The legitimizing scope of the ordinary usucaption of immovable property

Abstract

«Ordinary usucaption», or acquisitive prescription, has been confused and mistreated by doctrine and jurisprudence. While a majority believes that this concept only cures defects of lack of ownership of the transferor, there is no shortage of authors and judicial resolutions which accept that acquisitive prescription may, similarly, remedy defects in voidable titles or even radically void titles. We dedicate this article to defining the legitimizing scope of the ordinary acquisitive prescription of immovable property, while at the same time posing the question of whether the radically void title may, in certain cases, be proper title for acquisitive prescription in the short prescription for property. This is a particularly relevant theme at this time, as the Supreme Court Judgement (STS 15/01/2013 and STS 11/7/2012) appear inclined towards the «theory of presumption», as they note that registration does not replace or validate the absence or defects which may arise in defining the objective assumptions for acquisitive prescription.