<\/p>\n
Possession is a factual state and is defined in the provision of Article 68 of the Property Act (PA)<\/strong> as the exercise of actual control over a thing which the possessor holds as his own personally or through another. As an element of acquisitive prescription (which begins to run in favor of the possessor), possession must be open and undisputed, as well as continuous, i.e. not of an incidental nature and of such a character as not to allow other persons to possess the thing. Once actual control over immovable property has been established, it is presumed that it continues to be exercised by the possessor until it is indisputably proven that the possession has been interrupted, and hence the acquisitive prescription period running in favor of the possessor has been interrupted. recognition of the claim by the debtor;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n filing of a lawsuit or objection, or initiation of conciliation proceedings; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n undertaking actions for compulsory enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n This article does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice related to a specific situation or subject. For legal assistance on a case, a legal consultation with a lawyer should be conducte<\/p>\n
The main features of possession are the objective (corpus)<\/strong> and the subjective (animus)<\/strong>.
The objective feature characterizes possession as the factual exercise of control over a specific object, while the subjective feature characterizes the possessor\u2019s mental attitude \u2014 to hold the thing as his own.
To hold the thing as one\u2019s own is equivalent to holding it with the consciousness that he is the owner, i.e. that he is the holder of the real right of ownership.
Intention is defined as a psychological, mental, subjective state, and for its proof the legislator has established the legal presumption of Article 69 of the Property Act, according to which it is presumed that the possessor holds the thing as his own unless it is proved that he holds it for another.
The legal presumption is established in favor of the possessor; it is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies with the interested parties who claim that the possessor does not hold the thing for himself.<\/p>\n
Continuous possession does not necessarily require that actual control be exercised at every moment in time. It may also be realized through periodic visits to the property, provided that they indicate an intention that the property be regarded as one\u2019s own and that they are not interrupted by the actions of third parties.
The objective feature of possession requires the exercise of direct control over the thing (including immovable property), since in this way the possession of the owner is excluded.
It is not sufficient for the possessor to manifest ownership-like behavior before third parties if the owner cannot know about it; it is necessary that he make use of the thing, and if it concerns immovable property \u2014 that he be physically present in it, visit it, and perform visible acts of management.
Only through such factual acts can the owner become aware that another person possesses his property and have the opportunity to take action to protect his ownership rights.<\/p>\n
Prescription may be considered interrupted only if a third party has performed an act that prevents the possessor from exercising the established actual control over the immovable property henceforth, and such acts must have resulted in the possessor\u2019s removal from the property for more than six months.
The grounds for interruption of prescription are exhaustively regulated in Article 116 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA)<\/strong> and are applicable to acquisitive prescription under Article 83 of the Property Act<\/strong>.
According to Article 116 of the OCA, prescription is interrupted by:<\/p>\n\n