Puerto Viejo and Law No. 166 of 1935: The history of a Caribbean town and its legal framework

Puerto Viejo and Law No. 166 of 1935:
The history of a Caribbean town and its legal framework

Historical context
In 1935, the Costa Rican State enacted Law No. 166 with the aim of granting legal certainty to Afro-descendant settlements on the southern Caribbean coast. The statute allocated 13 hectares in the province of Limón for the creation of a town called Puerto Viejo, pursuant to the plan approved by the then Secretariat of Development (Secretaría de Fomento).

The design included streets, avenues, a plaza, a park, and reserved lots for port works. The law even detailed the lot size (20 × 40 meters) and established that interested parties were required to file an application with the Governor of Limón, fence and cultivate the land, and build a dwelling of at least 25 m² within set timeframes.

In theory, this legal framework sought to organize urban growth and recognize the rights of those living in the area.

The reality in practice
Despite being innovative for its time, the application of Law No. 166 was very limited. In the 1930s, the Southern Caribbean was a remote region lacking adequate infrastructure and communications. Few residents managed to process adjudications, and in many cases the authorities never finalized the issuance of titles. As a result, much of the population continued to occupy the land informally.

Decades later, Law No. 6043 of 1977, the Law on the Maritime–Terrestrial Zone (ZMT), completely changed the landscape by declaring the first 200 meters of coastline public domain: 50 meters of public zone and 150 meters of restricted zone. This regime rendered the coastal strip inalienable, directly contradicting what was provided by Law No. 166.

In fact, Article 82 of Law No. 6043 expressly repealed any contrary provisions, drastically limiting the scope of the 1935 statute.

Subsequent disputes and reforms
There were numerous attempts to revive the effects of Law No. 166:

• In 2005, Law No. 8464 designated Cahuita and Puerto Viejo as cities, allowing titling within the ZMT. However, the Constitutional Chamber declared it unconstitutional in decision No. 03113, reaffirming the intangibility of the coastal strip.

• Bill No. 15,869 was also introduced to provide an authentic interpretation of Laws No. 35 and No. 166 as still in force, but it never became law.

In all cases, case law has reiterated that rights obtained under Law No. 166 within the Maritime–Terrestrial Zone are invalid in the face of the regime established by Law No. 6043.

Partial validity of Law No. 166
It is important to clarify that Law No. 166 was not repealed in its entirety. Its effects remain applicable only to land that:

• Was titled under that law, and

• Is not located within the Maritime–Terrestrial Zone.

In such cases, the original regime still applies, although always subject to the limitations of the current legal framework.

Current situation
Today, there is no regulation in force that restores the effects of Law No. 166 on land within the ZMT. Law No. 6043 remains the prevailing statute, and legislative efforts to modify its scope have had no effect.

The current approach of Coastal Regulatory Plans is instead to acknowledge historical occupations in an orderly manner without compromising the intangibility of the ZMT.

If you found this information useful or need further guidance, you can contact Alan Elizondo at aem@quatro.legal for specialized legal advice.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, laws and regulations are subject to change. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please contact our office directly. Some images may be AI generated.