{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-848624", "citation": "Res. 00430-2018 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Nulidad de sentencia por anticipación en información posesoria y necesidad de aclarar naturaleza del acceso", "title_en": "Annulment of early judgment in possessory information and need to clarify nature of access", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario anula la sentencia de primera instancia que aprobó una información posesoria y ordenó la inscripción de un inmueble en Golfito. La Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) apeló alegando que la sentencia se dictó antes del vencimiento del plazo de la audiencia final, y que no se aclaró si un acceso colindante al sur era una calle pública o una servidumbre de paso. El Tribunal determina que la sentencia fue emitida anticipadamente, sin haber dado oportunidad a la PGR de ejercer su derecho de audiencia, y que existían objeciones sustanciales sin resolver. Además, señala que la naturaleza del acceso (calle pública o servidumbre) es fundamental debido a los posibles bienes demaniales involucrados y que el informe municipal presentaba un defecto de forma por falta de firma del representante legal. Por lo tanto, se anula el fallo y se ordena al juzgado de instancia aclarar estos aspectos antes de dictar nueva sentencia, en garantía del debido proceso.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court annuls the lower court's judgment that approved a possessory information claim and ordered the registration of a property in Golfito. The Attorney General's Office (PGR) appealed, arguing that the judgment was issued before the deadline for the final hearing expired and that it was unclear whether the southern boundary access was a public road or an easement. The Court finds that the judgment was issued prematurely, denying the PGR the right to be heard, and that substantial objections remained unresolved. It further notes that clarifying the nature of the access (public road or easement) is essential due to potential public domain issues, and that the municipal report lacked a valid signature. Consequently, the judgment is annulled and the lower court is ordered to clarify these matters, ensuring due process before issuing a new ruling.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "23/05/2018", "year": "2018", "topic_ids": [ "property-and-titling", "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "información posesoria", "nulidad de sentencia", "audiencia final", "servidumbre de paso", "bienes demaniales", "debido proceso", "PGR (Procuraduría General de la República)" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "información posesoria", "nulidad procesal por anticipación", "audiencia final", "calle pública vs servidumbre", "bienes demaniales", "Tribunal Agrario", "debido proceso", "Municipalidad de Golfito" ], "keywords_en": [ "possessory information", "procedural annulment", "premature judgment", "final hearing", "public road vs easement", "public domain assets", "Agrarian Court", "due process" ], "excerpt_es": "El contenido del recurso de apelación contiene motivos suficientes para decretar la nulidad solicitada. En cuanto al primero, que reclama la sentencia se dictó en forma anticipada, sin haberse vencido el plazo de la audiencia final regulada en el artículo 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, ciertamente es un plazo importante, dado que esa norma lo establece con el fin de que la persona juzgadora puede revisar las objeciones finales que la PGR pueda presentar, respecto de las cuales exige pronunciamiento expreso sobre si se consideran fundadas o no. [...] Por consiguiente, lleva razón la PGR en su reclamo de haberse emitido la sentencia apelada en forma anticipada, sin darles el plazo total para poder contestar la audiencia final. Además, la oposición que plantea en su recurso de apelación se fundamenta en el informe contenido en el oficio MG-UTV-436-2017 de 10 de setiembre del 2017, emitido por la Municipalidad de Golfito. En el se informa que el acceso que en el plano hace se señala como calle pública por el [Dirección8] , la Municipalidad no lo considera de esa naturaleza, por no tener el mínimo de ley, por lo que califica de servidumbre de paso [...]. Ello constituye una violación al debido proceso para ambas partes y pese a esa omisión se procedió a emitir la audiencia final sin determinar la naturaleza del acceso cuestionado y posteriormente a emitir una sentencia en forma anticipada. Esa información es indispensable sea aclarada, por debido proceso y al estar de por medio bienes que podrían ser de naturaleza demanial.", "excerpt_en": "The appeal contains sufficient grounds to declare the requested annulment. Regarding the first ground, which complains that the judgment was issued prematurely, before the deadline for the final hearing regulated by Article 10 of the Possessory Information Law had expired, this deadline is indeed important, as the norm establishes it so that the judge may review the final objections the PGR may present, requiring an express ruling on whether they are well-founded or not. [...] Consequently, the PGR is correct in its complaint that the appealed judgment was issued prematurely, without granting the full deadline to respond to the final hearing. Moreover, the opposition raised in its appeal is based on the report contained in letter MG-UTV-436-2017 of September 10, 2017, issued by the Municipality of Golfito, which states that the access identified as a public road on the map is not considered as such by the Municipality because it does not meet the legal minimum, and is therefore classified as an easement [...]. This constitutes a due process violation for both parties, and despite this omission, the final hearing was held without determining the nature of the disputed access and a judgment was subsequently issued prematurely. This information is essential to be clarified, for due process and given the potential involvement of public domain assets.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Annulment granted", "label_es": "Nulidad decretada", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court annulled the lower court's ruling that approved the possessory information claim, because it was issued prematurely and without resolving substantial objections regarding the nature of an access that could be a public domain asset.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario anuló la sentencia de primera instancia que aprobaba la información posesoria, debido a que se dictó anticipadamente sin resolver objeciones sustanciales sobre la naturaleza de un acceso que podría constituir un bien demanial." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The content of the appeal contains sufficient grounds to declare the requested annulment.", "quote_es": "El contenido del recurso de apelación contiene motivos suficientes para decretar la nulidad solicitada." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "This information is essential to be clarified, for due process and given the potential involvement of public domain assets.", "quote_es": "Esa información es indispensable sea aclarada, por debido proceso y al estar de por medio bienes que podrían ser de naturaleza demanial." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The authority to speak on behalf of an entity belongs only to its legal representative; its officials cannot do so, even if they have the technical knowledge to prepare the reports.", "quote_es": "La potestad de pronunciarse a nombre de una entidad solo corresponde a su representante legal, no lo pueden hacer sus personas funcionarias, aunque tengan los conocimientos técnicos para elaborar los informes." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-10044", "citation": "Ley 139", "title_en": "Possessory Information Law", "title_es": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/07/1941", "year": "1941" }, { "id": "norm-36307", "citation": "Ley 833", "title_en": "Construction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Construcciones", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/11/1949", "year": "1949" }, { "id": "norm-38653", "citation": "Ley 5060", "title_en": "General Public Roads Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1972", "year": "1972" }, { "id": "norm-40197", "citation": "Ley 7794", "title_en": "Municipal Code", "title_es": "Código Municipal", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1998", "year": "1998" }, { "id": "norm-73504", "citation": "Ley 9078", "title_en": "Law on Public Roads and Road Safety", "title_es": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/10/2012", "year": "2012" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-87313", "citation": "Res. 02306-1991 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Revocation of street-vending permits requires due process", "title_es": "Revocación de permisos de ventas estacionarias debe respetar el debido proceso", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "06/11/1991", "year": "1991" }, { "id": "norm-10044", "citation": "Ley 139", "title_en": "Possessory Information Law", "title_es": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/07/1941", "year": "1941" }, { "id": "norm-36307", "citation": "Ley 833", "title_en": "Construction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Construcciones", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/11/1949", "year": "1949" }, { "id": "norm-38653", "citation": "Ley 5060", "title_en": "General Public Roads Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/08/1972", "year": "1972" }, { "id": "norm-40197", "citation": "Ley 7794", "title_en": "Municipal Code", "title_es": "Código Municipal", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1998", "year": "1998" }, { "id": "norm-73504", "citation": "Ley 9078", "title_en": "Law on Public Roads and Road Safety", "title_es": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/10/2012", "year": "2012" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-848624", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": true, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-10044", "norm_num": "139", "norm_name": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "14/07/1941" }, { "doc_id": "norm-36307", "norm_num": "833", "norm_name": "Ley de Construcciones", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/11/1949" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38653", "norm_num": "5060", "norm_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "22/08/1972" }, { "doc_id": "norm-40197", "norm_num": "7794", "norm_name": "Código Municipal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/04/1998" }, { "doc_id": "norm-73504", "norm_num": "9078", "norm_name": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/10/2012" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Firmar Documento \n\n*170000860419AG*\n\n \n\nEXPEDIENTE:\n\nEXPN1 - 5\n\nPROCESO:\n\nINFORMACIÓN POSESORIA\n\nPROMUEVE:\n\n[Nombre1] \n\nVOTO N° 430-F-2018\n\n \n\nTRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las trece horas y siete minutos del veintitrés de mayo de dos mil dieciocho.