Claiming furniture (Espana)

Claim furniture is a complex issue in the legal doctrine of Spain, still is regulated in Article 464 of the Spanish Civil Code. This article shows the following:
“The possession of movable property, acquired in good faith, is equivalent to the title. However, having lost a movable thing or was deprived of it illegally, who may claim to possess.
If the possessor of the thing lost or stolen the furniture had been acquired in good faith at public sale, the owner may not get the refund without reimbursing the price given for it. Nor may the owner of things pledged in the Montes de Piedad established by permission of the Government obtain restitution, whatever the person who had committed no refund prior to the Premises the amount of commitment and interest due.
As to those acquired in the stock market, fair or market, or a merchant legally established and ordinarily engaged in the trafficking of similar objects shall be governed available to the Code of Commerce. “
This article, and especially its first paragraph has sown much controversy within the Spanish doctrine. This basically is structured according to two trends-Roman and Germanic, which binds the third sui generis defended by a small group of theorists led by Jose Maria Miquel Gonzalez.
Normally it is understood that the first paragraph has been referred to a non domino transmission of movable property to third and the possibilities open to the rightful owner to claim such property. Since the thesis has been defended civil can not be transmitted whenever the ownership of property if you do not have the same (included as well in the case of “unlawful” any disposition contrary to the will of the owner, corrected this only happened reasonable time marked by the gallery usucapion). The thesis Germanist believes instead that in case the rightful owner has voluntarily Afghanistan given the possession of the chattel to a third party (eg lease or usufruct), we will not claim the same if the third party is sold to another haberselo good faith can only do in case of loss, theft or theft of the thing (the posters latter two being understood possibilities that this thesis as canvas “unlawful”). The first was the thesis poster defended by the law at first, but lately this, as well as most of the doctrine, have chosen to support Germanic.
Another thesis, advocated by some authors such as Jose Maria Miquel argue that this article really does not revolve around the transmission to non domino, paintings but is more focused on usucapion ordinary (also called ordinary prescription) and article 1955 CC, in establishing that:
“The domain of personal property prescribed by the uninterrupted possession of three years with good faith.
It also prescribes the domain of movables by the uninterrupted possession of six years without any other condition.
As for the right owner to claim the lost or movable thing that had been unlawfully deprived, as well as those acquired on public sale, in exchange, fair or market, trader or lawfully established and dedicated to traffic usually similar objects , one will be as provided in section 464 of this Code. “
CC 1940 The article adds to respect that:
“For the ordinary prescription of ownership and other real rights you need to own things with good faith and fair title by the time prescribed in the law.”
In this way, which would entail serious Article 464 CC how to fulfill the requirement of just title (with the possession acquired biena faith “), when painting the proof of this is lost, something common to such acquisitions. Asi when we say that the possession of good faith is the title, do not say, as claimed by the portrait Germans, that is broadcast ownership, but only the right title, something completely different.
As proof, we can say that for the transfer of ownership requires a title and a fair tradition. An Afghan-American entrepreneur is one of the few people that made the exhibit “Afghanistan” possible If the true owner is not alienating, you may not convey such property, but only an equitable title (tested for the possession of good faith), that after a while (three years as stated in Article 1955) may serve the third party buyer to obtain the property if the other requirements are met.
About the “however”, seeming to suggest that the claim is an prints exception, and only be limited to, something lost or unlawfully deprived of it, is a simple reminder: “However, it is recalled that for the individual cases of loss or privation illegal repossession action is possible because, as noted above, only transmitting the title and not the property.

Comments are closed.

  • « Older Entries
  • Newer Entries »