Comparative Overview on the Transformative Effect of Acquisitive Prescription and Adverse Possession: Morality, Legitimacy, Justice

Abstract

English Abstract: Acquisitive prescription in civil law and adverse possession in common law produce particularly strong effects in law since they are means whereby property may be gained through the passage of time. Good faith plays a relatively modest role in acquisitive prescription/adverse possession, which does not necessarily means that acquisitive prescription or adverse possession are immoral. Not only good faith has a certain role, both substantial and formal, but there are theoretical justifications that justify acquisitive prescription/adverse possession and renders those mechanisms legitimate. Aside from justifications founded upon moral and economical arguments, what justifies it above all is a justification founded on social order related to the public interest. Moreover, additionally to a theoretical legitimacy, acquisitive prescription/adverse possession has an utility or practical legitimacy, especially in traditions where registration of rights are essentially a matter of opposability to third parties, but also to a lesser extend in Torrens-like registration systems. Finally, the argument can be made according to which acquisitive prescription is a form of private expropriation. A compensation of the disposed owner could then infuse greater legitimacy to the law of acquisitive prescription/adverse possession. French Abstract: La prescription acquisitive du doit civil et la possession adverse de la common law produisent des effets juridiques importants, puisqu’ils permettent d’acquerir la propriete suite au passage du temps. La bonne foi joue un role relativement modeste dans la prescription acquisitive ou dans l’adverse possession, ce qui n’implique toutefois pas l’immoralite de ces mecanismes. Non seulement la bonne foi joue un certain role, tant d’un point de vue substantiel que formel, mais il existe des arguments theoriques qui justifient la prescription acquisitive et la possession adverse et rendent ces mecanismes legitimes. Aux cotes de justifications fondees sur des arguments moraux et economiques, ce qui permet principalement de les legitimer est un argument fonde sur l’ordre social relie a l’interet public. Par ailleurs, en plus d’une justification theorique, la prescription acquisitive et la possession adverse ont une utilite ou legitimite pratique, specialement dans les traditions ou la publicite des droits est essentiellement une question d’opposabilite aux tiers, mais aussi dans une moindre mesure dans les traditions qui ont adopte le systeme de publicite Torrens. Finalement, on peut se demander si la prescription acquisitive peut etre analysee comme une forme d’expropriation privee. La compensation du proprietaire depossede pourrait alors infuser une plus grande legitimite au droit de la prescription acquisitive et de la possession adverse.