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, 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 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]

Title by usucaption in the above cases does not apply to persons who had been artisans working on the property in question, or to persons who had been co-partners in business with the original owner, or to persons who had been sharecroppers on the property in question, or to persons who had acted as legal guardian of the original owner, nor can title by usucaption apply to a man when it comes to his wife's property, or vice-versa, when his wife comes to claim her husband's property. [18]

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, [a] 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. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sycamine</span> Tree mentioned in ancient literature

The sycamine tree is a tree mentioned in both classical Hebrew literature and in Greek literature. The tree is also known by the names sycamore fig tree, and fig-mulberry. It appears also in Luke 17:6 and 19:4 of the Bible. The Hebrew word for the tree is shiḳmah (sing.), shiḳmīn (pl.), having nearly the same phonemes in Greek Others, however, identify the tree as mulberry tree, found in two species, the Black Mulberry and the White Mulberry, which are common in Palestine. It is in the same family as the fig-tree.

The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut down, but cedars will we put in their place.

Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption, are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission (licence) of its legal owner.

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.

<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.

A chazakah is a legal presumption In halakha ; it establishes burden of proof. There exist many such presumptions, for example, regarding the ownership of property, a person's 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.

<i>Demai</i> Agricultural produce whose tithing status is uncertain

Demai is a Halakhic term meaning "doubtful". The demai status applies to agricultural produce acquired from common people who are suspected of not correctly separating tithes according to Jewish law. As a result, one who acquires demai produce must separate some of the tithes himself, in case this was not done earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nathan ben Abraham I</span> 11th century commentator on the Mishnah

Nathan ben Abraham, known also by the epithet President of the Academy in the Land of Israel, was an 11th-century rabbi and exegete of the Mishnah who lived in Ramla, in the Jund Filastin district of the Fatimid Caliphate. He was the author of the first known commentary covering the entire Mishnah.

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.

Corpse uncleanness is a state of ritual uncleanness described in Jewish halachic law. It is the highest grade of uncleanness, or defilement, known to man 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 (hefker) 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.

Mandatory war, or compulsory war, is a technical term found in Hebrew classical literature and denoting a war that requires the entire nation of the Jewish people to rise-up and to become actively engaged-in because of an existential threat to the Jewish nation. The aim is to thwart the enemy advances against the nation of Israel, without the necessity of enslaving and exterminating the enemy, or of annexing the enemy's territory.

Voluntary war, sometimes called a discretionary war, optional war, a non-obligatory war, or a war of free choice, is a technical term found in Hebrew classical literature and denoting a war that is waged of free choice by Israel, only at such a time when the people of Israel are settled in their ancestral homeland. Such a war cannot be waged without either the approbation of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of no fewer than seventy-one judges, or, according to some authorities, without the command of a king.

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. ↑ 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. p. 129 (s.v. חזקה). OCLC   54817857. (reprinted from 1922 and 1938 editions of the Hebrew Publishing Co., New York)
  19. ↑ 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.