The relevant articles within the Civil Code regulating acquisitive prescription are the following;
i. Article 2107(1) of the Civil Code:
“Prescription is a mode of acquiring a right by a continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, open, and unequivocal possession for a time specified by law.”
ii. Article 2140 (1) of the Civil Code;
“Any person who in good faith and under a title capable of transferring ownership possesses an immovable thing for a period of ten years acquires ownership thereof.”
iii. Article 2143 of the Civil Code;
“All actions, whether real, personal, or mixed, are barred by the lapse of thirty years, and no opposition to the benefit of limitation may be made on the ground of the absence of title or good faith.”
It can be seen from the aforementioned articles of the law that, there are mainly two ways of acquiring ownership by means of prescription. Where the possessor is possessing the property in good faith and under a title of ownership, capable of the transferring the same, the property shall become his own after the lapse of ten years.
Alternatively, should the possessor of the property have the intention of acquiring the property, despite not being in good faith or having a title of ownership, acquisition may still take place provided that possession was continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and unequivocal as stated within Article 2107(1) of the Civil Code herein above.
The necessity of these requisites has been confirmed in numerous judgements delivered by the Court of Appeal.
Here it would be pertinent to refer to the judgement ‘Franco Buttigieg et v Anthony Aquilina et' (Rik 1051/12/1AF) decided on the 25th October 2023' whereby the Court delved with a situation where each of the parties claimed that the property in question belonged to them. In its considerations, the CoA made reference to a series of judgements which can better explain all the necessary requisites that need to be present for acquisitive prescription to occur, not only those stipulated within the law, but also conditions which have been developed by means of jurisprudence.
In fact, the Court quoted the judgement in the names “Coleiro Brothers Limited v Karmenu Sciberras” decided on the 13th February 2014, whereby it was stated that:
“Il-Qorti taghmel referenza għall-principji enuncjati fis-sentenza ta` din il-Qorti (PA/PS) tas-27 ta' Gunju 2003 fil-kawza “Salvino Testaferrata Moroni Viani et v. Francis Montanaro” fosthom illi l-preskrizzjoni tista` tkun kemm akkwizittiva kif ukoll estintiva, kif ukoll illi l-azzjoni tal-proprjetarju biex jiehu dak li huwa tieghu ma tistax tigi opposta b`semplici preskrizzjoni estintiva, izda biss b`dik akkwizittiva, konsistenti fil-pussess mill-eccipjent. Il-preskrizzjoni tat-tletin sena ma tirrikjedi la titolu u lanqas buona fede.
…Biex il-pussess jista` jitqies legittimu huwa mehtieg li jkun kontinwu, mhux interrott, pubbliku u mhux ekwivoku … Min jeccepixxi l-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva ghandu jipprova mhux biss il-pussess imma anke illi dak il-pussess kien minghajr interruzzjoni ghaz-zmien kollu ta' tletin sena.”
This judgement therefore begins to highlight that should possession fail in any other aforementioned requisites, that acquisition of ownership of the property by means of prescription cannot be upheld.
Of relevance is the intention of the possessor of the property, whereby the person in possession must necessarily show that he acted in the same manner as a lawful owner would. Although the requisite of good faith is not necessary where the person has possessed the property for 30 years, such intention to act as the lawful owner goes to show that the possessor exercised all those rights that would have been available to him had he been the lawful owner. This ca occur for instance the right of passage is granted to third parties under mere tolerance.
In this respect, and as quoted by the CoA, reference can be made to the judgement in the names “Emmanuel Farrugia et v Mary Doris Veneziani et' decided on the 12th May 2011 (Cit. 325/2004)” in which the Court explained that;
“In succint, il-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva trentennali tippresupponi pussess legittimu ta' tletin (30) sena. Huwa pussess civili li ghandu jkun materjali u intenzjonali, jigifieri l-animus tal-possessur li jgawdi d-dritt fuq il-haga bhalikieku hu kien proprjetarju. Minbarra dan, il-pussess necessarju ghal din it-tip ta' preskrizzjoni jrid ikun ukoll wiehed legittimu jigifieri kontinwu, mhux interrott, pubbliku u mhux ekwivoku.”