-\n\nPROCESO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovida por [Nombre1] , mayor, soltera, estudiante, cédula CED1 , vecina de Río Claro, Golfito. Intervienen como partes el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED2 - , representado por su apoderada general judicial Maryorie Madrigal Muñóz, cédula CED3- - y el ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, cédula CED4 . Actúa como apoderada especial judicial de la parte promovente, Leda Carvajal Oviedo, colegiada uno uno dos dos dos. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del II Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur, Corredores. \n\nRESULTANDO:\n\n 1.- La parte promovente pide se inscriba en el Registro Público Inmobiliario una finca que se describe así: \"Terreno, en Langostino, [Dirección1] , Provincia de Puntarenas, que según el plano catastrado … P-809373-02 posee una extensión de seis mil novecientos ochenta y un metros con ochenta y un decímetros cuadrados, cuyos linderos son: Norte: Eduardo Flores Sandí, Sur: [Dirección2] , Este: [Dirección3] Golfito\" (folios 15 a 18).-\n\n 2.- Se apersonaron el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural y La Procuraduría General de la República y no presentaron oposición (carpeta de escritos: archivo 03/10/17 08:07 y 08/08/17 10:59). \n\n 3.- El Juez Juan Gutiérrez Villalobos, del Juzgado Agrario de Corredores en sentencia 22-2018 del 12 febrero de 2018 que resolvió: POR TANTO \"Se aprueba la información posesoria. Con las afectaciones a que se refiere el artículo 17 de la Ley de informaciones Posesorias y sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho, se ordena al Señor Registrador del Registro de la Propiedad inscribir, por primera vez, a nombre de [Nombre2] , quien es mayor soltera, estudiante, portadora de la cédula de identidad CED5- - , vecina de Río Claro, costado sur de Coopealianza , la finca descrita en el plano inscrito en el Catastro Nacional bajo el número P-809373-02, que se describe así: Terreno de naturaleza agrícola, sito en el [Dirección4] , Cantón sétimo Golfito, de la Provincia de Puntarenas Mide: seis mil novecientos ochenta y un metros con ochenta y un decímetros cuadrados. Linda al Norte: [Nombre3] SandÍ, Sur: [Dirección5] , Este: [Dirección6] y Oeste Municipalidad de Golfito. El inmueble objeto de este proceso se estima en la suma de un millón de colones. RESTRICCIONES Y LIMITACIONES: 1) Además de las contenidas en el artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias 2) El inmueble a titular queda afectado a las reservas en cuanto a derechos de vía de las calles públicas que disponen los artículos 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y 19, inciso a, de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Sirva la certificación de esta sentencia para inscribir en el Registro de la Propiedad la finca relacionada\" (carpeta de escritos: archivo 12/02/18 a las 08:35).-\n\n 4.- La PGR apeló expresando sus motivos (carpeta escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44).-\n\n 5.- En la substanciación del proceso no se han respetado las disposiciones legales y existen errores u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo.- \n\nRedacta la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez, y;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- Por la forma como se resuelve, se omite pronunciamiento sobre los hechos probados.\n\n II.- En la sentencia impugnada 22 de 12 febrero de 2018, se aprobó la información posesoria y se ordenó inscribir el inmueble descrito en el plano P-809373-2002. Apela la PGR, con solicitud de nulidad concomitante, con base en lo siguiente: 1) Sostiene la sentencia se dictó en forma anticipada, dado que no había vencido el plazo de la audiencia final, que le fue notificada el 5 de febrero y vencía entonces hasta el día 16 siguiente. Califica esa audiencia como un requisito de validez de este tipo de procesos, considera no es una simple formalidad y cita como precedente judicial el voto 942-2010 de este Tribunal. 2) Reclama que se haya indicado como colindancia sur del terreno una calle pública que dice, de serlo, debería medir mínimo 8,50 metros. Pero además, sostiene que según lo informado en el proceso es una servidumbre. Por ello alega que “si a criterio del Juez por el rumbo sur se trata de una \"calle pública\", debió entonces haber prevenido… presentar un nuevo plano en el cual se redujera la cabida del inmueble en el porcentaje correspondiente al ancho de la vía, realizar una nueva descripción de la cabida resultante y acreditar la cancelación de dicho plano ante el Catastro Nacional, a fin de que no se vieran afectados intereses estatales. Caso contario debió proceder a rechazar la información con fundamento en el artículo 11 de la Ley dé Informaciones Posesorias por pretender la Inscripción de terrenos en perjuicio de bienes demaniales”. Pero si se considera no es calle pública si no servidumbre, “tampoco se podría tener por acreditada ya que la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias es un mecanismo Inadecuado e Ilegal de constituirla… Por lo antes expuesto, en-caso de que se tratase de una servidumbre, el rumbo SUR tenía que ser rectificado, indicando únicamente al propietario del inmueble colindante por ese rumbo”. Pide se anule la sentencia. De no ser así, se aclara que por el rumbo [Dirección7] colinda con zona marítimo terrestre (carpeta de escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44).- Aunque por la forma como se resuelve no resulta de interés verificar si la apelación se presentó dentro del plazo de ley, por lo objetado por la parte promovente al referirse a la apelación, se aclara que si fue interpuesta oportunamente. Nótese la sentencia fue emitida el 12 de febrero de 2018. La apelación se presentó el martes 20 de febrero siguiente, dentro de los 5 días hábiles siguientes a tal fecha, tomando en cuenta que las partes señalaron medios electrónicos para ser notificadas. De haberse notificado ese mismo día a todas las partes, a través de medios electrónicos, el plazo vencería y en fecha posterior si se notificó luego. Aunque el escrito de apelación de la PGR fue presentado por error ante otro Juzgado, consta en el correo de remisión al correcto, que fue recibido por el Juzgado de Corredores en tiempo, conforme lo dispone el numeral 953 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicado supletoriamente (ver copia de correo electrónico en carpeta de escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44 , imagen 1).\n\n III.- El numeral 592 del Código de Trabajo, aplicado por remisión del artículo 60 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, dispone que, antes de resolver los agravios de un recurso de apelación, el Tribunal debe revisar los procedimientos, para determinar si existe algún vicio o defecto procesal que de ser posible se deba subsanar, o en caso contrario, sancionar con nulidad procesal. Asimismo, el artículo 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, en lo que interesa dispone: \"Cuando sea del caso, los tribunales podrán, por iniciativa propia, declarar nulidades y disponer la reposición de trámites, a fin de corregir irregularidades que pudieran afectar la validez del proceso\". Por ende, si se encontrase que se ha omitido alguna formalidad, capaz de causar efectiva indefensión, debe decretarse la subsanación del vicio si es posible o bien la nulidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones, hasta donde sea necesario para orientar el curso normal del juicio. Al amparo de dichas regulaciones, esta sede ha mantenido el criterio de que la declaratoria de nulidad procesal procede extraordinariamente, cuando sea absolutamente indispensable su pronunciamiento, para evitar indefensión o para orientar el curso normal del procedimiento, por violación a formas esenciales en el trámite (artículos 194 a 198 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicados supletoriamente).\n\n IV.- El contenido del recurso de apelación contiene motivos suficientes para decretar la nulidad solicitada. En cuanto al primero, que reclama la sentencia se dictó en forma anticipada, sin haberse vencido el plazo de la audiencia final regulada en el artículo 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, ciertamente es un plazo importante, dado que esa norma lo establece con el fin de que la persona juzgadora puede revisar las objeciones finales que la PGR pueda presentar, respecto de las cuales exige pronunciamiento expreso sobre si se consideran fundadas o no. Pero ello no significa que en todos los casos en los que el plazo no haya vencido, deba necesariamente declararse la nulidad de una sentencia emitida en forma anticipada, sólo por ese motivo. No será pertinente hacerlo, cuando pese a que ello suceda, no exista una oposición fundada que no haya tenido la PGR, oportunidad presentar. En este caso, en resolución del 2 de febrero del 2018 se confirió audiencia final, la cual fue comunicada a todas las partes el 5 de febrero siguiente, con lo cual se tiene por notificada el martes 6 de febrero, por tratarse de medios electrónicos. El plazo de ocho días vencía el viernes 16 de febrero (carpeta de documentos asociados: archivo 02/02/2018 08:20:36 y carpeta de notificaciones). Por consiguiente, lleva razón la PGR en su reclamo de haberse emitido la sentencia apelada en forma anticipada, sin darles el plazo total para poder contestar la audiencia final. Además, la oposición que plantea en su recurso de apelación se fundamenta en el informe contenido en el oficio MG-UTV-436-2017 de 10 de setiembre del 2017, emitido por la Municipalidad de Golfito. En el se informa que el acceso que en el plano hace se señala como calle pública por el [Dirección8] , la Municipalidad no lo considera de esa naturaleza, por no tener el mínimo de ley, por lo que califica de servidumbre de paso (carpeta de escritos: archivo 16/11/2017 03:07:33 ). Desde su incorporación al proceso, en noviembre de 2017, la PGR hizo reclamos sobre que se considerase ese acceso servidumbre de paso, según consta en memoriales de 11 de diciembre de 2017 y 29 de enero de 2018. Además, pese que el Despacho puso en conocimiento el oficio citado a la parte promovente en resolución del 20 de noviembre de 2017 (carpeta de documentos asociados: archivo 20/11/2017 13:13:12), ésta no se pronunció ni tampoco se resolvieron ninguna de las objeciones u observaciones que la Procuraduría presentó al respecto. Ello constituye