What is the legal status of acquisitions by ‘nonowners’? Do they have constitutional protection? Does good faith relate to this? If so, would possessory verification be established? The purpose of this roundtable is to answer these and more questions so that the reader can contribute to the debate in the area of real estate.

La incorporación del concepto de posesión precaria en la norma positiva sustantiva ha sido defectuosa, pues debió regularse normativamente una mayor precisión en lo referido a la posesión ilegítima, pues se ha llegado a confundir la naturaleza ilegítima de la posesión precaria, pretendiendo clasificarla en un rubro distinto, como ha sucedido en alguna jurisprudencia reciente, lo cual puede traer consigo un errado mensaje a la comunidad. Es también objetivo del presente trabajo, aportar una propuesta normativa que permita corregir tal confusión.

The judicial summons promoted by the owner against the possessor ad usucapionem is, in comparative law, a case of interruption, which is called civil interruption. The author addresses this procedural act and its effects, in light of our patrimonial legal system and establishes that with this there is no interruption, neither of the term nor of the usucapion itself. To do this, he makes a brief historical analysis of usucapion and prescription, distinguishing one figure from the other; pointing out that with the first the property is acquired with a view solely to the owner, while with the second it also operates with a view to the owner, that is, verifying whether or not he was diligent. Also, the autor explains the reason why the comparative legislation that he cites regulates the suspension of prescription and ...

La incorporación del concepto de posesión precaria en la norma positiva sustantiva ha sido defectuosa, pues debió regularse normativamente una mayor precisión en lo referido a la posesión ilegítima, pues se ha llegado a confundir la naturaleza ilegítima de la posesión precaria, pretendiendo clasificarla en un rubro distinto, como ha sucedido en alguna jurisprudencia reciente, lo cual puede traer consigo un errado mensaje a la comunidad. Es también objetivo del presente trabajo, aportar una propuesta normativa que permita corregir tal confusión.

The judicial summons promoted by the owner against the possessor ad usucapionem is, in comparative law, a case of interruption, which is called civil interruption. The author addresses this procedural act and its effects, in light of our patrimonial legal system and establishes that with this there is no interruption, neither of the term nor of the usucapion itself. To do this, he makes a brief historical analysis of usucapion and prescription, distinguishing one figure from the other; pointing out that with the first the property is acquired with a view solely to the owner, while with the second it also operates with a view to the owner, that is, verifying whether or not he was diligent. Also, the autor explains the reason why the comparative legislation that he cites regulates the suspension of prescription and ...

What is the legal status of acquisitions by ‘nonowners’? Do they have constitutional protection? Does good faith relate to this? If so, would possessory verification be established? The purpose of this roundtable is to answer these and more questions so that the reader can contribute to the debate in the area of real estate.

This paper addresses the guarantees or security interest granted in legal relationships, in other words, in mandatory or credit related legal relationships in which two parties or persons are identified: the active party, who is called the creditor or holder of a credit right, and the passive party, known as the debtor or liable party. Hence, facing the possibility of the breach of a duty or obligation imposed or assumed by the debtor, the guarantee constitutes the hope that such an obligation will be met and that the creditor’s loan will be satisfied. In this regard, the personal and real guarantees acknowledged by our civil and commercial laws are analyzed.

No description

No description

The present article is about the possession within the frame of the Peruvian civil right and focuses its attention on the possession and the roll of the title in the exercise of this real right. The right of posesion is approached from the point of view of the legal act and its effect as a cause of the possessory right, as well as the right that the law recognizes to the possessor of the good. Putative title and fair title, interversion of the title of possession, mediate and immediate possession, legitimate and illegitimate possession, precarious possession constitute subjects that are disussed in this article.

in the national jurisprudence respect to the origin of the third party of the property or dominion against mortgages or moving guarantees registered, the possibility of admitting to proceeding the demand of third party of property against mortgages is analyzed in the presentarticle; and if in the assumption to admit it, the judicial veredict that arranges it can be appealed; it also explains the object and theexceptional case of origin of this demand, finalizing shaping his conclusions.

