Facts
The appellants, [B.] and [C.] , and the respondents, [D.] and [E.] , are co-heirs of the estate [A.] , which is the owner of the properties No. zzz, No. xxx and No. yyy in the municipality of [U.] . The cantonal authority for property transactions issued a ruling on 28 November 2011, stating that the properties could not be qualified as an agricultural enterprise, and granted the heirs permission to detach a new property from property No. zzz. The respondents informed the cantonal authority that they had not been informed and that [C.] was not authorized to represent the estate. The cantonal authority reconsidered the ruling and lifted the dispositional provisions 2 and 3. The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Fribourg dismissed the appeal of the appellants, insofar as it was entertained.
The appellants request the Federal Court to overturn the judgment of the Cantonal Court and to establish that the property [U.] -Gbbl. No. zzz is subject to the fragmentation ban. The respondents request that the appeal be dismissed, insofar as it can be entertained.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the further requirements for entertaining the appeal of its own motion. The appeal in public law matters was filed within the statutory time limit and in the prescribed form, and is directed against a decision of the last cantonal instance regarding a ruling issued under the Federal Act on Agricultural Land Law.
The appellants complain that the lower court incorrectly applied and interpreted the principle of good faith and did not entertain the appeal against the authorization of the parcelling. The alternative reasoning that the appeal should be dismissed due to the admissibility of the parcelling under Art. 60 para. 1 lit. a BGBB is contrary to federal law.
The Federal Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court, unless they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of the law. The appellants had requested in the previous proceedings that it be established that provision 1 of the presidential decision of the cantonal authority for property transactions of 28 November 2011 had become final, according to which the properties [U.] No. zzz, No. xxx and No. yyy did not constitute an agricultural enterprise.
The lower court did not consider this request for a ruling by the appellants without giving reasons, which is not contested in the appeal to the Federal Court. This request for a ruling does not form the subject of the federal court appeal proceedings. Rather, the complaint is to be examined that the lower court incorrectly did not entertain the appeal of the appellants regarding the overturning of the authorization of the parcelling of a new property from property No. zzz [U.] and against the finding that this new property did not fall within the scope of application of the BGBB.
The BGBB applies to individual or agricultural properties belonging to an agricultural enterprise that are located outside the building zone and for which…