Dwar il-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva trentennali, il-Qorti tal-Appell fis-sentenza taghha tat-13 ta' Marzu 1953 fil-kawza “Caruana et vs Vella” (Vol.XXXVII.I.105) qalet hekk –
Illi però kif intqal ghall-effacija taghha bhala akkwizittiva, din il-preskrizzjoni tippresupponi l-pussess legittimu li trid il-ligi ghaz-zmien kollu tat-trentennju. Hu maghruf illi l-elementi tal-pussess civili huma tnejn, dak materjali, il-poter ta` fatt fuq il-haga, u l-iehor intenzjonali, l-animu tal-possessur li jgawdi d-dritt fuq il-haga bhallikieku hu kien il-propjetarju taghha – animus et corpus; corpus possessionis et animus possidendi vel animus domini. Ghalhekk mhux pussess civili dak li jonqos fih wiehed jew l-iehor minn dawn iz-zewg elementi b'mod li mhijiex bizzejjed id-detenzjoni tal-haga jew it-tgawdija taghha mhux bhala haga proprija imma bhala haga ta` haddiehor ghax allura din tkun biss detenzjoni jew tgawdija prekarja … Hu elementari li lil min jallega l-preskrizzjoni trentennali ma jistax jigi oppost in-nuqqas ta` titolu jew ta' bona fede … Dan il-pussess b'ligi ghandu jkun kontinwu, mhux miksur, pacifiku, pubbliku u mhux ekwivoku”.
Hence it can be confirmed that the possessor of the property must ensure that he has exercised possession for a number of 30 years, without ever having been disturbed in his possession. Secondly, the possessor must prove that he has enjoyed the property in the same manner and with the same intention as he would have been the lawful owner of the property. Whether the possessor was cognisant of the fact that he not the lawful owner of the property is extraneous and would relate to whether the possessor can be classified to have possession in good faith or otherwise.
This point has also been confirmed by the Court in Farrugia et v Cassar et' decided on the 28th May 2010 by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) (Superior Jurisdiction), wherein it stated that “Il-possessur irid ikun wera li qieghed jagixxi bl-animus rem sibi habendi, cjoe` l-intenzjoni li qieghed jagixxi bhala l-proprjetarju esklussiv tal-haga. L-atturi qeghdin isostnu l-pretensjoni taghhom ghall-fini tat-talbiet fuq il-preskrizzjoni akkwizitiva trigenarja bil-pussess taghhom tal-art in kwistjoni `animo domini`. Din l-ghamla ta` preskrizzjoni ma tirrikjedix la titolu u lanqas bona fides. Ghalhekk bis-semplici pussess legittimu ta` tletin sena l-possessur tal-haga jakkwista l-proprjetà ta` l-istess haga posseduta minnu.”
It essential to note, that the possessor of the property must identify the method as to how he has come to such possession. This is mainly because a possessor cannot acquire the ownership of the property should he be in possession under mere tolerance from the actual owner or under any other title/right which allows such person to have possession of the property. This aspect was delved into “Pace v Abela” decided by the Court of Appeal on the 30th September 2011, where the Court highlighted the following;
“Ricci fid-Diritto Civile jsostni li mhux bizzejjed li l-possessur jallega li kellu l-animo domini u jieqaf hemm … Ghalhekk sabiex il-pussess ikun tassew legittimu, irid ikun kif imfisser fl-Art. 561 tal-Kap.16. u cioe` irid ikun hemm it-tgawdija ta` jedd li wiehed izomm jew jezercita bhala tieghu innifsu u allura ezercizzju ta` jedd assolut u esklussiv. Mhux bizzejjed li dak l-ezercizzju ikun bil-buona grazzja jew tolleranza.. Atti ta` mera tolleranza ma jistghux jiswew bhala bazi ta` pussess lanqas jekk jigu ezercitati minn zmien antikissimu u immemorabbli (“Fenech et vs Salomone et”, Appell Civili, 1 ta` Frar 1971)
Dan jinghad ghaliex persuna li zzomm il-haga f`isem haddiehor jew il-werrieta taghha ma tistax tippreveskrivi favur taghha stess. Fost dawn il-persuni hemm il-kerrejja, id-depozitarji u l-uzufruttwarji. Ghalkemm il-pussess jehtieg li jkun kontinwu u mhux miksur ghaz-zmien kollu li tghid il-ligi, l-attur fil-prova tal-kontinwità ghandu l-ghajnuna ta` prezunzjonijiet iuris tantum, bhal ma hi dik probatis extremis media præsumuntur, li tohrog mill-Art. 529 tal-Kap.16. – Mill-pussess attwali ma titnissilx prezunzjoni ta` pussess fl-imghoddi, hlief jekk il-pussessur ikollu titolu; f`dan il-kaz, jekk ma jigix ippruvat il-kuntrarju, jinghadd li hu kien fil-pussess mid-data tat-titolu. Inoltre l-possessur li qed jivvanta l-akkwist tramite l-uzukapjoni m`ghandux ghalfejn juri li kien f` kuntatt kostanti ma` l-oggett in kwistjoni”.