una violación al debido proceso para ambas partes y pese a esa omisión se procedió a emitir la audiencia final sin determinar la naturaleza del acceso cuestionado y posteriormente a emitir una sentencia en forma anticipada. Esa información es indispensable sea aclarada, por debido proceso y al estar de por medio bienes que podrían ser de naturaleza demanial. Esto por cuanto, si efectivamente se trata el acceso de una calle pública y no de una servidumbre, deben corregirse procedimientos para que se ajuste el ancho mínimo requerido legalmente, lo cual exige de presente un nuevo plano se corrijan los datos pertinentes, como la cabida del inmueble titular (artículos 2 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 y 5 de la Ley de Construcciones; 2 de la Ley de Tránsito y votos 2306-91 de 6 de noviembre de 1991 y 1245 de 8 de mayo de 1002 de la Sala Constitucional). Y si es una servidumbre, además del nuevo plano que especifique esa situación, debe el Juzgado de instancia proceder a pedir las aclaraciones pertinentes sobre quien es la persona dueña de esa franja, con el fin de verificar que esté debidamente constituido ese gravamen y se notifique debidamente a quien corresponda en relación con tal. Por ende, la resolución recurrida se emitió en forma anticipada, al no haberse terminado de recibir toda la prueba y aclarar todos los datos confusos que constan en el expediente, en relación con el [Dirección9] de la [Dirección10] a titular. Tome nota además el Juzgado, que el oficio MG-UTV-436-2017 de 10 de setiembre del 2017, contiene un defecto de forma que debe también ser subsanado, para considerar que fue válidamente emitido por la Municipalidad de Golfito, aspecto que además debe tener presente para revisar en casos futuros. Dicho oficio no fue firmado ni validado por quien representa al ente estatal, error común pero que los Juzgados, dada la naturaleza de los informes, no pueden pasar por alto. La potestad de pronunciarse a nombre de una entidad solo corresponde a su representante legal, no lo pueden hacer sus personas funcionarias, aunque tengan los conocimientos técnicos para elaborar los informes. En lo que interesa para este caso, así lo dispone el numeral 17 del Código Municipal: \"Corresponden al alcalde municipal las siguientes atribuciones y obligaciones: ...n) Ostentar la representación legal de la municipalidad, con las facultades que le otorguen la presente ley y el Concejo Municipal\". Por ende, debe subsanarse ese defecto, solicitando un nuevo informe o la validación del referido por la persona representante de la Municipalidad, antes de continuar los procedimientos.\n\nV.- De conformidad con lo expuesto, conforme lo solicita la PGR, se anula la sentencia recurrida. Proceda el A quo, previo a emitir sentencia, en garantía del debido proceso, a resolver lo pertinente sobre la naturaleza del acceso señalado por el [Dirección9] en el plano base, y en función de ello proceder conforme corresponde legalmente, según lo explicado en el considerando anterior. Debe también subsanar lo indicado en el considerando anterior sobre el informe solicitado a la Municipalidad de Golfito.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe anula la sentencia 22 de 12 febrero de 2018. Debe el juzgador de instancia, previo a emitir sentencia, en garantía del debido proceso, resolver lo pertinente sobre la naturaleza del acceso señalado por el [Dirección9] en el plano base, y en función de ello, prevenir las correcciones en el plano y otros datos que deban ser aclarados o corregidos, conforme lo explicado en el penúltimo considerando. Debe también subsanar lo necesario para la validez del informe solicitado a la Municipalidad de Golfito.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n*E67WVKDWWUK61*\n\nE67WVKDWWUK61\n\n[Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n*NYA0XPTKXQ861*\n\nNYA0XPTKXQ861\n\n[Nombre5] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\n*47D433CWU0S4Y61*\n\n47D433CWU0S4Y61\n\n[Nombre6] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nEXP: EXPN1\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": "**VOTE N° 430-F-2018**\n\n**AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.- At thirteen hours and seven minutes on the twenty-third of May of two thousand eighteen.-**\n\n**POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDING** (PROCESO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA) promoted by **[Name1]** , of legal age, single, student, identification number CED1 , resident of Río Claro, Golfito. Appearing as parties are the **AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE** (INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO), legal identification number CED2 - , represented by its general judicial attorney-in-fact **Maryorie Madrigal Muñóz**, identification number CED3- - , and the **STATE** (ESTADO), represented by the Prosecutor **Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua**, identification number CED4 . Acting as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the promoting party is **Leda Carvajal Oviedo**, bar association number one one two two two. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores.\n\n**WHEREAS** (RESULTANDO):\n\n 1.- The promoting party requests that a property be registered in the Public Real Estate Registry, described as follows: *\"Land, in Langostino, [Address1] , Province of Puntarenas, which according to cadastral map … P-809373-02 has an area of six thousand nine hundred eighty-one square meters and eighty-one square decimeters, whose boundaries are: North: Eduardo Flores Sandí, South: [Address2] , East: [Address3] Golfito\"* (folios 15 to 18).-\n\n 2.- The Rural Development Institute (Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) and the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) appeared and did not present opposition (briefs folder: file 03/10/17 08:07 and 08/08/17 10:59).\n\n 3.- Judge Juan Gutiérrez Villalobos, of the Agrarian Court of Corredores, in judgment 22-2018 of February 12, 2018, resolved: THEREFORE (POR TANTO) *\"The possessory information is approved. With the encumbrances referred to in Article 17 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and without prejudice to third parties with better right, the Registrar of the Property Registry is ordered to register, for the first time, in the name of [Name2] , who is of legal age, single, student, holder of identity card CED5- - , resident of Río Claro, south side of Coopealianza, the property described in the map registered in the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional) under number P-809373-02, which is described as follows: Land of agricultural nature, located in [Address4] , Seventh Canton Golfito, of the Province of Puntarenas. It measures: six thousand nine hundred eighty-one square meters and eighty-one square decimeters. It is bounded to the North: [Name3] SandÍ, South: [Address5] , East: [Address6] and West: Municipality of Golfito. The property subject to this process is estimated at the sum of one million colones. RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: 1) In addition to those contained in Article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. 2) The property to be titled is subject to the reservations regarding rights of way of public roads provided for in Articles 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and 19, subsection a, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The certification of this judgment shall serve to register the related property in the Property Registry\"* (briefs folder: file 12/02/18 at 08:35).-\n\n 4.- The Attorney General's Office (PGR) appealed, expressing its grounds (briefs folder: file 20/02/2018 01:19:44).-\n\n 5.- In the substantiation of the proceeding, legal provisions have not been respected and there are errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the ruling.-\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, and;\n\n**CONSIDERING** (CONSIDERANDO)\n\nI.- Due to the manner in which it is resolved, a pronouncement on the proven facts is omitted.\n\n II.- In the challenged judgment 22 of February 12, 2018, the possessory information was approved, and the registration of the property described in map P-809373-2002 was ordered. The PGR appeals, with a concomitant nullity request, based on the following: 1) It maintains that the judgment was issued prematurely, given that the period for the final hearing had not expired, which was notified to it on February 5 and therefore expired until the following day, the 16th. It qualifies this hearing as a validity requirement for this type of proceeding, considers it is not a simple formality, and cites as judicial precedent vote 942-2010 of this Tribunal. 2) It complains that a public road was indicated as the south boundary of the land, which it says, if it is one, should measure a minimum of 8.50 meters. But furthermore, it maintains that according to what was reported in the proceeding, it is an easement (servidumbre). For this reason, it alleges that “if in the Judge's opinion the south side involves a 'public road,' then he should have ordered… the presentation of a new map in which the capacity of the property was reduced by the percentage corresponding to the width of the road, to make a new description of the resulting area and to certify the cancellation of said map before the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional), so that state interests would not be affected. Otherwise, he should have proceeded to reject the information based on Article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias for attempting the registration of land to the detriment of public domain property (bienes demaniales)”. But if it is considered not a public road but an easement (servidumbre), “it could also not be considered accredited since the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is an Inadequate and Illegal mechanism to constitute it… Based on the foregoing, if it were an easement (servidumbre), the SOUTH side had to be rectified, indicating only the owner of the adjacent property on that side”. It requests that the judgment be annulled. If not, it is clarified that on the [Address7] side it borders the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (briefs folder: file 20/02/2018 01:19:44).