Civil Chamber overturned a sentence for which he had admitted the complaint filed by a woman who claimed that awarded a department. His argument was based on the payment of "taxes and expenses."
The case began when engaged GMZ demand for "adverse possession" against JBB, in relation to a building located in the City of Buenos Aires. The actor said in his pamphlet that his uncle, JBB, who died in 1979, sold the apartment to her mother, "through ticket sales."
He highlighted that "the abruptness of death" of his uncle prevented "the conclusion of the scriptural act", being the document referred to above as "the only proof of purchase and payment of the price", and "as this is an act not may specify and taking into account that handles probate and estate vacancy, lack of inheritance, was forced to start this trial. "
He said that since the death of the holder dominial, held "in a continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted the property" whose usurpation aims, taking charge "of the costs of upkeep and maintenance, which includes taxes and services and monthly expense" . Considered to have behaved "over the years as a real owner," and also mentioned having "rented the apartment."
The House understood that it was for the verdict of an extent as to grant the application for adverse possession, "since, without prejudice to be true that the lack of continuity in the payment of taxes and contributions weigh on the property is not determinative to rule Dominis animus required for the progress of acquisitive prescription, the existence of a period in which the actor did not offer proof to support the payment of taxes, services or expenses that fall adverse possession of the property as intended, is sufficient to dismiss the progress of the action. "
" Paying taxes is not itself an act of possession and therefore no evidence in relation to the corpus of possession required to make room for demand of adverse possession, not being achieved in the case show that they have committed acts of possession in a full and undoubted during the period of 20 years as at the law, "records the failure.
In this sense, the judges reversed the ruling as soon as he had admitted the" adverse possession claim on the property "whose deed had been omitted because of the death of the holder and is vacant inheritance, "since the payment of taxes alone is not an act of possession and therefore no evidence in relation to the corpus of possession required for cases like the present".
Among the reasons expressed by the maids, it is noted that "do not correspond to a claim for adverse possession when the plaintiff fails to demonstrate, with convincing evidence-possessory act par excellence, ie the occupation of the building as intended usurpation. "He could not prove that he committed acts of possession in a full and undoubted during the period of 20 years required by law to these cases," the judges added in conclusion.
http: / / www.diariojudicial.com/contenidos/2011/01/09/noticia_0003.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment