Usucaption

Last updated

Usucaption (Latin : usucapio ), also known as acquisitive prescription, [1] [2] is a concept found in civil law systems [3] and has its origin in the Roman law of property.

Contents

Usucaption is a method by which ownership of property (i.e. title to the property) can be gained by possession of it beyond the lapse of a certain period of time (acquiescence). While usucaption has been compared with adverse possession (that is, squatting), the true effect of usucaption is to remedy defects in title of lands that are without encumbrance on them.

History

Roman law

Background to usucaption

The necessity for usucaption arose in Roman law with the divide between res mancipi and res nec mancipi . Res mancipi required elaborate and inconvenient formal methods of conveyance to transfer title (a formal mancipatio ceremony, or in iure cessio ). [4] [5] Res nec manicipi could be transferred by traditio (delivery) or in iure cessio.

The remaining form of conveyance was traditio. This was an informal conveyance which only required the intention to transfer and delivery of the property. If res mancipi were transferred by traditio, full ownership would not pass and the recipient would become a bonitary owner.

Therefore, another form of conveyance was required that did not necessitate a ceremony or appearance before the praetor. Because Rome was becoming mercantile, it was simply inconvenient to perform a formal conveyance simply because property was classed as res mancipi. There might also be a demand to transfer property in private between the transferring parties, such as in the establishment of fideicommissa (Roman trusts). [6]

The need for establishing ownership by means other than conveyance was also a result of the practical defect of a system of ownership based on valid transfer. Title to property could be challenged under this system, because it depended on the good title of the person from whom you acquired the property and so on. If any person's title in the chain were challenged successfully, then this would defeat any title derived from it. This defect required a means of establishing ownership that was not contingent upon a chain of title but could be established independently. [7]

The Roman Law of Usucapio

However, if a bonitary owner kept the res (property) in his possession for a certain amount of time (two years for land, one year for chattels) his title would become full title and he could assert himself as dominus .

Usucaption was the solution that emerged to address the defects of Roman ownership. It required five elements: [8]

  1. Uninterrupted possession of the property for the requisite period (one year for chattels, two years for land);
  2. The property was capable of being owned. Not a free man for example;
  3. Good faith. For example, a buyer might purchase a slave (categorised as res mancipi) in good faith but find twelve months on that the vendor did not himself have good title to that slave;
  4. Iusta causa . A proper ground for acquiring the property, e.g. showing that the acquirer paid for the property.
  5. The property must not have been stolen any time or taken by force.

This largely ameliorated the problems experienced by conveyance as a means of establishing ownership, but could still yield harsh results. A purchaser of res mancipi could be on his way to successfully usucaping the property (e.g. 11 months in possession) but would lose his claim to it if his possession was challenged before the period of usucaption by someone who could establish title.

Usucaption was altered by the Actio Publiciana (see Gaius 4.36 [4] [5] ) which gave scope in the vindicatio (the action for property) for a fictitious usucaption. Such a situation would only arise where the claimant's possession of the property had been interrupted before the period required to usucape it had elapsed. The Actio Publiciana made provision for the possessor of the property to be taken to have usucaped it successfully, if he could show that he would have usucaped the property had his possession of it not been interrupted. In this way usucaption became the dominant form of establishing ownership in Rome.

In Rabbinic Judaism

In orthodox Jewish law, the right of usucaption is defined in a compendium of Oral Laws compiled in 189 CE, known as the Mishnah (Baba Bathra 3:1-ff.). The general scope of the law formerly provided for the right of possession of property in the absence of a legal deed or title, if, after three years of occupancy, no protest or counter-claim had been made to the same property.

Title by usucaption to houses, cisterns, trenches, vaults, dovecots, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields, and slaves, and aught that brings constant gain, is secured by occupation during three completed years; title by usucaption to unirrigated fields [is secured by occupation during] three years and they need not be completed. [9]

If a dispute had arisen over property within this three-year time-frame, the property is assumed to belong to the person who challenges the claim of the squatter / illegal tenant, particularly, when the other is publicly known to have originally possessed the land or house. In such cases, if so-and-so "A" claimed that so-and-so "B" wrongfully took possession of his property, but so-and-so "B" retorted, "Yes, it was formerly yours, but you sold it to me," or "Yes, it was formerly yours, but I received it from you as a gift," - if "A" is known to have once possessed the property, he is assumed to be the rightful owner of the property, and it is the duty of "B" to show proof that "A" either sold it to him, or gave it to him as a gift. The absence of proof renders "B"'s hold of the property null and void. [10]

A squatter who fences in the property, or who locks it up, or who refurbishes it, or who has the keys to the property delivered unto him, are all signs of legal conveyance and is assumed to be the rightful owner, even in the absence of a legal deed. [11] After three years of occupancy the squatter cannot be evicted from the property, unless the original owner can show proof or bring witnesses who testify to the effect that the property is still vested in his name, and that no transaction, conveyance or sale was made between him and the squatter, even though he held it for three years or more, in which case the squatter is forcibly evicted from the property and the court replevins the estate to its rightful owner. [12] The application of this law is similar to what was found in ancient Roman law, under rei vindicatio .

