In our legal system, we use the understanding of ihering peacefully and facilitate its legal application using only one of the theories developed. While the owner behaves in possession as if he were the owner, a custodial third party performs his function on the orders of another person, for example, in the case of a janitor or valet who is on the property but is not owner or owner, he retains these assets only for a third party. Direct possession by a person who has the thing temporarily in his possession by virtue of personal or real laws does not nullify the indirect possession by which he was attempted, and the direct possessor may defend his possession against indirect possession. It is not a kind of usucapião to speak of payment under Article 1228 § 5. Majority view that the institution should be applied because of the social function of property. If the owners are on low incomes, the compensation must be paid by the state and does not apply to the common good, then applies with a new understanding for Sunday public goods. His compatriot, the lawyer Ihering, opposed his theory by bringing with him the theory of appearance, that is, he will possess the one who seems to be in possession of a certain good because he «acts as owner». Contrary to what many people think, property and property are not the same thing to explain the material and procedural implications of ownership. As follows: It is impossible to exhaust the question of the effects of possession in a single elder. However, it was possible to address important issues, to distinguish ownership from property and to bring into play case law and doctrine on the matter. We hope this content has been helpful to you.

Until next time. Acessio possessionist by deed among the living he succession possession is mortis causa. To meet the requirement of exceptional usucapião, possession of the predecessor can be added. The animus domini or spirit of the owner is characterized as the intention to be the owner or to act as the owner. Here is the logic, prevent the tenant from acquiring the property by usucapião, also prevents the commander, has a contract in the property. If two or more persons have undivided things, they may each perform possessive acts on them, as long as they do not exclude those of the other owners. In the classic example of the guardian, when a possessive act is addressed to him, he must give paternity to the owner or owner. Based on the above examples, it remains clear how unjust possession works.

The threat has not yet been aggression, but there is a legitimate fear that it will happen. For possible bodily harm, the prohibition will be taken. Article 1210 of the Civil Code states: The owner has the right to remain in possession in case of turbidity, to be restored in the storm and to be insured against imminent violence, if he only fears harassment. There are several theories related to possession, but the two most important are: the subjective theory of possession and the objective theory of possession, which are opposed to the evolutionary aspect of the institute. Most of the doctrine is based on objective theory as it is assumed. Possession in good faith loses this character only in the case and from the moment when the circumstances suggest that the owner is aware that he has improperly possessed. The new and old mandate under Article 924 of the CCP, which stipulates that if the complaint is filed within one year and one day after the special rite, such a period of distinction follows. In a year and a day new inauguration and after this period, old property. In the next article, we will talk about direct and indirect ownership. Repossession (or possessive hits) involves losing possession for a reason.

In this case, the direct and indirect owner may request his reintegration. Possession is precisely that which is not violent, secret or precarious. General concepts about possession and its difference from incarceration. Objective theory: This theory was proposed by Ihering and is based on the idea that possession has only one element: «corpus», which in Ihering`s theory has a different meaning, would be behavior because of the economic value of the property and would already have the «animus», which would be the behavior of the owner. Is this person, although he believes he is the owner of the property, really the owner of the property or does he only exercise ownership of the property? Whereas in the institution of possession, the individual acts as if he were, property has a great difference that involves various rights and obligations. In this article, you will learn what property is and what is the difference between property and property, and what are the differences between these two definitions. Finally, there is a need to increase the difference between possession and imprisonment, as the two have similar concepts, but differ in some respects. «First of all, it should be noted that possession, in the words of Valdemar Luz (2013, p. 282), can be understood as `the full or non-exercise of certain powers inherent in domination or property`. Possession refers to physical strength and the intention to stay within reach. As for subjective defects: possession in good faith and possession in bad faith.

According to article 1201, possession in good faith if the possessor is unaware of the defect in possession or impediment that prevents the acquisition of the thing. Possession in bad faith is one in which the owner is aware of his defects. Doctrinally, the notion of possession was mainly limited by two persons of great historical importance in the legal environment, as they took different paths and were used as a legal basis in different countries on the basis of subjective and objective theories. The second refers to the exception to the rule, that is, it is the one that lasts for a certain period of time and «allows the acquisition of property by the usucapião, provided that the legal parameters are respected». This possession must be gentle, peaceful and permanent, uninterrupted and with the intention of the owner. In addition, it must have the requirements of due title and good faith (TARTUCE, 2020). However, confusion between the institutions of possession and imprisonment is very frequent, while in the former case it is due to the exercise of one or more of the powers inherent in property, detention in turn establishing possession for hire or reward through the execution of orders and instructions. The writing of art. 1.198 is very clear: the purpose of maintaining possession is to protect possession from disturbance that may occur before the squatter. This can happen in cases where the person usually lets the horses graze on someone else`s property, or on land that is not walled up and someone usually parks the vehicle on site. Thus, it is a theory with shortcomings and gives way to the objective theory of property, where Ihering criticizes Savigny`s theory, in a more contemporary example of building bricks in the ground, although there is no one next door if someone catches a robbery. This means that if you perceive as the owner, you have possession.

You don`t need to have the body, you don`t need to know if you have animosity or not, you need to understand if you`re acting like an owner. In fact, one of the biggest differences between property and property is due to value. That is, according to Article 108 of the Civil Code, if the value of the property is greater than thirty times the highest minimum wage in force in Brazil, the public deed is essential for the transfer of ownership of the property, see: It is understood by the property that corresponds to the purposes of a particular business, in the case of land for work or cultivation or property for residential purposes, It aims to improve the quality of community life and is a prerequisite for possessive protection. Thus, the first case shows a relationship of dependence in the name of another, he receives orders and instructions from others, the factors of possession are the servants of possession, the one who keeps possession in the name of another, can use the nomination as an author. Authorization requires authorization, while tolerance is without authorization but knowing that it will be tolerated. The stated statement is based on the social function of possession, to the extent that, as Stolze and Rodolfo Filho (2021) teach well (2021), possession goes beyond the previous and individualistic idea of mere self-interest to realize a plan focused on social function. It should also be noted that the Civil Code of 2002 adopted the Ihering theory without neglecting the social function of property. It is possessing in good faith if the owner is unaware of the defect or obstacle that prevents the acquisition of the thing.

Another example of the social function of property is Article 1238, which deals with the extraordinary usucapião, where it extends the term to 10 years if the owner uses the property as housing or provides work or services of a productive nature. Article 1242, paragraph 1 also shortens the period from 10 to 5 years until the ordinary usucapião for the destination of the goods. Thus, such a possibility of attributing a social function to the institution of possession is enshrined. In turn, clandestine possession is associated with possession that takes place in a hidden manner without anyone knowing about it, such as the group of individuals who use the night to invade a particular property.