Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of Geomatics, 2003. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 276-286).

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 1982. / INLEIDING: Een van die gevolge van die besit van 'n saak is die feit dat die besitter op besitsbeskerming geregtig is. Onderliggend aan hierdie beskerming moet die doel wat die reg vervul, gesien word - die vreedsame ordening van die samelewing. Wanorde sal heers in 'n samelewing waar willekeurige en eiegeregtige inbreukmaking op besitsverhoudinge toegelaat word: "In the final analysis the protection of possession is part and parcel of the protection of the peace in a community, which could not be maintained if every person who asserts that he has a real right to a particular thing which is in another person's possession would be entitled to resort to selfhelp". In hierdie verband verwys skrywers onder meer na die "regspolitieke funksie" of die "beskermingsimplikasie" van besit.

This thesis began as an investigation of the effect of adverse possession upon the land market where the adverse possession extends only to a small portion of the abutting parcel and the subject land is under a title registration scheme. The consequence of such adverse possession on part only of a parcel is that the location of the boundary demarcating the limits of the respective domains of two adjoining land parcels may be displaced. / If part parcel adverse possession effectively transfers ownership of a small portion of an abutting parcel, the boundaries are shifted consequent to long term occupation, and will prevail over the strict technical legal boundary. In a registered title land system the occupational boundary then prevails over the legal boundary as certified in the register notwithstanding that registered title schemes purport to confer conclusiveness upon register entries. Alternatively, the registered proprietor’s estate is not paramount where any part of the proprietor's parcel has been adversely occupied. Consequently the occupier has an interest in the proprietor's land that is not disclosed in the register. Inspection of the register and reliance upon the inspection is insufficient to ascertain the complete legal status of the particular land holding. Inspection with consequent reliance upon the register is the major function of a registered title scheme. Alternatively, if part parcel adverse possession is ineffective to transfer ownership of registered land, the technical legal boundary prevails over the occupational boundary despite the fact that it is not the boundary accepted by the parties involved as governing. / Both alternatives present a problem to the orderly conduct of the land market. Where occupations prevail, the prudent market participant takes precautions besides relying on inspection of the register. Where the legal boundary prevails, the participant seeks confirmation that the occupational and legal boundaries coincide. / Another alternative utilised in some registered title jurisdictions empowers a court to transfer small sections to an adjoining landholder where a building or similar improvement is erected so that it encroaches upon the adjacent holding. This alternative was included within the ambit of the thesis as it developed. / The aim of this research was the formulation of the best solution suitable for a registered land system with particular reference towards a uniform solution suitable for adoption in all Australian jurisdictions. The existing systems utilising adverse possession and statutory encroachment were evaluated against three recent law cases that illustrate the workings of these systems including perceived shortcomings. These lawsuits serve as a test against which the existing systems are compared and evaluated and were also used to evaluate the proposed solution. The results suggest that adverse possession alone should not override the purpose of the register which is to fully disclose the proprietary interests in land parcels. It was concluded that a necessary step in acquiring title to land through adverse possession involves the registration of the interest acquired. Whereas the present modes of dealing with the boundary problem are adequate, it is concluded that the best mode is that of statutory encroachment because it best serves several competing interests. Adopting the proposed solution would involve change and compromise in some of the Australian jurisdictions; these being necessary to adopt a uniform scheme throughout Australia. The proposed solution has added benefits of removing an illogicality from some of the present systems, eliminating encouragement for an off-register land market, and fosters an accurate public land register.

