Urban leases

The Supreme Court (TS) has dismissed the appeal of the occupants of a warehouse who opposed returning it, arguing that the owner had allowed too much time to pass to claim. Their argument was that they had 5 years to request the eviction and that, once that period had elapsed, they could no longer do so. The TS rejects this approach; when the owner claims possession based on their property right, that 5-year period does not apply.

The matter revolves around the so-called eviction for precarious possession , which allows claiming a property from someone who uses it free of charge and without a title justifying their occupation. The discussion was whether the owner's claim should be treated as a personal action subject to the general 5-year period of the CC art.1964.2. The appellants argued that the time should be counted from when the eviction could be demanded.

For the TS, it must be taken into account what is claimed and why . The owner requests that the possession because that power is part of their property . Therefore, the ruling considers that it is a real action , linked to the property, and not a personal action. It also clarifies that not having executed the ruling that resolved the previous financial lease did not cause the bank to lose ownership. Even if it had tolerated the continuation of the occupation, it could claim when it ceased to consent, as long as it remained the owner.

However, the TS contemplates that the owner may have ceased to be so due to usucapion , that is, by acquiring ownership through possession maintained under the necessary conditions. In that context, it refers to possession as an owner for 30 years and to CC art.1959 and 1963. It does not equate, therefore, occupying without title for 5 years with acquiring ownership.