepted. As corrected by this Court when referring to the unproven facts, what was indicated in the unproven facts two and three of the challenged judgment was indeed incorrect. It was effectively proven that the plaintiff's property \"was born\" many years before the defendant's property, and its plan was also registered first. Furthermore, it was not proven that either that title or the plaintiff's plan were invalid or did not correspond to the reality of what he possesses. The appellant is also correct that the defendant's plan must be annulled, not only because when it was registered another plan already existed, resulting in an overlap of 85% (without it having been demonstrated in the proceedings that the plaintiff's plan is incorrect), but also because in the technical reports provided as documentary evidence, it is recorded that the plan for the defendant's property has a displacement problem of approximately one kilometer according to the actual coordinates. In this regard, two plans that coincide totally or partially with different lands cannot coexist, and it is precisely for this reason that the parties are referred to the jurisdictional venue so that this situation can be defined and eliminated in favor of registry publicity and the legal certainty of the parties, with fundamental rights being at stake, such as the right to property. The erroneous conclusion of the lower court (a quo), which the appellant claims is due to a mistaken assessment of the documentary evidence referring to the reports showing the plan overlap, is due to the incorrect classification of the action filed (which the trial judge considered as an action for recovery of possession (reivindicatoria), when it was not). Therefore, the conclusion based on the assessed evidence was indeed erroneous, and for this reason, the Court made amendments to the factual framework (proven and unproven facts). The lower court also erred in concluding that it was not proven that the registration of the defendant's land was anomalous, given that it was demonstrated that the base plan for the procedure that gave rise to it is erroneous and overlaps with a previous one, for which reason it must be annulled. When one of the fundamental requirements of a titling procedure is invalidated, such as the base plan being valid and corresponding to the reality of what is being titled, the procedure is evidently directly affected in terms of its validity. It must be clarified in this sense, that the Court has no certainty, based on the evidence submitted to the proceedings, as to whether the defendant's property exists in another place, because the parties did not offer, nor did the lower court order, evidence of judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) or expert opinions (peritajes) in this regard. Nor did the defendant company file a counterclaim to allow this issue to be analyzed. Had that aspect been proven, a different conclusion might have been reached regarding the nullity of the defendant's registry entry (asiento registral), if it had been proven that the only thing that existed was an error regarding the location of its plan. Indeed, Article 33 of the Ley de Inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público allows that when the geographic location of a property is incorrectly recorded in the registry entries, the error may be corrected by public deed (escritura pública), with the appearance of the owner of the property, and the notary must attest that the corrected geographic location is correct, in view of a duly registered plan in the Catastro Nacional. And Articles 89 and 90 of the Reglamento del Registro Público also provide that when a material error affects an entry (due to inaccuracy of the title that originated the entry), and that error is attributable to the party who registered it, and that party accepts it or it is declared judicially, the rectification of the error must be made through a new entry motivated by a new document, without prejudice to what third parties may claim regarding the falsity or nullity of the erroneous entry. And also Article 64 of the Reglamento del Catastro Nacional offers solutions to correct registry entries due to errors derived from the registration of plans, providing: \\\"When a plan number cited in an entry of the Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble does not correspond to the property or is not registered, the Catastro Nacional, upon request of the interested party, shall proceed to register the corresponding plan, in accordance with current regulations. Once the plan is registered, the registered owner must, under registry formalities, make the request before the Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble to clean up the information and adjust it to the material reality\\\". But none of this could be analyzed or applied in this case, because the parties did not allow the analysis of that issue within what was subject to debate, much less proved anything in this regard. The defendant's response did not provide any clarifying data in this sense (see in the associated documents folder, file EXPN2 TOMO II_Parte1 (Digitized Document, images 9 to 13), nor is information in this sense extracted from the documentary evidence. The defendant company only alleges that it cannot attest that the plaintiff's property belongs to him, despite the abundant documentary evidence in this regard, and affirms that its property was acquired under the protection of the public faith of the registry (fe pública registral) by public deed. Although it denies the existence of an overlap between properties and plans, it does not explain its arguments in this regard nor provide evidence of the former, and also, inexplicably, rejects that the plaintiff's property existed before its own. It offers no documentary, testimonial, or expert evidence to support its claims about the non-existence of an overlap of properties or plans and only raises the defenses cited in the resultandos, denying that the plaintiff has the right to bring this lawsuit. Therefore, the appellant is correct in claiming that he did not bear the burden of proving that what existed was not a coordinate error in the plans and that the defendant's property existed without materially overlapping with his. The burden of proof for those facts, given what was debated, fell on the defendant (Article 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementally). The plaintiff proved the facts incumbent upon him to support the elements of the nullity action filed, that is, that his title and plan were previously registered (and it was not proven they were invalid or that what was possessed based on them was different from what was indicated in the Registro Público Inmobiliario); as well as that the defendant's subsequent plan overlaps with his and gave rise to a title and registry entry with a serious defect, as it originated from a plan that documentarily encompassed another unregistered land. In this regard, Articles 4 and 10 of the referred-to Regulation 55 required that titling must be over unregistered lands and based on a registered plan (plano catastrado), which logically had to correspond to the property being titled, without including other lands in its drawing, especially if they were already registered.