Three years was considered the least amount of time needed for a rei vindicatio to happen, meaning, one year being the time needed for the discovery of the illegal occupant, another year being the time needed to notify the original owner about his property being taken, and another year being the time needed for him to return to the Land of Israel from a far-away country, such as Spain, in order to evict the occupant. [13] [14] The protest must be made before at least two competent witnesses and submitted in a court of law against another's wrongful occupation of his property within the three-year allotted period, in which case the squatter's assumed right to the said property is automatically canceled, unless he can provide proof of purchase. [15] [16] The squatter who fails to provide a legal deed of purchase, or who lost his deed of purchase, forfeits his hold of the property. [15] The language of protestation by the rightful owner is such, or to the effect of such: "So-and-so, who is making use of my courtyard or my field, is a thief." [15] The person who protests another man's wrongful hold of his property must be known by others to be the rightful owner of that property, and if not, the squatter is able to say, "I take no heed to his protestations." [17] [15]

The Jewish custom in Jerusalem during Ottoman rule over Palestine was that wherever it was widely known by the public that a fellow Jew had been deprived of his property under the land tenure laws known as Mülk (where Jewish-owned land was given by the Ottoman conqueror to Muslims, [lower-alpha 1] or Khuraj lands given to Christians and taxed, in exchange for Muslim protection, which same lands became private or allodial land, held in absolute ownership), the usurping occupant was divested of his property and the property returned to its rightful owner, even if the owner could not show proof of purchase. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mishnah</span> First major written collection of the Oral Torah

The Mishnah or the Mishna is the first major written collection of the Jewish oral traditions that are known as the Oral Torah. It is also the first major work of rabbinic literature. The Mishnah was redacted by Judah ha-Nasi probably in Beit Shearim or Sepphoris between the ending of the second century and the beginning of the 3rd century CE in a time when the persecution of Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period would be forgotten.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gemara</span> Component of the Talmud

The Gemara is an essential component of the Talmud, comprising a collection of rabbinical analyses and commentaries on the Mishnah and presented in 63 books. The term is derived from the Aramaic word גמרא‎ and rooted in the Semitic word ג-מ-ר (gamar), which means "to finish" or "complete". Initially, the Gemara was transmitted orally and not permitted to be written down. However, after Judah the Prince compiled the Mishnah around 200 CE, rabbis from Babylonia and the Land of Israel extensively studied the work. Their discussions were eventually documented in a series of books, which would come to be known as the Gemara. The Gemara, when combined with the Mishnah, forms the full Talmud.

The Sadducees were a sect of Jews active in Judea during the Second Temple period, from the second century BCE to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The Sadducees are described in contemporary literary sources in contrast to the two other major sects at the time, the Pharisees and the Essenes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yemenite Hebrew</span> Pronunciation system for Hebrew traditionally used by Yemenite Jews

Yemenite Hebrew, also referred to as Temani Hebrew, is the pronunciation system for Hebrew traditionally used by Yemenite Jews. Yemenite Hebrew has been studied by language scholars, many of whom believe it to retain older phonetic and grammatical features lost elsewhere.  Yemenite speakers of Hebrew have garnered considerable praise from language purists because of their use of grammatical features from classical Hebrew. Tunisian rabbi and scholar, Rabbi Meir Mazuz, once said of Yemenites that they are good grammarians.

Capital punishment in traditional Jewish law has been defined in Codes of Jewish law dating back to medieval times, based on a system of oral laws contained in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, the primary source being the Hebrew Bible. In traditional Jewish law there are four types of capital punishment: a) stoning, b) burning by ingesting molten lead, c) strangling, and d) beheading, each being the punishment for specific offenses. Except in special cases where a king can issue the death penalty, capital punishment in Jewish law cannot be decreed upon a person unless there were a minimum of twenty-three judges (Sanhedrin) adjudicating in that person's trial who, by a majority vote, gave the death sentence, and where there had been at least two competent witnesses who testified before the court that they had seen the litigant commit the offense. Even so, capital punishment does not begin in Jewish law until the court adjudicating in this case had issued the death sentence from a specific place on the Temple Mount in the city of Jerusalem.

Johanan bar Nappaha was a leading rabbi in the early era of the Talmud. He belonged to the second generation of amoraim.

