Analysis of Judgment No. 10925 of 2024: Possessory Proceedings and their Relationship with Proprietary Proceedings

The recent order No. 10925 of April 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the relationship between possessory proceedings and proprietary proceedings. In particular, the Court emphasizes that the acceptance of a claim in possessory proceedings does not require the determination of the legitimacy of possession, but focuses on a mere factual situation. This aspect is fundamental to understanding the dynamics of actions for the defense of possession and their legal consequences.

The Distinction Between Possessory and Proprietary Actions

In Italian law, possessory actions and proprietary actions have distinct purposes and requirements. While possessory actions (Art. 1168 of the Civil Code) aim to protect the possession of an asset, proprietary actions (Art. 2909 of the Civil Code) serve to assert ownership. The order under review clarifies that the res judicata formed on a possessory claim has no effect in proprietary proceedings, precisely because the possession required for acquisitive prescription (usucapione) necessitates requirements that are not considered in possessory proceedings.

The Court's Maxim and its Meaning

Effect in Proprietary Proceedings - Non-existence. In possessory proceedings, the acceptance of the claim is independent of the determination of the legitimacy of possession, as it is aimed at providing protection to a mere factual situation exhibiting the outward characteristics of ownership or another real right. Consequently, the res judicata formed on a possessory claim is devoid of effect in proprietary proceedings concerning the determination of the acquisition of the aforementioned right through acquisitive prescription, as the possession required for acquisitive prescription must possess characteristics that are not relevant in possessory judgments.

This maxim is of particular importance as it clarifies that possessory proceedings focus on the protection of current possession, while proprietary proceedings deal with ownership rights. Consequently, any judgment of acceptance in possessory proceedings does not automatically establish a right of ownership. This principle is essential to avoid conflicts between the two types of actions and to ensure the correct application of the law.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10925 of 2024 represents an important reference for understanding the dynamics between possession and ownership in Italian law. The distinctions clarified by the Court of Cassation provide useful tools for legal practitioners, who can thus more effectively orient their legal strategies. It is therefore fundamental to have a clear understanding of the difference between possessory and proprietary actions, especially in contentious contexts, to avoid misunderstandings and ensure adequate protection of real rights.