- Although, due to the manner in which it is resolved, it is not of interest to verify whether the appeal was filed within the legal period, regarding the objection by the promoting party when referring to the appeal, it is clarified that it was filed in a timely manner. Note that the judgment was issued on February 12, 2018. The appeal was filed on Tuesday, February 20 following, within the 5 business days following that date, taking into account that the parties designated electronic means for notification. Had it been notified that same day to all parties, via electronic means, the period would expire on a later date if notified afterwards. Although the PGR's appeal brief was mistakenly filed before another Court, it is recorded in the referral email to the correct one that it was received by the Corredores Court on time, as provided for in numeral 953 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily (see copy of email in briefs folder: file 20/02/2018 01:19:44, image 1).\n\n III.- Numeral 592 of the Código de Trabajo, applied by remission of Article 60 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, provides that, before resolving the grievances of an appeal, the Tribunal must review the procedures to determine if there is any procedural defect or flaw that, if possible, should be corrected, or otherwise, sanctioned with procedural nullity. Likewise, Article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, to the extent relevant, provides: \"When applicable, the tribunals may, on their own initiative, declare nullities and order the repetition of procedures, in order to correct irregularities that could affect the validity of the proceeding.\" Therefore, if it is found that some formality has been omitted, capable of causing effective defenselessness, the correction of the defect must be decreed if possible, or else the nullity of the actions or resolutions, as far as necessary to guide the normal course of the trial. Under the protection of said regulations, this court has maintained the criterion that the declaration of procedural nullity proceeds extraordinarily, when its pronouncement is absolutely indispensable, to avoid defenselessness or to guide the normal course of the procedure, due to violation of essential forms in the processing (Articles 194 to 198 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily).\n\n IV.- The content of the appeal contains sufficient grounds to decree the requested nullity. As for the first, which complains that the judgment was issued prematurely, without the period for the final hearing regulated in Article 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias having expired, it is certainly an important period, given that this rule establishes it so that the judge can review the final objections that the PGR may present, regarding which it requires an express pronouncement on whether they are considered well-founded or not. But this does not mean that in all cases in which the period has not expired, the nullity of a judgment issued prematurely must necessarily be declared, solely for that reason. It will not be pertinent to do so when, despite this happening, there is no well-founded opposition that the PGR did not have the opportunity to present. In this case, in a resolution of February 2, 2018, a final hearing was granted, which was communicated to all parties on February 5 following, thus it is considered notified on Tuesday, February 6, as it involves electronic means. The eight-day period expired on Friday, February 16 (associated documents folder: file 02/02/2018 08:20:36 and notifications folder). Consequently, the PGR is correct in its complaint that the appealed judgment was issued prematurely, without giving them the full period to be able to answer the final hearing. Furthermore, the opposition it raises in its appeal is based on the report contained in official letter MG-UTV-436-2017 of September 10, 2017, issued by the Municipality of Golfito. In it, it is reported that the access that the map indicates as a public road on the [Address8] side is not considered by the Municipality to be of that nature, because it does not meet the legal minimum, so it qualifies it as a right of way easement (servidumbre de paso) (briefs folder: file 16/11/2017 03:07:33). Since its incorporation into the proceeding in November 2017, the PGR made complaints about considering this access a right of way easement (servidumbre de paso), as recorded in memorials of December 11, 2017, and January 29, 2018. Furthermore, although the Office brought the cited official letter to the attention of the promoting party in a resolution of November 20, 2017 (associated documents folder: file 20/11/2017 13:13:12), the latter did not pronounce nor were any of the objections or observations that the Attorney General's Office presented in this regard resolved. This constitutes a violation of due process for both parties, and despite that omission, the final hearing was granted without determining the nature of the questioned access, and subsequently, a judgment was issued prematurely. That information is indispensable to be clarified, for due process and as public domain (demanial) property could be at stake. This is because, if the access is indeed a public road and not an easement (servidumbre), procedures must be corrected to adjust the minimum width legally required, which requires the presentation of a new map and the correction of the pertinent data, such as the area of the property to be titled (Articles 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 2 of the Ley de Tránsito and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991, and 1245 of May 8, 1992, of the Sala Constitucional). And if it is an easement (servidumbre), in addition to the new map specifying this situation, the Court of first instance must proceed to request the pertinent clarifications on who owns that strip, in order to verify that said encumbrance is duly constituted and to duly notify the corresponding party in this regard. Therefore, the challenged resolution was issued prematurely, as not all the evidence had been fully received and all the confusing data in the file had been clarified, regarding the [Address9] of the [Address10] to be titled. Let the Court also note that official letter MG-UTV-436-2017 of September 10, 2017, contains a formal defect that must also be corrected, in order to consider it validly issued by the Municipality of Golfito, an aspect that must also be kept in mind to review in future cases. Said official letter was not signed or validated by whoever represents the state entity, a common error but one that Courts, given the nature of the reports, cannot overlook. The power to speak on behalf of an entity only corresponds to its legal representative; its employees cannot do so, even if they have the technical knowledge to prepare the reports. For what is relevant to this case, numeral 17 of the Código Municipal so provides: \"The following powers and obligations correspond to the municipal mayor: ...n) To hold the legal representation of the municipality, with the powers granted by this law and the Municipal Council.\" Therefore, this defect must be corrected, requesting a new report or the validation of the referred one by the person representing the Municipality, before continuing the procedures.\n\nV.- In accordance with the foregoing, as requested by the PGR, the appealed judgment is annulled. The A quo Judge, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, shall proceed to resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated by the [Address9] side in the base map, and based on that, proceed as legally corresponds, as explained in the previous considering (considerando). He must also correct what was indicated in the previous considering (considerando) regarding the report requested from the Municipality of Golfito.\n\n**THEREFORE** (POR TANTO)\n\nJudgment 22 of February 12, 2018, is annulled. The judge of first instance must, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated by the [Address9] side in the base map, and based on that, order the corrections in the map and other data that must be clarified or corrected, as explained in the penultimate considering (considerando). He must also correct what is necessary for the validity of the report requested from the Municipality of Golfito.\n\nThe property that is the subject of this process is valued at the sum of one million colones. RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: 1) In addition to those contained in Article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias 2) The property to be titled is affected by the reservations regarding rights-of-way of public streets established by Articles 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and 19, subsection a, of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. The certification of this judgment shall serve to register the related property in the Property Registry\" (case file: archive 12/02/18 at 08:35).-\n\n4.- The PGR appealed, expressing its reasons (case file: archive 20/02/2018 01:19:44).-\n\n5.- In the substantiation of the process, the legal provisions have not been respected, and there exist errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the ruling.-\n\nDrafted by Judge Alpízar Rodríguez, and;\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- Due to the manner in which this is resolved, a pronouncement on the proven facts is omitted.\n\nII.- In the contested judgment 22 of 12 February 2018, the possessory information was approved and the registration of the property described in plan P-809373-2002 was ordered. The PGR appeals, with a concomitant request for nullity, based on the following: 1) It argues the judgment was issued prematurely, given that the deadline for the final hearing (audiencia final) had not expired, which was notified to them on 5 February and therefore expired on the 16th of the following month. It qualifies that hearing as a validity requirement for this type of process, considers it is not a simple formality, and cites as judicial precedent ruling 942-2010 of this Tribunal. 2) It complains that a public street was indicated as the southern boundary of the land, which it says, if it were one, should measure at least 8.50 meters. But furthermore, it argues that according to what was reported in the process, it is an easement (servidumbre). Therefore, it alleges that “if in the Judge's opinion on the south boundary it is a 'public street', they should then have ordered… the submission of a new plan in which the area of the property would be reduced by the percentage corresponding to the width of the road, a new description of the resulting area made, and proof of the cancellation of said plan before the Catastro Nacional provided, so that state interests are not affected. Otherwise, they should have proceeded to reject the information based on Article 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias for attempting the registration of land to the detriment of public domain assets.” But if it is considered not a public street but an easement (servidumbre), “it could not be taken as accredited either, since the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is an Inadequate and Illegal mechanism to establish it… Based on the foregoing, in the event that it were an easement (servidumbre), the SOUTH boundary had to be rectified, indicating only the owner of the adjoining property on that boundary.” It requests that the judgment be annulled. If not, it is clarified that on the [Dirección7] boundary it adjoins the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (case file: archive 20/02/2018 01:19:44).