Acquisition of Property by Prescription

Extract

[...] - Detailed Plan Plan of Comment on Judgment on Modes of Acquisition of Property Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber May 1996 Problematic : What are the contours of non-equivocal possession? A highlighting by the judges of one of the qualities of useful possession An affirmation of the principle of non-equivocal possession - Definition of equivocal possession + other qualities: continuous possession (civil 1st May 1960), peaceful possession (civil 3rd February 1995), public possession (civil 1st March 2005) - Application of the principle according to which the grey card is an indispensable accessory of the vehicle the judges are interested in the concrete, real facts and the law A necessary acceptance of acquisition accompanied by diligence by the acquirer - In this case, the judges ask the potential future owner, either to be handed over the grey card or to proceed with the verification of the possession of these titles absolutely necessary active role of the acquirer - Sanction = non equivocal possession that is to say private possession without its effects, there is no real intention of the possessor to behave like the owner consequence: no application of the presumption of article 2256 of the Civil Code II- A solution that is both strict and pedagogical A relatively severe solution for the acquirer - In fact, the acquisition of property is made difficult by the judges due to the cumulative conditions to be met (all the more so since the acquirer is often in good faith, as it seems to be the case in this instance) - strict application of article 2261 of the Civil Code - The decision reinforces the protection of the owner - The judges favor the registered owner, the holder of the right rather than the de facto possessor. [...]

[...] - Consequences: judges' will to avoid property usurpation but this creates a high evidentiary requirement for the one who invokes acquisitive prescription A pedagogical position adopted by the judges - The Supreme Court aligns itself with the position of the lower court judges and adopts the same reasoning. Consequence: consistency in the decision that applies the general principle and draws the legal/judicial consequences from it. [...]