In line with your request, I will proceed to analyze various estates located in Playa Grande, which are bordered, in part, by the non-transferable 50-meter zone in favor of the State:
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE MARITIME-TERRITORIAL ZONE
The maritime-territorial zone, previously known as the maritime mile, although currently mainly regulated by Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, has its origins in the colonial era through the Royal Decree of October 15, 1754. Various other legislations, such as Law No. 162 of June 8, 1828, General Land Law No. 13 of January 10, 1939, Law 2906 of November 24, 1961, Law No. 4071 of January 22, 1968, Forestry Law No. 4463 of November 23, 1969, Touristic Urbanization of the Maritime-Territorial Zone Law No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, and Law 5602 of November 4, 1974, have underlined the decision to maintain the maritime mile as a public domain, emphasizing its state ownership and the impossibility of its exploitation.
By Law 162, a maritime mile reserve was established on the coasts of both seas. With Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922, the extent of the maritime mile was defined as 1,672 meters from the ordinary high tide along the coasts of both seas and 500 meters along both riverbanks.
By Law 19 of November 12, 1942, the extent of the maritime-territorial zone was reduced to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide on the Atlantic coast and, on the Pacific coast, by Law 201 of January 26, 1943. These two laws allowed private parties to acquire land, excluding the 200 meters from the ordinary high tide, turning the remainder of the 1,672 meters into private domain.
This 200-meter measure remains in the Maritime-Territorial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977.
Specifically, with the Transitional III of Law 4558 of April 22, 1970, 150 meters of the established 200-meter maritime-territorial zone were removed, allowing individuals who possessed lots or estates within the 200 meters to register them through the process of Possessory Information.
REQUIREMENTS SET BY TRANSITIONAL III
Transitional III of Law 4558 stated:
“Those who demonstrate possession of lots or estates in the maritime-territorial zone for over thirty years, in a calm, public, peaceful manner, and as owners, can request property titles for them, except for the reserve referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such properties for part of that time as tenants, through contracts signed with the State or its institutions. The procedure will be as stipulated by the current law on Possessory Information. In this case, there will be no limitation regarding the extent of the lot or estate to be registered in the name of the interested party."
From the above, the requirements were:
- Possession for more than 30 years, continuously, peacefully, publicly, and as an owner.
- Processing according to the current Law on Possessory Information.
So, the only way public domain properties can become private domain properties under current legislation is through a concession granted by municipalities, but only within the restricted 150 meters of the Zone, or by being registered according to the Transitional III of Law No. 4558.
However, Transitional III was repealed by Law No. 4847 dated September 13, 1971, published on October 4, 1971, which included the transitional provision:
"Possessory Information that had been presented to the Courts by September 8 will continue to be processed until their conclusion."
Based on the above transitional provision, both the Attorney General's Office and various jurisdictional resolutions have interpreted that by referring to "courts," the process could not be conducted before the ITCO (Institute of Lands and Colonization).
In an extraordinary session at 2:00 PM on November 2, 1972, the Full Court addressed a constitutional challenge against the aforementioned transitional provision, declaring it unconstitutional only insofar as it backdated the effects of Law 4847 to its enactment date and not its publication date.
STATEMENT NO. C-128-99 FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC
As set out in Article 6 of the Maritime-Territorial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, this law will not apply to "…areas of cities located on the coasts, nor to registered properties, subject to the Law, in the name of individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws.”
The same interpretation is established in the Transitional V of the indicated law, which, in part, provides: “…This law will not apply to areas of cities located on the coasts, nor to those properties that have been registered in the name of individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws.”
The aforementioned statements mean that, in principle, any property registered in the name of a particular individual prior to the entry into force of Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, would not be affected by it.
However, Law No. 6043 does not specify which prior registrations are valid and legitimate. For that reason, it is necessary to refer to the legislation that existed at the time of the enactment of Law No. 6043.
It is important to emphasize that all those properties that are duly registered and whose registrations were carried out in accordance with the Law, and in respect to which no reservations were established by the Civil Registry, are legitimate and not affected by Law No. 6043.
Given the above, it is essential to thoroughly review each property you are interested in to determine whether it falls within the exceptions provided by the legislation and, thus, whether it is free from the effects of the Maritime-Territorial Zone Law.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above information:
- The maritime-territorial zone has a historical and legal foundation that has restricted its private ownership and exploitation.
- Transitional III of Law 4558 was the only way properties in the maritime-territorial zone could be registered in the name of individuals, but it was repealed, limiting its application.
- Law 6043 exempted properties registered prior to its enactment, provided they complied with the law at the time of their registration.
For each specific estate you are interested in, it is vital to conduct a detailed analysis of its registration and any annotations to determine whether it is affected by the Maritime-Territorial Zone Law.
The Simen property is full titled and was registered by both way, administrative and judicial on time.