- Although due to the manner in which this is resolved it is not of interest to verify whether the appeal was filed within the legal deadline, based on what was objected to by the promoting party when referring to the appeal, it is clarified that it was indeed filed timely. Note that the judgment was issued on 12 February 2018. The appeal was filed on Tuesday, 20 February following, within the 5 business days following that date, taking into account that the parties designated electronic means for notifications. Had it been notified that same day to all parties, via electronic means, the deadline would expire and on a later date if it was notified later. Although the PGR's appeal brief was mistakenly filed before another Court, it is recorded in the forwarding email to the correct one, that it was received by the Juzgado de Corredores in time, as provided by numeral 953 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementally (see copy of email in case file: archive 20/02/2018 01:19:44 , image 1).\n\nIII.- Numeral 592 of the Código de Trabajo, applied by remission of Article 60 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, provides that, before resolving the grievances of an appeal, the Tribunal must review the procedures to determine if there is any procedural defect (vicio) or flaw that, if possible, must be corrected, or otherwise, sanctioned with procedural nullity. Likewise, Article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, insofar as relevant, provides: \"When appropriate, the tribunals may, on their own initiative, declare nullities and order the replenishment of proceedings, in order to correct irregularities that could affect the validity of the process\". Therefore, if it is found that some formality has been omitted, capable of causing effective defenselessness, the correction of the defect (vicio) must be decreed if possible, or else the nullity of the proceedings or resolutions, as far as necessary to guide the normal course of the trial. Under the protection of said regulations, this venue has maintained the criterion that the declaration of procedural nullity proceeds extraordinarily, when its pronouncement is absolutely indispensable to avoid defenselessness or to guide the normal course of the procedure, due to violation of essential forms in the proceeding (articles 194 to 198 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementally).\n\nIV.- The content of the appeal contains sufficient grounds to decree the requested nullity. Regarding the first, which claims the judgment was issued prematurely, without the deadline for the final hearing (audiencia final) regulated in Article 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias having expired, it is certainly an important deadline, given that this norm establishes it so that the judge may review the final objections that the PGR may present, regarding which it requires an express pronouncement on whether they are considered founded or not. But this does not mean that in all cases where the deadline has not expired, the nullity of a judgment issued prematurely must necessarily be declared, solely for that reason. It will not be pertinent to do so, when despite this occurring, there is no founded opposition that the PGR did not have the opportunity to present. In this case, in the resolution of 2 February 2018, the final hearing (audiencia final) was granted, which was communicated to all parties on 5 February following, whereby it is considered notified on Tuesday, 6 February, as it involved electronic means. The eight-day deadline expired on Friday, 16 February (associated documents folder: archive 02/02/2018 08:20:36 and notifications folder). Consequently, the PGR is correct in its claim that the appealed judgment was issued prematurely, without giving them the full deadline to be able to respond to the final hearing (audiencia final). Furthermore, the opposition it raises in its appeal is based on the report contained in official communication MG-UTV-436-2017 of 10 September 2017, issued by the Municipalidad de Golfito. It informs that the access indicated on the plan as a public street on the [Dirección8] is not considered by the Municipalidad to be of that nature, as it does not have the legal minimum, therefore it qualifies it as an access easement (servidumbre de paso) (case file: archive 16/11/2017 03:07:33). Since its incorporation into the process, in November 2017, the PGR raised claims regarding that access being considered an access easement (servidumbre de paso), as recorded in briefs of 11 December 2017 and 29 January 2018. Furthermore, despite the Court having made the cited official communication known to the promoting party in the resolution of 20 November 2017 (associated documents folder: archive 20/11/2017 13:13:12), the latter did not pronounce itself, nor were any of the objections or observations that the Procuraduría presented in this regard resolved. This constitutes a violation of due process for both parties, and despite that omission, the final hearing (audiencia final) was issued without determining the nature of the questioned access, and subsequently a judgment was issued prematurely. This information is indispensable to be clarified, for due process and as public domain assets could be at stake. This is because, if the access is indeed a public street and not an easement (servidumbre), procedures must be corrected to adjust to the legally required minimum width, which requires the submission of a new plan and the correction of pertinent data, such as the area of the property to be titled (articles 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 2 of the Ley de Tránsito and rulings 2306-91 of 6 November 1991 and 1245 of 8 May 1992 of the Sala Constitucional). And if it is an easement (servidumbre), in addition to the new plan specifying that situation, the Court of first instance must proceed to request the pertinent clarifications regarding who the owner of that strip is, in order to verify that this encumbrance is duly constituted and to duly notify whoever corresponds in relation to it. Therefore, the appealed resolution was issued prematurely, as not all the evidence had been fully received and all the confusing data recorded in the file had not been clarified, in relation to the [Dirección9] of the [Dirección10] to be titled. The Court should also take note that official communication MG-UTV-436-2017 of 10 September 2017 contains a defect of form that must also be corrected, in order to consider it as validly issued by the Municipalidad de Golfito, an aspect that must also be kept in mind for review in future cases. Said official communication was not signed or validated by whoever represents the state entity, a common error but one that the Courts, given the nature of the reports, cannot overlook. The power to pronounce on behalf of an entity corresponds only to its legal representative; its officials cannot do so, even if they have the technical knowledge to prepare the reports. For what is of interest in this case, this is provided by numeral 17 of the Código Municipal: \"The following powers and obligations correspond to the municipal mayor: ... n) To hold the legal representation of the municipality, with the powers granted by this law and the Municipal Council.\" Therefore, this defect must be corrected, requesting a new report or the validation of the referred one by the representative person of the Municipalidad, before continuing the procedures.\n\nV.- In accordance with the foregoing, as requested by the PGR, the appealed judgment is annulled. The A quo, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, must resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated on the [Dirección9] on the base plan, and based on that, proceed as legally corresponds, as explained in the preceding considerando. The indication made in the preceding considerando regarding the report requested from the Municipalidad de Golfito must also be corrected.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nJudgment 22 of 12 February 2018 is annulled. The judge of first instance, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, must resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated on the [Dirección9] on the base plan, and based on that, order the corrections in the plan and other data that must be clarified or corrected, as explained in the penultimate considerando.\n\nIt must also rectify what is necessary for the validity of the report requested from the Municipality of Golfito.\n\n| | | |\n|---|---|---|\n| | \"\" | |\n| \"\" | *E67WVKDWWUK61*\nE67WVKDWWUK61\n[Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | \"\" |\n| *NYA0XPTKXQ861*\nNYA0XPTKXQ861\n[Nombre5] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | *47D433CWU0S4Y61*\n47D433CWU0S4Y61\n[Nombre6] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: EXPN1\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: [...]\n\nThis constitutes a violation of due process for both parties and, despite that omission, the final hearing was issued without determining the nature of the access in question and subsequently a judgment was issued prematurely. That information is essential and must be clarified, for due process and since assets that could be of public domain nature (naturaleza demanial) are at stake. This is because, if the access is indeed a public street (calle pública) and not an easement (servidumbre), procedures must be corrected to adjust to the legally required minimum width, which requires a new plan to correct the pertinent data, such as the area of the titled property (articles 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 2 of the Ley de Tránsito and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991, and 1245 of May 8, 1992, of the Sala Constitucional). And if it is an easement (servidumbre), in addition to the new plan specifying that situation, the trial court must proceed to request the pertinent clarifications on who is the owner of that strip of land, in order to verify that this encumbrance (gravamen) is duly constituted and to duly notify the corresponding party in relation to it. Therefore, the appealed decision was issued prematurely, as the receipt of all evidence had not been concluded and all the confusing data contained in the case file had not been clarified, in relation to the [Dirección2]  of the [Dirección3] for the titleholder.\\\" \\\"