          XI.- Likewise, grievance four must be accepted, given that not only should the titling of the defendant's land not have been approved based on a plan that already overlapped with another corresponding to a prior registry entry (nor was it proven that the plaintiff's plan was invalid or incorrect), but also, given the reliably demonstrated overlap, the appellant is correct in claiming that, based on registry principles, true reality, and legal certainty, the inconsistency present in the plans, which affects the registry entries of the cited properties, must be corrected. The foregoing because, based on a plan that overlaps with a prior one, a registry entry was originated that is therefore affected in its essence, given that the geographic location of the land contradicts what had been registrally recorded in another prior registry entry.  In this regard, it must be borne in mind that no registration (neither registry nor cadastral) validates null or voidable acts or contracts, with the legal exceptions referring to third parties, which are not applicable in this case, and therefore are not analyzed (arts. 455, 456, 457, 472, 479, 487, 848 of the Código Civil). The Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en Registro Público, N°3883 of May 30, 1967, amended by Law No. 6145 of November 18, 1967, establishes that the purpose of the Registro Nacional is to guarantee the security of registered properties or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of these properties or rights (Article 1). It is also established that a document that is in contradiction with another previously filed shall not be registered (Article 8). The Reglamento del Registro Público, N°26771-J of February 18, 1998, repeats what is indicated in the Código Civil, to the effect that registration in the Registro Público of a title generating real rights does not validate any registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to law. Articles 56 and 60 also contain the \"principle of successive tract (principio del tracto sucesivo)\", which establishes that documents shall not be registered in which a person different from the one appearing in the preceding entry appears as the holder of the right, and that no document may be registered when another that opposes it has been registered or annotated. Regarding registry publicity, guaranteed in Articles 63 and following of said Regulation, the rule of \"unity of information\" stands out, which implies that each registration of a property shall contain, in addition to the registration number (número de matrícula), all information referring to it (and one of those fundamental data is precisely the registered plan, especially when that registration originates from a titling process like the one analyzed in this case). The Ley del Catastro Nacional, 6545 of March 25, 1981, and its Reglamento 34331 of 11/29/2007, regulate, insofar as relevant to highlight for the case, matters concerning the functions of the Catastro (graphic, numerical, literal, and statistical representation and description of all lands included in the national territory) and the requirements, efficacy, and validity of registered plans (Articles 1, 2, 29, 30  of the Law and 1, 2, 5, 17 to 41, 64 of the Reglamento). Article 5 of this second normative body highlights that the scopes obtained from the cadastre, for the purposes of the Registro Inmobiliario, are the following: a). To configure an updated cartography that allows the technical control of the survey plans (planos de agrimensura) submitted for cadastral registration. b) To create a cartographic-cadastral database, allowing varied, timely, and real information to be obtained. c) To reconcile and cleanse property information, as an instrument that guarantees legal certainty. Therefore, if a registered plan exists that contradicts a previous one and which also originated a registry entry, given that it was the basis for titling a piece of land, that situation must be legally corrected. For their part, Articles 53 to 57 establish the application of registry principles compatible with the Catastro, which, due to their importance for what is resolved, are transcribed: \\\"Article 54.—Of the Principle of Petition (Principio de Rogación). The Catastro shall not register or process any plan ex officio. The formal submission of the plan to the cadastre shall signify its request for processing. Article 55.—Principle of Successive Tract. The Catastro shall endeavor the necessary means for a perfect concatenation between the entries of registered plans. There must be a perfect sequence and correlation between the entries and their modifications, cancellations, or extinctions. Article 56.—Principle of Cadastral Publicity (Principio de Publicidad Catastral). The information of the cadastre is public. The Directorate is responsible for determining the manner in which this information may be consulted, without risk of adulteration, loss, or deterioration thereof... Article 57.—Effects of cadastral publicity. The main objective of the survey plan is to contribute to the establishment, improvement, and maintenance of the cadastre, to graphically define the property and publicize its boundaries. The registered plan is not in itself absolute proof of what is recorded in it. The survey plan drawn up unilaterally by the interested party, even if registered in the Catastro, by itself cannot affect third parties, does not constitute a document transferring ownership (título traslativo de dominio), and does not prove property or possession in accordance with the provisions of Article 301 of the Código Civil. ... Cadastral registration does not validate documents that are null or voidable in accordance with the law, nor shall it correct their defects... (the underlining is not from the original). Therefore, there must be reconciliation between registry and cadastral information. In fact, after the entry into force of the Código Notarial, and starting from May 1999 according to its transitional provisions, a registered plan is required for every registry transaction referring to a property, except in cases of mortgage cancellations, the encumbrance as family patrimony (patrimonio familiar), and a lien (embargo) (Article 30 of the  Ley del Catastro Nacional). With Law No. 8710, effective from 2009, Article 2 of the Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional, No. 5695, was amended to create the Registro Inmobiliario. The objective of this reform was to strengthen legal certainty in real estate registration by integrating the functions of the Catastro Nacional and the Registro Público de Bienes Inmuebles into a single Registry under the single direction of the so-called Registro Inmobiliario. This change aims to fully match the graphic information contained in the Catastro with the literal information of the Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, and thus have a Registry with unequivocal graphic and legal information, in accordance with the purposes of the Programa de Regularización del Catastro y el Registro. Finally, important are decisions (votos) 870 of August 30, 2006 and 110 of February 16, 2006, in which it is concluded, as also happens in this case, that there must be, as ordered by the legal system,  concordance between registered plan and registry information and that the registration of the plan does not validate the existence of defects. As for the fifth grievance, it is rejected, given that the appellant does not raise any specific disagreement, only highlighting that the lower court put the terms \"annul\" and \"rescind\" in quotation marks, but does not explain how or in what way this affects him. However, it is clarified that although the plaintiff requests that the registry entry be \"rescinded\" (rescinda), that request is understood as one of nullity, given what was alleged in his lawsuit and because it is technically the correct term, based on the regulations he himself cites as legal grounds (Articles 456 et seq. of the Código Civil).

