This occurs when the enjoyment or mere possession of the thing continues without a title and without paying a fee<\/strong>. In these cases, the objection by the holder of the right of use puts an end to tolerance<\/strong> and requires the occupant to return possession of the property. This has been established in various Supreme Court rulings, such as the 134\/2017, dated February 28<\/strong>, 300\/2015, dated May 28<\/strong>, and 1022\/2005, dated December 26<\/strong>, among others.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the proprietary node<\/strong> who possesses the property by virtue of the use granted by the usufructuary is considered immediate owner<\/strong>. Since the possessor\u2019s possession is based on the usufructuary\u2019s tolerance, this does not mean that the usufructuary loses possession of the property, as the usufructuary retains possession in a immediate<\/strong> through the owner node.<\/p>\n For this reason, the usufructuary cannot be considered to be committing a violation by allowing the bare owner to use the property, lack of exercise<\/strong> of its powers that would result in the extinction of its right. Interpreting it that way would imply to deny the usufructuary's right<\/strong> to grant and permit the use of the property to a third party, such as the bare owner, which is a right recognized under the usufruct.<\/p>\n The Article 513.7 of the Civil Code<\/strong> provides that one of the ways in which the right of usufruct may be terminated is by statute of limitations<\/strong>. That is, the statute of limitations that extinguishes the real action available to the usufructuary to protect his or her right.<\/p>\n For this to happen, it is necessary that, in addition to the expiration of the thirty years<\/strong> (pursuant to Article 1963 of the Civil Code for real property), there is a possession of the property free of encumbrances<\/strong>. This means that the owner, or a third party, must possess the property without recognizing the right of usufruct, which would allow for its acquisition through adverse possession without the need for a title or good faith.<\/p>\n In this case, we start from the assumption that there is a life estate<\/strong> the plaintiff's right to the home. Furthermore, the defendant's son's use of the home was known and permitted<\/strong> by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n According to Supreme Court case law, when the defendant child and his or her family are living in the home without a title and without paying a fee<\/strong>, a situation arises in which precarious<\/strong>. As a result, an objection by the holder of the right of use terminates the tolerance and requires the occupant to vacate the dwelling immediately.<\/p>\n It cannot be construed that, by allowing the son\u2014who is the bare owner\u2014to occupy the home, the mother\u2014who holds the right of usufruct\u2014was deprived of the ability to terminate the occupation and reclaim the home.<\/p>\n The only reason the occupant of the residence could have successfully opposed the plaintiff\u2019s claim\u2014which he has not attempted to do in any way\u2014would have been to prove that he has possessed the residence for the period required by law (thirty years), without any interruption, and free of encumbrances.<\/p>\n This means that he had to prove that he owned the home in its entirety and that it was free of any right of usufruct.<\/p>\n It's this one acquisitive prescription<\/strong> which the bare owner should have asserted to terminate the usufruct. However, the usufruct is not terminated simply because the usufructuary permitted and tolerated the bare owner\u2019s use of the dwelling.<\/p>\n Based on our experience in Carlos Ba\u00f1o Law Firm<\/a>, we believe it is essential to seek the advice of a specialized attorney to address any legal issues related to real estate and property law. In many cases, a lack of information can lead to legal problems that could have been avoided with proper guidance.<\/p>\n Our team of experts is ready to analyze each case on an individual basis, offering effective solutions tailored to our clients' needs. If you have questions about your legal situation or need assistance with a legal proceeding, please don't hesitate to contact us.<\/p>\nAcquisitive Prescription vs. Precarious Tenancy<\/h2>\n
THE OPINION OF THE CARLOS BA\u00d1O LAW FIRM<\/h2>\n
The Opinion of Carlos Ba\u00f1o Abogados<\/h2>\n
![\"Precarious](\"https:\/\/cbleon-abogados.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/precario-y-prescripcion-adquisitiva-como-causa-de-extincion-del-usufructo.webp\" "\\"Precarious")
If you need legal advice, you can contact us<\/a>. You can also visit us at our offices in Alicante.<\/p>\n