Article 1382: Prescription acquisitive, dix ans (immeubles) / cinq ans (meubles)

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 9788/2553 (2010) ★ Monument

   Adverse possession under section 1382 requires all three elements: peaceful, open, and owner's intent: to subsist continuously throughout the entire ten-year period.

   Acquisition of ownership by adverse possession under section 1382 requires possession that is peaceful, open, and with owner's intent, continuously for ten years. The court examined whether the defendant's possession of the plaintiff's land met all three elements throughout the period.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6151/2558 (2015)

   Adverse possession under section 1382 does not require knowledge that the land belongs to another; good-faith possession with owner's intent satisfies the requirement.

   The defendant possessed the plaintiff's land under a mistaken belief that it was the defendant's own land; the court held that possession with owner's intent under section 1382 does not require knowledge that the land belongs to another: possession in good faith with the intention of ownership is sufficient.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 14291/2558 (2015)

   Whether a co-owner may sue alone to evict is a question of law concerning public order, so it may be raised on final appeal although it was never pleaded. Under section 1359 a co-owner may exercise the rights arising from ownership over the whole property against outsiders, so one co-owner may sue to evict without authority from the others. But a defence that the land was ownerless waste which the defendant cleared and possessed as owner is inconsistent with a plea of adverse possession, because possession can be adverse only over land belonging to another; where the pleadings take that form there is no issue under section 1382 in the case at all, and the fact that the courts below entertained it does not make it a point properly raised. On the defendant own alternative case the possession relied on also fell short of ten years.

   A co-owner sued to evict an occupier who had held the land since 1986. On final appeal the occupier argued that a single co-owner had no standing. The Supreme Court held standing to be a matter of public order which could be raised though never pleaded, but that under section 1359 a co-owner may exercise the rights of ownership over the whole property against outsiders, so the plaintiff could sue alone without authority from the others. Whether notice of termination had been properly given was not a public-order question and, not having been pleaded, could not be raised on appeal. On adverse possession, the defendant had pleaded that the land was ownerless waste which he cleared and occupied as owner - a plea that the land was his - which contradicted his later plea of adverse possession, since possession can be adverse only over another land. There was therefore no section 1382 issue in the case, the courts below had entertained it wrongly, and the point was barred under Civil Procedure Code section 249 paragraph 1. In any event, on the alternative case that time ran from 1999, ten years had not passed before the suit.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.