          [Nombre12] II.- In accordance with the foregoing, regarding the appealed matters, for the reasons given by this Court, the appealed judgment is hereby partially revoked, insofar as it \\\"upheld the exceptions of lack of right (falta de derecho) and the so-called generic exception of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest and lack of standing (legitimación) filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., and dismissed the lawsuit in all its aspects, imposing the payment of procedural and personal costs on the plaintiff\\\". Instead, the exceptions of lack of right and the incorrectly filed generic exception of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The lawsuit is granted as follows, with any matter not expressly indicated being understood as denied: 1. The registry entry (asiento registral) for the property of [Dirección10]         , to which the citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001 correspond, in the name of BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is annulled. 2. The registered plan (plano catastrado) A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, registered on August 18, two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. Payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party (Article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria). Once this judgment is final, let the corresponding execution copies (ejecutorias) be sent by the trial court to the Registro Público Inmobiliario, Subdirección Registral, and Subdirección Catastral respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the declared nullities (Article 11 of the Ley de Inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público). In all other respects not modified (meaning regarding the rejection of the exception of litis pendencia), the decision remains firm. It is clarified that, given that what was decided in proceeding 08-000717-1027CA was not final at the date of issuance of this judgment, the matters raised herein were decided without taking into account what was ordered therein (the foregoing because, although the nullity of the defendant's registry entry and its plan was equally requested in that proceeding, the cause of action is based on the encumbrance on a different property, number CED10, in the name of Corporación Fiduciaria del Valle S.A.). Although due to what was requested there is an influence from one proceeding to another, it was indeed not appropriate to declare a litis pendencia, as the lower court resolved. The effects of what is finally decided in that matter, if necessary, must be assessed in due course by the parties and the courts, in relation to what has been resolved in this case.

POR TANTO

           The evidence for a better decision (prueba para mejor resolver) offered by the appellant is rejected. Regarding the appealed matters, the appealed judgment is partially revoked, solely insofar as it \\\"upheld the exceptions of lack of right and the so-called generic exception of sine actione agit in its modalities of lack of current interest and lack of standing filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., and dismissed the lawsuit in all its aspects, imposing the payment of procedural and personal costs on the plaintiff\\\". Instead, the exceptions of lack of right and the incorrectly filed generic exception of sine actione agit, in its modalities of lack of current interest, lack of active and passive standing, filed by the defendant Black And White Becard S.A., are rejected. The lawsuit is granted as follows, with any matter not expressly indicated being understood as denied: 1. The registry entry for the property of Alajuela four hundred one thousand four hundred seventy-six-zero zero zero, to which the citations 0536-00002779-01-0026-001 correspond, in the name of BLACK AND WHITE BECARD SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is annulled. 2. The registered plan A-six hundred forty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five-two thousand, registered on August 18, two thousand, corresponding to that registry entry, is annulled. 3. Payment of procedural and personal costs is imposed on the defendant party.

\n\nOnce this judgment becomes final, the court of first instance shall forward the corresponding writs of execution (ejecutorias) to the Public Real Estate Registry (Registro Público Inmobiliario), the Registry Subdirectorate (Subdirección Registral), and the Cadastral Subdirectorate (Subdirección Catastral), respectively, for the corresponding legal effects of the declared nullities.\n\nYUYZ2P8SXEG61\nRUTH ALPIZAR RODRÍGUEZ - JUEZ/A\nDECISOR/A\n\nHCAT2M14JE861\n[Nombre13] -\nJUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\nG6A3LYW5ABI61\n[Nombre14] -\nJUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\nEXP: EXPN2\nII Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección11] , , [Dirección12] de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]" }