<i>Bava Batra</i> Tractate of the Talmud and the Mishnah

Bava Batra is the third of the three Talmudic tractates in the Talmud in the order Nezikin; it deals with a person's responsibilities and rights as the owner of property. It is part of Judaism's oral law. Originally it, together with Bava Kamma and Bava Metzia, formed a single tractate called Nezikin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tithes in Judaism</span> Religious donations in Judaism

The tithe is specifically mentioned in the Books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The tithe system was organized in a seven-year cycle, the seventh-year corresponding to the Shemittah-cycle in which year tithes were broken-off, and in every third and sixth-year of this cycle the second tithe replaced with the poor man's tithe. These tithes were akin to taxes for the people of Israel and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within thy gates" to support the Levites and assist the poor. Every year, Bikkurim, terumah, ma'aser rishon and terumat ma'aser were separated from the grain, wine and oil. Initially, the commandment to separate tithes from one's produce only applied when the entire nation of Israel had settled in the Land of Israel. The Returnees from the Babylonian exile who had resettled the country were a Jewish minority, and who, although they were not obligated to tithe their produce, put themselves under a voluntary bind to do so, and which practice became obligatory upon all.

The House of Hillel and House of Shammai were, among Jewish scholars, two schools of thought during the period of tannaim, named after the sages Hillel and Shammai who founded them. These two schools had vigorous debates on matters of ritual practice, ethics, and theology which were critical for the shaping of the Oral Law and Judaism as it is today.

In Jewish law, a chazakah is a legal presumption; it establishes burden of proof. There exist many such presumptions, for example regarding the ownership of property, a person's personal status, and presumptions about human behavior.

Usucapio was a concept in Roman law that dealt with the acquisition of ownership of something through possession. It was subsequently developed as a principle of civil law systems, usucaption. It is similar to the common law concept of adverse possession, or acquiring land prescriptively.

Kil'ayim are the prohibitions in Jewish law which proscribe the planting of certain mixtures of seeds, grafting, the mixing of plants in vineyards, the crossbreeding of animals, the formation of a team in which different kinds of animals work together, and the mixing of wool with linen in garments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dough offering</span> Biblical injunction to separate a tithe from bread

In Judaism, the dough offering is an assertive command requiring the owner of bread dough to give a part of the kneaded dough to a kohen. The obligation to separate the dough offering from the dough begins the moment the dough is kneaded, but may also be separated after the loaves are baked. This commandment is one of the twenty-four kohanic gifts, and, by a biblical injunction, is only obligatory in the Land of Israel, but from a rabbinic injunction applies also to breadstuffs made outside the Land of Israel.

Impurity of the land of the nations is a rabbinic edict stipulating a specified degree of tumah (impurity) on all lands outside the Land of Israel. The demarcation lines of foreign lands effectually included all those lands not settled by the people of Israel during their return from the Babylonian exile during the Second Temple period, and was meant to dissuade the priests of Aaron's lineage from venturing beyond the Land of Israel where graves were unmarked, and who may inadvertently contract corpse uncleanness and thereby eat their bread-offering (Terumah), unawares, in a state of ritual impurity and becoming liable thereby to kareth. The declaration with respect to foreign lands includes also the "virgin soil" of those lands, and was, therefore, a safeguard meant to prevent the priests from inadvertently transgressing the Law of Moses.

Dina d'malkhuta dina is a principle in Jewish religious law that the civil law of the country is binding upon the Jewish inhabitants of that country, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law. The concept of dina de-malkhuta dina is similar to the concept of conflict of laws in other legal systems. It appears in at least twenty-five places in the Shulchan Arukh.

Sicaricon, lit. 'usurping occupant; possessor of confiscated property; the law concerning the purchase of confiscated property', refers in Jewish law to a former act and counter-measure meant to deal effectively with religious persecution against Jews in which the Roman government had permitted its own citizens to seize the property of Jewish landowners who were either absent or killed in war, or taken captive, or else where Roman citizens had received property that had been confiscated by the state in the laws prescribed under ager publicus, and to which the original Jewish owners of such property had not incurred any legal debt or fine, but had simply been the victims of war and the illegal, governmental expropriation of such lands from their rightful owners or heirs. The original Jewish law, made at some time after the First Jewish-Roman War with Vespasian and his son Titus, saw additional amendments by later rabbinic courts, all of which were meant to safe-guard against depriving the original landowners and their heirs of any land that belonged to them, and to ensure their ability to redeem such property in the future.