\" } ], \"previousdocs\": [], \"nextdocs\": [] } ], \"contenidosInteresOrden\": \"3\", \"despacho\": \"Tribunal Agrario\", \"despachoOrden\": \"11\", \"enteSistematizador\": \"CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL\", \"esCambioCriterio\": \"0\", \"esCriterioUnificador\": \"0\", \"esNotaSeparada\": \"0\", \"esProtegida\": \"0\", \"esResolucionClave\": \"0\", \"esResolucionEstructural\": \"0\", \"esResolucionRelevante\": \"0\", \"esVotoSalvado\": \"0\", \"expediente\": \"170000860419AG\", \"fecha\": \"2018-05-23\", \"formatoDocumento\": \"ESCRITO\", \"hora\": \"13:07\", \"id\": \"sen-1-0034-848624\", \"numeroDocumento\": \"00430\", \"redactor\": \"Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez\", \"sentenciasMismoExpediente\": \"sen-1-0034-849353\", \"sourceName\": \"Documentos\", \"subNumeroDocumento\": \"1\", \"tipoDocumento\": \"SNT\", \"tipoInformacion\": \"Resolución Judicial\", \"tipoResolucion\": \"De Fondo\", \"tipoTexto\": \"1\", \"previousdocs\": [], \"nextdocs\": [], \"html\": \"

