Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_jose_andre.pdf: 1229177 bytes, checksum: 51d1308fc9292bef15436ae981b31938 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-07-01 / When the thought of a State of Law arises, there is an absolute certainty that public order, social peace and the respect of a State s sovereignty are basic public interests protected by the Judiciary. The possession of land is a factual situation and a component of social stability, being, thus, the protection of the right of possession is a means of social pacification. If the possessor changes, that alteration cannot result in social disorder. It is imposed that the passage of possession form one subject to another be done without any risk to social harmony. When the dispute over the possession of land occurs, it must de dealt with by the due process of law, exactly as disciplined by the brazilian legislation. It is well known that the law flourishes within the evolution of social facts in society, and that justice should be swift and effective, or risk being characterized as manifest injustice, as Rui Barbosa (1849-1923) once said in his speech Oração aos Moços . In the mist of that absolute truth, the present dissertation aims to study the procedural remedies for protecting the rights of the possessor of land, and the applicability of the article 273 of the brazilian procedural code in those types of actions, both in cases involving posse nova (possession up to one year of duration) and posse velha (possession over one year of duration). The implementation of that institute results in more swiftness and effectiveness. To better illustrate that thought, it should be remembered the biblical passage in Matthew, chapter 22, verses 20 and 21, in which Jesus, after being questioned about the validity of the paying of taxes, affirms that what belong to Cesar should be given to Cesar, showing that justice is giving each person that which belongs to them, but also in a swift and effective manner, so as to avoid the manifest injustice that was referred to by Rui Barbosa / Quando se pensa em Estado de Direito , tem-se a certeza inequívoca de que a ordem pública, a paz social, o respeito à soberania do Estado, são interesses públicos básicos, de cuja tutela cuida precipuamente o poder judiciário. A posse é uma situação de fato e uma componente de estabilidade social, sendo, por conseguinte a proteção da posse um pacificador social. Se a posse muda de titular, tal mudança não pode resultar em desequilíbrio social, em perturbação de ordem. Impõe-se que a passagem da posse de um para outro titular se dê sem qualquer risco à harmonia social. Quando a disputa pela posse se acende urge que cesse através do due process of law, e nos exatos termos da legislação pátria. É sabido de todos, que o direito floresce na medida da evolução dos fatos sociais em uma determinada sociedade, igualmente é sabido que a justiça há de ser célere e efetiva, sob pena de restar caracterizada uma injustiça qualificada e manifesta, tal qual anunciava Rui Barbosa(1849-1923) em sua Oração aos Moços, ao afirmar que A justiça atrasada não é justiça, senão injustiça qualificada e manifesta. Diante de tal certeza irrefutável, é que, neste trabalho, que aborda os remédios processuais possessórios, é feito também um estudo sobre a aplicabilidade do artigo 273 do Código de Rito Cível, tanto para a hipótese de esbulhos ou turbações novas, como para aquelas ocorridas há mais de ano e dia; A implementação da aplicabilidade de tal dispositivo em situações de posse velha , implica não somente numa maior celeridade processual, mas também na efetividade do direito. À guisa de ilustração, há de ser lembrada a passagem bíblica esculpida em Mateus, capítulo 22, versículos 20 e 21, na qual Jesus referindo-se aos fariseus e herodianos, após ser questionado sobre a validade do pagamento de tributos, afirmou que deveria ser dado a César, aquilo que efetivamente fosse de César ( Dai, pois, a César o que é de César e a Deus, o que é de Deus ), para se verificar que a justiça é dar a cada um o que é seu, contudo, tal ato há de ser célere, efetivo, sob pena de nos vermos diante de uma injustiça qualificada e manifesta , tal qual aquela antes referida por Rui Barbosa

Text in Afrikaans / Theft in South African law is one of the most well-known common law crimes. It is also one of the crimes in respect of which opinions vary considerably. Furtum possessionis is one of the manifestations of the crime of theft at common law. The general requirements of furtum possessionis were already established in Roman law. Emphasis was not placed on the taker of the thing but on the particular position of the person who was deprived of the property. This approach was also followed in Roman-Dutch law. Fur tum possessionis in South African law can be defined as follows: It is the unlawful and intentional appropriation by the owner or someone else of a movable corporeal thing in commercio, in circumstances in which the possessor of the thing has a valid right of retention of the thing, with the intention of depriving the possessor permanently of control of the thing. Theft in the form of furtum possessionis differs in an important respect from theft in the form of the removal of a thing. In the case of removal the complainant can also be a person acting as a holder, that is someone exercising control of the thing on behalf of the owner. In the case of furtum possessionis the complainant is the person with the right of retention and from whose possession the thing is taken away. The accused either possesses the thing as an owner or as a holder before possession of the thing was transferred to the complainant. Mere possession is not enough. The possession of the complainant has to be accompanied by a right to retention. Furthermore the possession of the thing has to be lawful / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)

Text in Afrikaans / Theft in South African law is one of the most well-known common law crimes. It is also one of the crimes in respect of which opinions vary considerably. Furtum possessionis is one of the manifestations of the crime of theft at common law. The general requirements of furtum possessionis were already established in Roman law. Emphasis was not placed on the taker of the thing but on the particular position of the person who was deprived of the property. This approach was also followed in Roman-Dutch law. Fur tum possessionis in South African law can be defined as follows: It is the unlawful and intentional appropriation by the owner or someone else of a movable corporeal thing in commercio, in circumstances in which the possessor of the thing has a valid right of retention of the thing, with the intention of depriving the possessor permanently of control of the thing. Theft in the form of furtum possessionis differs in an important respect from theft in the form of the removal of a thing. In the case of removal the complainant can also be a person acting as a holder, that is someone exercising control of the thing on behalf of the owner. In the case of furtum possessionis the complainant is the person with the right of retention and from whose possession the thing is taken away. The accused either possesses the thing as an owner or as a holder before possession of the thing was transferred to the complainant. Mere possession is not enough. The possession of the complainant has to be accompanied by a right to retention. Furthermore the possession of the thing has to be lawful / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)