Biblical mile is a unit of distance on land, or linear measure, principally used by Jews during the Herodian dynasty to ascertain distances between cities and to mark the Sabbath limit, equivalent to about ⅔ of an English statute mile, or what was about four furlongs. The basic Jewish traditional unit of distance was the cubit, each cubit being roughly between 46–60 centimetres (18–24 in) The standard measurement of the biblical mile, or what is sometimes called tǝḥūm šabbat, was 2,000 cubits.

Corpse uncleanness is a state of ritual uncleanness described in Jewish halachic law. It is the highest grade of uncleanness, or defilement, and is contracted by having either directly or indirectly touched, carried or shifted a dead human body, or after having entered a roofed house or chamber where the corpse of a Jew is lying.

Hefker beth-din hefker, "that which is declared by a court ownerless property is forthwith accounted ownerless property", is a principle in Jewish religious law that stipulates the right of a Jewish court of law in what regards jus in re aliena. The principle is derived from an episode in the Book of Ezra, where Ezra the Scribe commanded the Jewish people to return to their former country, threatening to confiscate the property of anyone who refuses to go-up to the Land of Israel, after having lived in exile.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Butts and bounds</span> On legal deeds and their content

Butts and bounds, shortened form for "abuttals and boundaries" of a property, are the boundary lines delineated between plots of land, usually those which define the end of an estate, as used in legal deeds, titles, etc. These are usually descriptive features in the property, such as trees, outcroppings of stone, or riverine brooks, etc., and are signified in the legal deed for purposes of identification.

References

  1. ↑ Pombo, Fernando (2017). Doing Business in Spain. LexisNexis. p. 275. ISBN   978-1579115814 . Retrieved 20 December 2017.
  2. ↑ Penadés, Javier Plaza; Martínez, Luz M. (2014). European Perspectives on the Common European Sales Law. Springer. p. 290. ISBN   978-3319104973.
  3. ↑ "Introduction". global.oup.com. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
  4. 1 2 De Zulueta, Francis (1946). The Institutes of Gaius. OUP. ISBN   0-19-825112-2.
  5. 1 2 "The Institutes of Gaius". thelatinlibrary.com. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
  6. ↑ Johnston, David (1988). The Roman Law of Trusts. Clarendon Press. ISBN   978-0-19-825216-0.
  7. ↑ Johnston, David (1961). Roman Law in Context. Cambridge University Press. pp. 54–55. ISBN   0-521-63961-1.
  8. ↑ Nicholas, Barry (1962). An Introduction to Roman Law. London: Oxford University Press. p. 122. ISBN   0-19-876063-9.
  9. ↑ Mishnah (1977). Herbert Danby (ed.). The Mishnah (12th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.  369. ISBN   0-19-815402-X., s.v. Baba Bathra 3:1
  10. ↑ Kehati, P., ed. (1977). Mishnayot Mevoarot (Explained Mishnayot) (in Hebrew). Vol. 7 (Neziqin - part I) (9 ed.). Jerusalem: Hekhal Shelomoh. pp. 259–260. OCLC   18026605., s.v. Baba Bathra 3:1 (Introduction)
  11. ↑ Maimonides (1974). Sefer Mishneh Torah - HaYad Ha-Chazakah (Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law) (in Hebrew). Vol. 6. Jerusalem: Pe'er HaTorah. p. 3 [2a] (Hil. Mekhirah 1:8-9). OCLC   122758200.
  12. ↑ Maimonides (1974). Sefer Mishneh Torah - HaYad Ha-Chazakah (Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law) (in Hebrew). Vol. 6. Jerusalem: Pe'er HaTorah. p. 41 [21a] (Hil. Ṭoʻen we'niṭʻan 14:12). OCLC   122758200.
  13. ↑ Mishnayoth, with a commentary by Pinchas Kahati, Baba Bathra 3:2 s.v., אספמיא, Jerusalem 1998 (Hebrew) OCLC   868745333
  14. ↑ Danby, H., ed. (1977), The Mishnah, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.  369, ISBN   0-19-815402-X , s.v. Baba Bathra 3:2
  15. 1 2 3 4 Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 216–217 (s.v. מחאה ומודעא). OCLC   54817857. (reprinted from 1922 and 1938 editions of the Hebrew Publishing Co., New York)
  16. ↑ Babylonian Talmud ( Baba Bathra 38a–40a); Shulhan Arukh ( Choshen Mishpat §146)
  17. ↑ Shulhan Arukh (Choshen Mishpat 149:16)
  18. ↑ Gelis, Jacob (1968). The Customs of the Land of Israel (מנהגי ארץ-ישראל). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. p. 391 (6-2). OCLC   873519965.

Notes

  1. ↑ The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) founded by the Ottoman Turk, Mehmed Talaat, began in November of 1914 to seize land from Jews in Palestine and to give the same land to Muslim settlers.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.