Firmar Documento

*170000860419AG*

 

EXPEDIENTE:

EXPN1 - 5

PROCESO:

INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA

PROMUEVE:

[Nombre1]  

VOTO N° 430-F-2018

 

TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las trece horas y siete minutos del veintitrés de mayo de dos mil dieciocho.-

PROCESO DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovida por [Nombre1]   , mayor, soltera, estudiante, cédula CED1    , vecina de Río Claro, Golfito. Intervienen como partes el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED2  -      , representado por su apoderada general judicial Maryorie Madrigal Muñóz, cédula CED3-   -    y el ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, cédula CED4    . Actúa como apoderada especial judicial de la parte promovente, Leda Carvajal Oviedo, colegiada uno uno dos dos dos. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del II Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur, Corredores. 

RESULTANDO:

 1.- La parte promovente pide se inscriba en el Registro Público Inmobiliario una finca que se describe así: \\\"Terreno, en Langostino, [Dirección1]      , Provincia de Puntarenas, que según el plano catastrado … P-809373-02 posee una extensión de seis mil novecientos ochenta y un metros con ochenta y un decímetros cuadrados, cuyos linderos son: Norte: Eduardo Flores Sandí, Sur: [Dirección2]            , Este: [Dirección3]           Golfito\\\" (folios 15 a 18).-

 2.- Se apersonaron el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural y La Procuraduría General de la República y no presentaron oposición (carpeta de escritos: archivo 03/10/17 08:07 y 08/08/17 10:59).

 3.- El Juez Juan Gutiérrez Villalobos, del Juzgado Agrario de Corredores en sentencia 22-2018 del 12 febrero de 2018 que resolvió: POR TANTO \\\"Se aprueba la información posesoria. Con las afectaciones a que se refiere el artículo 17 de la Ley de informaciones Posesorias y sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho, se ordena al Señor Registrador del Registro de la Propiedad inscribir, por primera vez, a nombre de [Nombre2]   , quien es mayor soltera, estudiante, portadora de la cédula de identidad CED5-  -    , vecina de Río Claro, costado sur de Coopealianza , la finca descrita en el plano inscrito en el Catastro Nacional bajo el número P-809373-02, que se describe así: Terreno de naturaleza agrícola, sito en el [Dirección4]  , Cantón sétimo Golfito, de la Provincia de Puntarenas Mide: seis mil novecientos ochenta y un metros con ochenta y un decímetros cuadrados. Linda al Norte: [Nombre3]  SandÍ, Sur: [Dirección5]            , Este: [Dirección6]       y Oeste Municipalidad de Golfito. El inmueble objeto de este proceso se estima en la suma de un millón de colones. RESTRICCIONES Y LIMITACIONES: 1) Además de las contenidas en el artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias 2) El inmueble a titular queda afectado a las reservas en cuanto a derechos de vía de las calles públicas que disponen los artículos 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y 19, inciso a, de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Sirva la certificación de esta sentencia para inscribir en el Registro de la Propiedad la finca relacionada\\\" (carpeta de escritos: archivo 12/02/18 a las 08:35).-

 4.- La PGR apeló expresando sus motivos (carpeta escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44).-

 5.- En la substanciación del proceso no se han respetado las disposiciones legales y existen errores u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo.-

Redacta la Jueza Alpízar Rodríguez, y;

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Por la forma como se resuelve, se omite pronunciamiento sobre los hechos probados.

 II.- En la sentencia impugnada 22 de 12 febrero de 2018, se aprobó la información posesoria y se ordenó inscribir el inmueble descrito en el plano P-809373-2002. Apela la PGR, con solicitud de nulidad concomitante, con base en lo siguiente: 1) Sostiene la sentencia se dictó en forma anticipada, dado que no había vencido el plazo de la audiencia final, que le fue notificada el 5 de febrero y vencía entonces hasta el día 16 siguiente. Califica esa audiencia como un requisito de validez de este tipo de procesos, considera no es una simple formalidad y cita como precedente judicial el voto 942-2010 de este Tribunal. 2) Reclama que se haya indicado como colindancia sur del terreno una calle pública que dice, de serlo, debería medir mínimo 8,50 metros. Pero además, sostiene que según lo informado en el proceso es una servidumbre. Por ello alega que “si a criterio del Juez por el rumbo sur se trata de una \\\"calle pública\\\", debió entonces haber prevenido… presentar un nuevo plano en el cual se redujera la cabida del inmueble en el porcentaje correspondiente al ancho de la vía, realizar una nueva descripción de la cabida resultante y acreditar la cancelación de dicho plano ante el Catastro Nacional, a fin de que no se vieran afectados intereses estatales. Caso contario debió proceder a rechazar la información con fundamento en el artículo 11 de la Ley dé Informaciones Posesorias por pretender la Inscripción de terrenos en perjuicio de bienes demaniales”. Pero si se considera no es calle pública si no servidumbre, “tampoco se podría tener por acreditada ya que la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias es un mecanismo Inadecuado e Ilegal de constituirla… Por lo antes expuesto, en-caso de que se tratase de una servidumbre, el rumbo SUR tenía que ser rectificado, indicando únicamente al propietario del inmueble colindante por ese rumbo”. Pide se anule la sentencia. De no ser así, se aclara que por el rumbo [Dirección7] colinda con zona marítimo terrestre (carpeta de escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44).- Aunque por la forma como se resuelve no resulta de interés verificar si la apelación se presentó dentro del plazo de ley, por lo objetado por la parte promovente al referirse a la apelación, se aclara que si fue interpuesta oportunamente. Nótese la sentencia fue emitida el 12 de febrero de 2018. La apelación se presentó el martes 20 de febrero siguiente, dentro de los 5 días hábiles siguientes a tal fecha, tomando en cuenta que las partes señalaron medios electrónicos para ser notificadas. De haberse notificado ese mismo día a todas las partes, a través de medios electrónicos, el plazo vencería y en fecha posterior si se notificó luego. Aunque el escrito de apelación de la PGR fue presentado por error ante otro Juzgado, consta en el correo de remisión al correcto, que fue recibido por el Juzgado de Corredores en tiempo, conforme lo dispone el numeral 953 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicado supletoriamente (ver copia de correo electrónico en carpeta de escritos: archivo 20/02/2018 01:19:44 , imagen 1).