A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por escopo examinar os aspectos fundamentais do usucapião coletivo, instituto previsto no art. 1.228, §§ 4º e 5º, do Código Civil de 2002. A dissertação é composta de oito capítulos. Nos primeiros, é apresentada pesquisa acerca da evolução histórica do instituto do usucapião e de seus atributos em outros países (Portugal, Alemanha, Itália e Argentina). A seguir, esmiuçou-se o direito à propriedade e à moradia, suas implicações, limitações, bem como o aspecto da função social coligada à propriedade e à posse. Adiante, foram analisadas as modalidades de usucapião previstas na legislação brasileira, seus requisitos e especificidades. Por fim, procurou-se, com mais detalhe, responder questões polêmicas relacionadas ao instituto previsto nos parágrafos 4º e 5º art. 1228, do Código Civil de 2002, dentre elas se trata de modalidade de usucapião ou de desapropriação; de quem seria a responsabilidade pelo pagamento da indenização prevista no parágrafo 5º e quais os critérios para sua quantificação; o que seria utilização por número considerável de pessoas; quais características deveriam possuir as obras e serviços realizados no imóvel usucapiendo; além de questões processuais e registrais relacionadas, principalmente, à propositura e/ou oposição, citação e registro da sentença. / This dissertation has the aim to examine the fundamental aspects of collective adverse possession, institute preview in the article Nº 1228, §§ 4th and 5th of the Civil Code of 2002. The dissertation consists of eight chapters. In the first, is presented research on the historical evolution of the institute of adverse possession and their attributes in other countries (Portugal, Germany, Italy and Argentina). Then broke in pieces the right to property and housing, its implications, limitations, and the aspect of social function related to ownership and possession. Ahead, we analyzed the terms of adverse possession provided in Brazilian law, its requirements and specificities. Finally, it was, with more detail, answering controversial issues related to the institute provided in paragraphs 4th and 5th of article nº 1228 of the Civil Code, among them if is a type of adverse possession or condemnation; who would be responsible for payment of compensation referred to in paragraph 5th and the criteria for quantifying it; what would be used by large number of people; which features should have the works and services performed in the possession property; in addition to procedural issues and matters relating mainly to the initiation and/or opposition, summoning and record of the declaratory judgment.

O presente trabalho enfoca a possibilidade de uma usucapião de patentes, uma usucapião inclusiva, a incidência da supressio à conduta omissiva do titular, a carnellutiana servidão empresarial e, por último, o usufruto de direitos. Para tanto, foi tangenciada a alteração conceitual dos termos bem, coisa, posse e propriedade de modo a contextualizar significados, estáticos, trazidos desde o direito romano. Contempla a figura da posse de direitos ou da posse como exercício fático de um poder sobre um bem, além do eventual substitutivo de tal requisito usucapiente pelo uso qualificado. Abrange, ainda, uma análise crítica à ausência de disposições normativas específicas sobre a apropriabilidade originária, o que acaba elevando, desproporcionalmente, os poderes do titular da patente. A aquisição originária de bens incorpóreos permite, portanto, acesso igualitário aos bens imateriais, além de estimular o exercício da função social pelo titular. Na hipótese da usucapião inclusiva, atende-se, concomitantemente, ao direito de propriedade e à livre iniciativa e concorrência, disponibilizando opções de produtos no mercado, derivados de players diferentes, advindos da mesma tecnologia interditada. / This paper focuses on the possibility of an adverse possession of patents, a bundle of rights brought by the adverse possession, the incidence of supressio towards the omissive conduct of the patent owner, a critical review of Francesco Carnellutis thesis of an entrepreneur easement and, finally, the simultaneous use of patent rights. A conceptual aproach of the terms "good, "estate", "possession" and "property" was made in order to contextualize the static meanings brought from the Roman law into Brazilian codification. The figure includes the possession or ownership rights as a de facto exercise of power over an estate, besides the eventual replacement of this requirement by a qualified use. The paper focus on a critical analysis of the absence of specific legislative provisions concerning to adverse possession towards intellectual property, which results on a disproportional power of the patentee. The acquisition of intellectual property by adverse possession, therefore, allowes equal access, and encourages the pursuit of social function by the patent holder. In the event of adverse possession generating a bundle of rights, property right and free enterprise (and competition) are estimulated by a plurality offer of products, coming from various market players, towards the same patent technology.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 93-99). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

