Acquisitive Prescription and Interversion of Possession: Commentary on Order No. 9566 of 2024

Recently, Order No. 9566 of April 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has provided significant clarifications on the matters of acquisitive prescription and interversion of possession. The ruling focused on the issue of whether a void donation deed can lead to the interversion of detention into possession, a topic of great relevance for those operating in the field of civil law.

The Regulatory Context

The Court examined a situation where a donation deed, although void for lack of form, was considered potentially capable of establishing the possession necessary for acquisitive prescription. According to Article 1158 of the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription allows for the acquisition of ownership of an asset through continuous and uninterrupted possession for a certain period. However, for acquisitive prescription to apply, the possession must be qualified, meaning it must derive from an act capable of transferring ownership.

The Ruling's Principle

In general. In matters of acquisitive prescription, a void donation deed, while incapable of transferring ownership, can constitute an element capable of determining the interversion of detention into possession, thereby rendering subsequent possession suitable for acquisitive prescription, without the need for any oppositional act by the holder against the possessor. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgment, which had rejected the claim for shortened acquisitive prescription filed by the holder and based on the circumstance of the informal donation of the land by the original owner, given that it was a donation void for lack of a public deed, not admitting testimonial evidence on the matter, without considering that such informal donation, if effectively proven, could have led to the interversion of possession in favor of the holder).

Reflections on the Ruling

The ruling under comment has highlighted how a void donation deed, if effectively proven, can still influence the possession situation. This implies that, even in the absence of a valid transfer of ownership, the parties' conduct can alter possession dynamics. The Court, in fact, quashed the lower court's judgment for failing to consider the importance of the informal donation, emphasizing that the absence of an oppositional act by the holder is a crucial element.

• Importance of interversion of possession for acquisitive prescription.
• Recognition of testimonial evidence in the context of informal donations.
• Practical implications for future disputes concerning possession and acquisitive prescription.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 9566 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in understanding the dynamics related to acquisitive prescription and possession. It clarifies that even formally void acts can have legal relevance, paving the way for greater flexibility in possession disputes. It is essential for legal professionals to consider these implications to better protect the interests of their clients.