Históricamente, la tercería excluyente de propiedad ha sido un medio de defensa de un tercero cuyos bienes han sido objeto de medidas de embargo o de secuestro dictadas por un juez en un proceso en el que dicha persona no es parte. Ello se encuentra en estricta coincidencia con una correcta interpretación del texto anterior del artículo 533º del C. P. C; sin embargo, la Sala Civil Permanente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, durante los años que van del 2006 a 2007 y parte del 2008, sostuvo que cuando la referida norma señalaba que la tercería puede fundarse en la propiedad de bienes afectados con medida cautelar o para su ejecución, se debía incluir también en dicho supuesto «la ejecución de garantías reales». Esto motivó la modificación —introducida por Decreto Legislativo Nº 1069— del texto del primer párrafo del artículo 533º del C. P. C., y se introdujo en di...

The judicial summons promoted by the owner against the possessor ad usucapionem is, in comparative law, a case of interruption, which is called civil interruption. The author addresses this procedural act and its effects, in light of our patrimonial legal system and establishes that with this there is no interruption, neither of the term nor of the usucapion itself. To do this, he makes a brief historical analysis of usucapion and prescription, distinguishing one figure from the other; pointing out that with the first the property is acquired with a view solely to the owner, while with the second it also operates with a view to the owner, that is, verifying whether or not he was diligent. Also, the autor explains the reason why the comparative legislation that he cites regulates the suspension of prescription and ...

What is the legal status of acquisitions by ‘nonowners’? Do they have constitutional protection? Does good faith relate to this? If so, would possessory verification be established? The purpose of this roundtable is to answer these and more questions so that the reader can contribute to the debate in the area of real estate.

This paper addresses the guarantees or security interest granted in legal relationships, in other words, in mandatory or credit related legal relationships in which two parties or persons are identified: the active party, who is called the creditor or holder of a credit right, and the passive party, known as the debtor or liable party. Hence, facing the possibility of the breach of a duty or obligation imposed or assumed by the debtor, the guarantee constitutes the hope that such an obligation will be met and that the creditor’s loan will be satisfied. In this regard, the personal and real guarantees acknowledged by our civil and commercial laws are analyzed.

No description

No description

The present article is about the possession within the frame of the Peruvian civil right and focuses its attention on the possession and the roll of the title in the exercise of this real right. The right of posesion is approached from the point of view of the legal act and its effect as a cause of the possessory right, as well as the right that the law recognizes to the possessor of the good. Putative title and fair title, interversion of the title of possession, mediate and immediate possession, legitimate and illegitimate possession, precarious possession constitute subjects that are disussed in this article.

in the national jurisprudence respect to the origin of the third party of the property or dominion against mortgages or moving guarantees registered, the possibility of admitting to proceeding the demand of third party of property against mortgages is analyzed in the presentarticle; and if in the assumption to admit it, the judicial veredict that arranges it can be appealed; it also explains the object and theexceptional case of origin of this demand, finalizing shaping his conclusions.

Históricamente, la tercería excluyente de propiedad ha sido un medio de defensa de un tercero cuyos bienes han sido objeto de medidas de embargo o de secuestro dictadas por un juez en un proceso en el que dicha persona no es parte. Ello se encuentra en estricta coincidencia con una correcta interpretación del texto anterior del artículo 533º del C. P. C; sin embargo, la Sala Civil Permanente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, durante los años que van del 2006 a 2007 y parte del 2008, sostuvo que cuando la referida norma señalaba que la tercería puede fundarse en la propiedad de bienes afectados con medida cautelar o para su ejecución, se debía incluir también en dicho supuesto «la ejecución de garantías reales». Esto motivó la modificación —introducida por Decreto Legislativo Nº 1069— del texto del primer párrafo del artículo 533º del C. P. C., y se introdujo en di...