O Estatuto da Cidade reorientou o temário referente à organização e à regularização fundiária urbana. Dentro desse contexto, destaca-se a usucapião coletiva. Este instrumento, de grande alcance social, tem como uma de suas pretensões o combate à exclusão social, facilitando o direito à propriedade por camadas carentes da população. A usucapião coletiva, da forma como foi tratada no Estatuto da Cidade, tem plena eficácia como instituto jurídico a ser implementado. Tal instituto não depende de qualquer novo diploma legal ou regulamentação, bastando que esta seja orientada pelos princípios constitucionais que regem a matéria. A sentença de usucapião coletiva, prevista nos parágrafos 2. e 3., do artigo 10., do Estatuto da Cidade, servirá como título a ser registrado no Registro de Imóveis. A referida sentença, por sua vez, deverá definir a fração respectiva de solo de cada novo proprietário. Não há que se discutir sobre a viabilidade da sua aplicação, e sim implementá-la. A sentença prolatada nos autos de um processo de usucapião coletiva deve ser levada a registro como qualquer outra concernente a usucapião, devendo ser consignada a descrição das frações individuais, tudo na forma do já existente item 28, inciso I, do artigo 167, da Lei de Registros Públicos (Lei n. 6.015/1973). / The Statute of the City reoriented the group of themes regarding the urban landing organization and regularization. In this context, the collective adverse possession is significant. The adverse possession, which is an instrument of great social consequence, has as one of its purposes to oppose the social exclusion, facilitating the right to own the property to the lacking layers of the population. The way the collective adverse possession was treated in the Statute of the City is effective, as legal institute, to be implemented. Such institute does not depend on any new statute to regulate its application, needing to be oriented only by its own constitutional principles that already govern the matter. The adjudication of collective adverse possession, which is reported on paragraphs 2nd and 3rd, of section 10, of the Statute of the City, will serve as title deed to be recorded on the Register of Property. The referred adjudication will define the respective fraction of soil of each new holder. There is nothing to discuss about the feasibility of the applicability of this matter, except that it has to be implemented. The adjudication rended on the records of a trial of collective adverse possession should be taken to be recorded such as any another adverse possession, in other words, the description of the individual fractions has to be consigned the same way it already exists in section 28, subsection I, section 167 of the Law of Public Records (Law n. 6.015/1973).

A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por escopo examinar os aspectos fundamentais do usucapião coletivo, instituto previsto no art. 1.228, §§ 4º e 5º, do Código Civil de 2002. A dissertação é composta de oito capítulos. Nos primeiros, é apresentada pesquisa acerca da evolução histórica do instituto do usucapião e de seus atributos em outros países (Portugal, Alemanha, Itália e Argentina). A seguir, esmiuçou-se o direito à propriedade e à moradia, suas implicações, limitações, bem como o aspecto da função social coligada à propriedade e à posse. Adiante, foram analisadas as modalidades de usucapião previstas na legislação brasileira, seus requisitos e especificidades. Por fim, procurou-se, com mais detalhe, responder questões polêmicas relacionadas ao instituto previsto nos parágrafos 4º e 5º art. 1228, do Código Civil de 2002, dentre elas se trata de modalidade de usucapião ou de desapropriação; de quem seria a responsabilidade pelo pagamento da indenização prevista no parágrafo 5º e quais os critérios para sua quantificação; o que seria utilização por número considerável de pessoas; quais características deveriam possuir as obras e serviços realizados no imóvel usucapiendo; além de questões processuais e registrais relacionadas, principalmente, à propositura e/ou oposição, citação e registro da sentença. / This dissertation has the aim to examine the fundamental aspects of collective adverse possession, institute preview in the article Nº 1228, §§ 4th and 5th of the Civil Code of 2002. The dissertation consists of eight chapters. In the first, is presented research on the historical evolution of the institute of adverse possession and their attributes in other countries (Portugal, Germany, Italy and Argentina). Then broke in pieces the right to property and housing, its implications, limitations, and the aspect of social function related to ownership and possession. Ahead, we analyzed the terms of adverse possession provided in Brazilian law, its requirements and specificities. Finally, it was, with more detail, answering controversial issues related to the institute provided in paragraphs 4th and 5th of article nº 1228 of the Civil Code, among them if is a type of adverse possession or condemnation; who would be responsible for payment of compensation referred to in paragraph 5th and the criteria for quantifying it; what would be used by large number of people; which features should have the works and services performed in the possession property; in addition to procedural issues and matters relating mainly to the initiation and/or opposition, summoning and record of the declaratory judgment.