 III.- El numeral 592 del Código de Trabajo, aplicado por remisión del artículo 60 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, dispone que, antes de resolver los agravios de un recurso de apelación, el Tribunal debe revisar los procedimientos, para determinar si existe algún vicio o defecto procesal que de ser posible se deba subsanar, o en caso contrario, sancionar con nulidad procesal. Asimismo, el artículo 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, en lo que interesa dispone: \\\"Cuando sea del caso, los tribunales podrán, por iniciativa propia, declarar nulidades y disponer la reposición de trámites, a fin de corregir irregularidades que pudieran afectar la validez del proceso\\\". Por ende, si se encontrase que se ha omitido alguna formalidad, capaz de causar efectiva indefensión, debe decretarse la subsanación del vicio si es posible o bien la nulidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones, hasta donde sea necesario para orientar el curso normal del juicio. Al amparo de dichas regulaciones, esta sede ha mantenido el criterio de que la declaratoria de nulidad procesal procede extraordinariamente, cuando sea absolutamente indispensable su pronunciamiento, para evitar indefensión o para orientar el curso normal del procedimiento, por violación a formas esenciales en el trámite (artículos 194 a 198 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicados supletoriamente).

              IV.- El contenido del recurso de apelación contiene motivos suficientes para decretar la nulidad solicitada. En cuanto al primero, que reclama la sentencia se dictó en forma anticipada, sin haberse vencido el plazo de la audiencia final regulada en el artículo 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, ciertamente es un plazo importante, dado que esa norma lo establece con el fin de que la persona juzgadora puede revisar las objeciones finales que la PGR pueda presentar, respecto de las cuales exige pronunciamiento expreso sobre si se consideran fundadas o no. Pero ello no significa que en todos los casos en los que el plazo no haya vencido, deba necesariamente declararse la nulidad de una sentencia emitida en forma anticipada, sólo por ese motivo. No será pertinente hacerlo, cuando pese a que ello suceda, no exista una oposición fundada que no haya tenido la PGR, oportunidad presentar. En este caso, en resolución del 2 de febrero del 2018 se confirió audiencia final, la cual fue comunicada a todas las partes el  5 de febrero siguiente, con lo cual se tiene por notificada el  martes 6 de febrero, por tratarse de medios electrónicos. El plazo de ocho días vencía el viernes 16 de febrero (carpeta de documentos asociados: archivo 02/02/2018 08:20:36 y carpeta de notificaciones).This constitutes a violation of due process (debido proceso) for both parties and, despite that omission, the final hearing was issued without determining the nature of the access in question and subsequently a judgment was issued prematurely. That information is essential and must be clarified, for due process (debido proceso) and since assets that could be of public domain nature (naturaleza demanial) are at stake. This is because, if the access is indeed a public street (calle pública) and not an easement (servidumbre), procedures must be corrected to adjust to the legally required minimum width, which requires a new plan to correct the pertinent data, such as the area of the titled property (articles 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 2 of the Ley de Tránsito and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991, and 1245 of May 8, 1992, of the Sala Constitucional). And if it is an easement (servidumbre), in addition to the new plan specifying that situation, the trial court must proceed to request the pertinent clarifications on who is the owner of that strip of land, in order to verify that this encumbrance (gravamen) is duly constituted and to duly notify the corresponding party in relation to it. Therefore, the appealed decision was issued prematurely, as the receipt of all evidence had not been concluded and all the confusing data contained in the case file had not been clarified, in relation to the [Dirección2] of the [Dirección3] for the titleholder.\" \"\n\nConsequently, the PGR is correct in its claim that the appealed judgment was issued prematurely, without granting the full period to be able to respond to the final hearing. Furthermore, the opposition raised in its appeal is based on the report contained in official document MG-UTV-436-2017 of September 10, 2017, issued by the Municipality of Golfito. It reports that the access that the plan indicates as a public street by the [Dirección8], the Municipality does not consider it to be of that nature, because it does not have the legal minimum, and therefore qualifies it as an easement (servidumbre de paso) (*writings folder: file 16/11/2017 03:07:33*). Since its incorporation into the process, in November 2017, the PGR made claims that this access be considered an easement (servidumbre de paso), as recorded in memorials of December 11, 2017, and January 29, 2018. Furthermore, although the Office brought the cited official document to the attention of the promoting party in a resolution of November 20, 2017 (*associated documents folder: file 20/11/2017 13:13:12*), it did not make any pronouncement, nor were any of the objections or observations that the Procuraduría presented in this regard resolved. This constitutes a violation of due process for both parties, and despite that omission, the final hearing was issued without determining the nature of the questioned access, and subsequently a judgment was issued prematurely. That information is essential to be clarified, for due process and since assets that could be of public domain (demanial) nature are involved. This is because, if the access is indeed a public street and not an easement, procedures must be corrected to conform to the legally required minimum width, which currently requires a new plan to correct the pertinent data, such as the area (cabida) of the titled property (articles 2 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos; 4 and 5 of the Ley de Construcciones; 2 of the Ley de Tránsito and votes 2306-91 of November 6, 1991, and 1245 of May 8, 1992, of the Sala Constitucional). And if it is an easement, in addition to a new plan specifying that situation, the Trial Court must proceed to request the pertinent clarifications regarding who owns that strip, in order to verify that this encumbrance is duly constituted and to duly notify whoever corresponds in relation to it. Therefore, the appealed resolution was issued prematurely, as all the evidence had not been fully received and all the confusing data appearing in the file, in relation to the [Dirección9] of the [Dirección10] of the owner, had not been clarified. Note also, Court, that the official document MG-UTV-436-2017 of September 10, 2017, contains a procedural defect that must also be corrected, for it to be considered validly issued by the Municipality of Golfito, an aspect that must also be kept in mind for review in future cases. Said official document was not signed nor validated by whoever represents the state entity, a common error but one that Courts, given the nature of the reports, cannot overlook. The authority to speak on behalf of an entity corresponds only to its legal representative; its staff cannot do so, even if they have the technical knowledge to prepare the reports. In what is relevant to this case, numeral 17 of the Código Municipal so provides: \"The following powers and obligations correspond to the municipal mayor: ... n) To hold the legal representation of the municipality, with the powers granted by this law and the Municipal Council.\" Therefore, that defect must be corrected, requesting a new report or the validation of the referred one by the person representing the Municipality, before continuing the procedures.\n\n**V.-** In accordance with the foregoing, as requested by the PGR, the appealed judgment is annulled. The A quo shall proceed, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, to resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated by the [Dirección9] on the base plan, and based on that, proceed as legally corresponds, as explained in the preceding considerando. It must also correct what is indicated in the preceding considerando regarding the report requested from the Municipality of Golfito.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nJudgment 22 of February 12, 2018, is annulled. The trial judge must, prior to issuing judgment, in guarantee of due process, resolve what is pertinent regarding the nature of the access indicated by the [Dirección9] on the base plan, and based on that, mandate the corrections in the plan and other data that must be clarified or corrected, as explained in the penultimate considerando. It must also correct what is necessary for the validity of the report requested from the Municipality of Golfito.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n| | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| | | *E67WVKDWWUK61* |\n| | | E67WVKDWWUK61 |\n| | | [Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n| *NYA0XPTKXQ861* | | *47D433CWU0S4Y61* |\n| NYA0XPTKXQ861 | | 47D433CWU0S4Y61 |\n| [Nombre5] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | [Nombre6] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |\n| | | |\n\nEXP: EXPN1\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: [...]" }