Informe sobre la Casación Nro. 2724 – 2016 de la Sala Civil Transitoria de la Corte Suprema de Justicia del Perú en relación con el caso de desalojo por ocupación precaria seguido por Carlos Manuel Reinoso Stucchi contra Julia Adela Reinoso Stucchi: ¿Es suficiente el vínculo familiar como título válido de posesión?
Loading...
Date
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
El presente informe expone y analiza el razonamiento de la Sala Civil Transitoria de
la Corte Suprema de Justicia del Perú en la resolución del caso de Desalojo por
Ocupación Precaria entre los hermanos Carlos Manuel Reinoso Stucchi, quien es el
demandante y propietario, y Julia Adela Reinoso Stucchi, quien es la demandada y
poseedora precaria del bien inmueble en cuestión.
El caso es importante ya que se centra en verificar si la demandada es ocupante
precaria o no del bien inmueble ubicado en la ciudad de Arequipa. Por el lado del
demandante, la prueba principal es su Ficha Registral que demuestra la propiedad
que tiene sobre el bien. Por el lado de la demandada, se centra en demostrar su
derecho a poseer el bien en: 1) el vínculo familiar que existe entre ambos (alega que
el demandante es propietario del bien solo por acuerdo familiar ya que en su momento
era el único en tener nacionalidad peruana y encontrarse habilitado para la
adquisición del bien inmueble) y 2) la prescripción adquisitiva del bien inmueble al
estar viviendo en el lugar por más de diez años (presenta una copia del auto
admisorio de la demanda de prescripción adquisitiva que interpuso contra el
demandante en otro proceso legal sin decisión al momento de la Casación).
Finalmente, la Sala decidió declarar infundada el recurso de casación al no encontrar
ninguna vulneración al artículo 911 del Código Civil. No obstante, la Sala perdió la
oportunidad de pronunciarse, en sus fundamentos, sobre temas importantes tales
como los vínculos familiares y los acuerdos verbales, la prescripción adquisitiva y su
valor probatorio en un proceso de ocupación precaria y, por último, la necesidad de
establecer una vía más corta para los procesos de desalojo por ocupante precario
cuando no existe un acuerdo formal. El informe busca cubrir estos temas.
This report analyzes the reasonings set forth in the decision of the Transitory Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru regarding the Eviction for Precarious Occupation of the legal demand filed by the property owner and plaintiff Carlos Manuel Reinoso Stucchi, against his sister Julia Adela Reinoso Stucchi, who was in precarious possession of the property. This case is of great importance because it endeavors to answer whether the defendant is a precarious occupier of the property situated in the city of Arequipa. On the plaintiff's side, the key piece of evidence adduced is the Property Registry Record (Ficha Registral) that secures his title to ownership of the property. Meanwhile, the defendant bases her case on her right to the property both on the relationship among relatives (1) in the sense that she held to the self-ownership of the property on purely familial grounds because, at the time, only she held Peruvian citizenship-and so could own property-and (2) her claim to have possessed the property under acquisitive prescription for over ten years. To support her case, she presents the admission order of the acquisitive prescription suit she earlier brought against the plaintiff in a different trial, still pending and unsettled at the time of the cassation ruling. At last, the Chamber refused to entertain the appeal for cassation for failing to infringe Article 911 of the Civil Code. However, the Chamber missed the opportunity, implicitly within the reasoning of its decision, to deliberate on other crucial matters including family ties and verbal agreements; acquisitive prescription and its evidentiary impact in precarious occupation cases; establishing the need and mechanisms for swift procedures in the eviction of precarious occupiers where no formal agreement exists. This report endeavors to address these issues.
This report analyzes the reasonings set forth in the decision of the Transitory Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru regarding the Eviction for Precarious Occupation of the legal demand filed by the property owner and plaintiff Carlos Manuel Reinoso Stucchi, against his sister Julia Adela Reinoso Stucchi, who was in precarious possession of the property. This case is of great importance because it endeavors to answer whether the defendant is a precarious occupier of the property situated in the city of Arequipa. On the plaintiff's side, the key piece of evidence adduced is the Property Registry Record (Ficha Registral) that secures his title to ownership of the property. Meanwhile, the defendant bases her case on her right to the property both on the relationship among relatives (1) in the sense that she held to the self-ownership of the property on purely familial grounds because, at the time, only she held Peruvian citizenship-and so could own property-and (2) her claim to have possessed the property under acquisitive prescription for over ten years. To support her case, she presents the admission order of the acquisitive prescription suit she earlier brought against the plaintiff in a different trial, still pending and unsettled at the time of the cassation ruling. At last, the Chamber refused to entertain the appeal for cassation for failing to infringe Article 911 of the Civil Code. However, the Chamber missed the opportunity, implicitly within the reasoning of its decision, to deliberate on other crucial matters including family ties and verbal agreements; acquisitive prescription and its evidentiary impact in precarious occupation cases; establishing the need and mechanisms for swift procedures in the eviction of precarious occupiers where no formal agreement exists. This report endeavors to address these issues.