O Estatuto da Cidade reorientou o temário referente à organização e à regularização fundiária urbana. Dentro desse contexto, destaca-se a usucapião coletiva. Este instrumento, de grande alcance social, tem como uma de suas pretensões o combate à exclusão social, facilitando o direito à propriedade por camadas carentes da população. A usucapião coletiva, da forma como foi tratada no Estatuto da Cidade, tem plena eficácia como instituto jurídico a ser implementado. Tal instituto não depende de qualquer novo diploma legal ou regulamentação, bastando que esta seja orientada pelos princípios constitucionais que regem a matéria. A sentença de usucapião coletiva, prevista nos parágrafos 2. e 3., do artigo 10., do Estatuto da Cidade, servirá como título a ser registrado no Registro de Imóveis. A referida sentença, por sua vez, deverá definir a fração respectiva de solo de cada novo proprietário. Não há que se discutir sobre a viabilidade da sua aplicação, e sim implementá-la. A sentença prolatada nos autos de um processo de usucapião coletiva deve ser levada a registro como qualquer outra concernente a usucapião, devendo ser consignada a descrição das frações individuais, tudo na forma do já existente item 28, inciso I, do artigo 167, da Lei de Registros Públicos (Lei n. 6.015/1973). / The Statute of the City reoriented the group of themes regarding the urban landing organization and regularization. In this context, the collective adverse possession is significant. The adverse possession, which is an instrument of great social consequence, has as one of its purposes to oppose the social exclusion, facilitating the right to own the property to the lacking layers of the population. The way the collective adverse possession was treated in the Statute of the City is effective, as legal institute, to be implemented. Such institute does not depend on any new statute to regulate its application, needing to be oriented only by its own constitutional principles that already govern the matter. The adjudication of collective adverse possession, which is reported on paragraphs 2nd and 3rd, of section 10, of the Statute of the City, will serve as title deed to be recorded on the Register of Property. The referred adjudication will define the respective fraction of soil of each new holder. There is nothing to discuss about the feasibility of the applicability of this matter, except that it has to be implemented. The adjudication rended on the records of a trial of collective adverse possession should be taken to be recorded such as any another adverse possession, in other words, the description of the individual fractions has to be consigned the same way it already exists in section 28, subsection I, section 167 of the Law of Public Records (Law n. 6.015/1973).

O presente trabalho enfoca a possibilidade de uma usucapião de patentes, uma usucapião inclusiva, a incidência da supressio à conduta omissiva do titular, a carnellutiana servidão empresarial e, por último, o usufruto de direitos. Para tanto, foi tangenciada a alteração conceitual dos termos bem, coisa, posse e propriedade de modo a contextualizar significados, estáticos, trazidos desde o direito romano. Contempla a figura da posse de direitos ou da posse como exercício fático de um poder sobre um bem, além do eventual substitutivo de tal requisito usucapiente pelo uso qualificado. Abrange, ainda, uma análise crítica à ausência de disposições normativas específicas sobre a apropriabilidade originária, o que acaba elevando, desproporcionalmente, os poderes do titular da patente. A aquisição originária de bens incorpóreos permite, portanto, acesso igualitário aos bens imateriais, além de estimular o exercício da função social pelo titular. Na hipótese da usucapião inclusiva, atende-se, concomitantemente, ao direito de propriedade e à livre iniciativa e concorrência, disponibilizando opções de produtos no mercado, derivados de players diferentes, advindos da mesma tecnologia interditada. / This paper focuses on the possibility of an adverse possession of patents, a bundle of rights brought by the adverse possession, the incidence of supressio towards the omissive conduct of the patent owner, a critical review of Francesco Carnellutis thesis of an entrepreneur easement and, finally, the simultaneous use of patent rights. A conceptual aproach of the terms "good, "estate", "possession" and "property" was made in order to contextualize the static meanings brought from the Roman law into Brazilian codification. The figure includes the possession or ownership rights as a de facto exercise of power over an estate, besides the eventual replacement of this requirement by a qualified use. The paper focus on a critical analysis of the absence of specific legislative provisions concerning to adverse possession towards intellectual property, which results on a disproportional power of the patentee. The acquisition of intellectual property by adverse possession, therefore, allowes equal access, and encourages the pursuit of social function by the patent holder. In the event of adverse possession generating a bundle of rights, property right and free enterprise (and competition) are estimulated by a plurality offer of products, coming from various market players, towards the same patent technology.