In the case law discussed here, objective impossibility concerns people who believed themselves to be the sole owners because they did not know that another owner existed, for instance another heir to the property. As a rule, for acquisitive prescription to begin running, the co-owner in possession must make it clear to others, including the other owner, that they intend to possess the entire property as their own. Possession must also be peaceful, open, undisturbed and continuous for time to run. In one decision, the Supreme Court of Cassation held that an owner in possession who does not know that another co-owner exists need not prove that they asserted against that person an intention to possess their undivided share as their own. The court considered it sufficient to prove that the owner openly demonstrated to those around them both physical control of the property and the intention to possess the absent owner\u2019s share as their own and acquire title by prescription.<\/p>\n
Property disputes can be particularly complex and require specialised, in-depth knowledge of property and inheritance law. If you face a situation of this kind, consult a lawyer specialising in this field.<\/p>\n
This article is not a legal opinion or advice on any particular situation or person. For assistance with a property matter, consult a civil lawyer who specialises in property law.<\/strong>
\n