Social media debate ignites over adverse housing estate possession

The legal concept of adverse possession, originally established to allow the utilisation of neglected or abandoned land, has recently sparked controversy on social media following a dispute involving a couple and an uninvited occupant on their property.

The couple discovered that their wedding gift, a house in a housing estate, had been occupied and altered by someone claiming a long-standing desire to purchase the property, unaware of the owner’s identity. The occupant cited adverse possession, raising public interest in the legality of such claims.

Adverse possession is a legal principle concerning real estate that often leads to disputes. Codified in Section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code, it states that if a person possesses another’s property openly, peacefully, and with the intent of ownership for 10 years in the case of immovable property, that person can gain ownership rights. Given this, property owners should vigilantly monitor their assets, as mere ownership does not guarantee safety from claims by others.

To prevent losing property to another through adverse possession, owners can take several precautionary measures. These include regular inspections of the property, clear demarcation of boundaries, periodic transactions with the land department to reinforce ownership with the state, and prompt objections to any unauthorized possession, emphasizing non-consent. Patience is crucial, as until a legal judgment is made, owners can still manage their property.

The law specifies that only land with formal documentation, like title deeds, can be subject to adverse possession. Tenants, those possessing property under threat or deceit, and those with merely contractual agreements to use the land cannot claim ownership through adverse possession.

Once 10 years of adverse possession is completed, the possessor has the authority to file a lawsuit to register their rights, even though the court may not have yet ruled on the ownership. Written permission from the landowner negates the concept of adverse possession, and those in the process of purchasing the property are not considered possessors.

This case has highlighted the complexities of adverse possession, a concept designed to promote the beneficial use of land that can lead to unexpected consequences for unwary property owners. The story serves as a warning to landowners to remain vigilant and proactive in protecting their assets from potential adverse possession claims.