Therefore, it is essential to show that possession of the property was solely done under the impression that the possessor is rightful owner, or with the intention of becoming the property's owner should the possessor be in bad faith and is not being held in possession in the name of a third party. Should the latter be the case, the possessor shall not have the opportunity to claim acquisitive prescription in its own favour.
Furthermore, should another person claim that he is the lawful of the property in question, the Court shall be required, as it has often done in the following case law, to compare the various different titles of owners.
It can be noted that the Court of Appeal considers that the right of ownership acquired by means of acquisitive prescription, i.e. that referred to as the original title, is afforded more power when compared to the title of ownership derived from inheritance.
This is mainly due to the fact that whilst the original title of the possessor has been acquired by the person after satisfying all the necessary requirements aforementioned above (i.e. continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, open, and unequivocal possession), conversely, he who has acquired a title from his ancestors may not be completely a valid title. It may result that the ancestors in question may not have been the rightful owners to begin with.
This point was thoroughly explained by the Court of Appeal in “Emmanuel Farrugia et v Mary Doris Veneziani et” (Cit Nru 325/04JZM) decided on the 30th September 2016 where it was explained that
“Il-mod tal-akkwist tal-proprjeta' jiddistingwi ruhu bejn originali u derivattiv. Huwa titolu original dak li l-bazi tieghu ma jiddependix minn titolu precedenti. Titolu derivattiv hu dak li jsehh bit-trasmissjoni ta' dritt minn soggett tad-dritt għal ieħor. Ezempju tipiku ta' akkwist original hija l-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva ta' tletin sena, li ma tiddependix minn akkwist mingħand ħaddieħor. Hu biss fil-kaz ta' akkwist derivattiv li jigi applikat il-principju li li l-akkwist jiddependi mill-esistenza tad-dritt tal-awtur. Il-konsegwenza hi li l-akkwist b'titolu originali hu iktar b'sahhtu minn titolu derivattiv, għas-semplici raguni li fil-kaz tal-ahhar jista' jkollok sitwazzjoni li persuna takkwista dritt mingħand min mhuwiex sid”.
In reaching its conclusions, the Court made the following observations;
“Anke minn konstatazzjoni oggettiva li ghamlet din il-Qorti waqt l-access li hija stess ikkonduciet jirrizulta minghajr l-icken dubju (altru milli l-“bilanc ta` probabilitajiet”) li l-atturi huma fil-kontroll assolut tas-sit sahansitra mill-fatt li fejn jinsabu l-kmamar fil-parti ta` fuq (uhud anke abitativi) huma f`parti fil-gholi u l-bqija f`dizlivell anke jekk hafif. Li jfisser li jekk xi hadd qabel l-2002 kien jintrometti ruhu fl-inhawi kien jigi notat…
“Din il-Qorti tghid li fuq l-iskorta tal-kumpless tal-provi li tressqu, hija sodisfatta li l-atturi u ta` qabilhom kienu u baqghu jokkupaw wahedhom fis-sens li trid il-ligi l-art in kwistjoni ghaz-zmien kollha tal-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva tat-tletin sena…. It-titolu naxxenti mill-kuntratt li pprezentaw il-konvenuti ma jistax ikun ahjar minn tal-atturi.” In making this statement, the Court made reference to another jdugement in the names “Testaferrata Bonnici et vs Montanaro” decided on the 27th June 2003 wherein it was explained that “Din il-prova tad-dominju tista` ssir mhux biss permezz ta` titolu izda anke bi kwalsiasi mezz iehor.. Hija allura permessa skond il-parir awtorevoli tal-Fadda .. anke prova kongetturali jew semplici presunzjoni in kwantu.”
The Court in considering that all requisites had been adhered to and the fact that “hadd ma ddisturba lill-atturi jew lill-aventi causa taghhom fil-pussess tal-art de qua. Ghalhekk favur l-atturi ghaddiet il-preskrizzjoni akkwizittiva trigenarja”, it decided the case in favour of the applicants, who had continuous possession for more than 30 years thus acquiring the property by means of acquisitive prescription.
Hence, it can be concluded that once a party can prove its claim to having acquired ownership by means of acquisitive prescription, such title is considered to have better legal standing than that of a derivative title. The latter referring, for instance, to that acquired by means of inheritance.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.