Unele consideraţii cu privire la excepţia de la prezumţia proprietăţii în cazul posesiei bunurilor furate, pierdute sau ieşite din posesie fără voia posesorului, a banilor şi a titlurilor de valoare la purtător
Закрыть
Conţinutul numărului revistei
Articolul precedent
Articolul urmator
655 2
Ultima descărcare din IBN:
2023-04-20 16:59
Căutarea după subiecte
similare conform CZU
347.2(478) (2)
Вещное право. Имущественное право. Недвижимое имущество (247)
SM ISO690:2012
BÎTCA, Ion, CURARARI, V.. Unele consideraţii cu privire la excepţia de la prezumţia proprietăţii în cazul posesiei bunurilor furate, pierdute sau ieşite din posesie fără voia posesorului, a banilor şi a titlurilor de valoare la purtător. In: Vector European, 2014, nr. Suplim, pp. 101-107. ISSN 2345-1106.
EXPORT metadate:
Google Scholar
Crossref
CERIF

DataCite
Dublin Core
Vector European
Numărul Suplim / 2014 / ISSN 2345-1106 /ISSNe 2587-358X

Unele consideraţii cu privire la excepţia de la prezumţia proprietăţii în cazul posesiei bunurilor furate, pierdute sau ieşite din posesie fără voia posesorului, a banilor şi a titlurilor de valoare la purtător
CZU: 347.2(478)

Pag. 101-107

Bîtca Ion1, Curarari V.2
 
1 Universitatea de Studii Europene din Moldova,
2 Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Republica Moldova
 
Disponibil în IBN: 15 februarie 2016


Rezumat

Article 305 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code establishes the presumption of property in the owner’s favour. According to this presumption, some exceptions would establish from the article’s content. In our case we would consider that that provision in force does not identify, exactly, the situations when such a exception intervene. So first exception, identified by the legislator, refers to recorded goods possession, meaning that the owner of such assets can not invoke presumption of property of the property as its possessions consequence because the possession of the immovable property without the public registration does not cause the appearance effect of the property right. To acquire the ownership right in the valid way is necessarily to record it in the register provided for this purpose. We would consider that the second exception provided to this article is inoperative because it does not correspond itself for the juridical nature of the possession. The fact that a person proves that they have possessed the property before the way out of the possession unwillingly of them, would entitle them to benefit from the juridical system in the disposal's virtue of the article 314 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, according to which "temporarily unable to exercise domination, actually does not result the ending of the possession ". The exception refers only for the lost goods and only in some consequences - the expiration of six months to days after delivery of the property to the competent authorities and the finder of the property to be of good faith. Also the ex-owner will benefit from the presumption of property if that goods are money, and value titles to bearer, even if these assets can not be individualized in their species because of the fungible nature of them. In this case, the proof’s load will be reversed- their holder will have to make proof for their possession by testing the legal nature of goods' acquirement. By testing the legal nature of goods' acquirement, they will test indirectly that they are their possessor, and as a result, they will reverse the established presumption in favour of that person which is requiring that goods.