Commentary on Judgment No. 9452 of 2024: Expiry and Adverse Possession

The judgment no. 9452 of April 9, 2024, drafted by President M. M. and Rapporteur S. O., addresses a crucial topic in civil law: the expiry of exceptions raised on appeal, particularly those related to adverse possession. This ruling provides important insights for lawyers and legal practitioners, clarifying the boundaries of the ex officio admissibility of exceptions.

The Issue of Expiry

In the case at hand, the exception of adverse possession not raised on appeal is discussed, highlighting that the failure of the appellant to timely appeal excludes the possibility of examination by the appellate judge. The Court of Cassation reiterates a well-established principle: the exception of adverse possession must be raised or reintroduced according to the formalities provided by the Code of Civil Procedure.

  • Art. 346 c.p.c.: Regulates the reintroduction of exceptions not examined in the first instance.
  • Art. 1158 c.c.: Defines adverse possession and its conditions.
  • Art. 112 c.p.c.: Establishes the limits of the subject matter of the judgment.

The Principle of Ex Officio Admissibility

An interesting aspect of the ruling concerns the issue of ex officio admissibility of exceptions. The Court establishes that there is no room for the ex officio detection of an unraised reconventional exception of adverse possession, nor for that of lateness. This implies that the judge cannot intervene to examine issues that have not been formally raised by the parties. This principle is fundamental to ensuring respect for the adversarial process and the fairness of the trial.

EXPIRY) Exception of adverse possession raised in the first instance - Rejection or lack of examination - Failure to timely appeal or reintroduce by the appellant - Ex officio admissibility by the appellate judge - Exclusion - Application of the principle also to the lateness of the reconventional exception of adverse possession - Basis. The principle that the unraised reconventional exception of adverse possession cannot be examined on appeal, not raised in the forms of either incidental appeal (if rejected in the first instance) or art. 346 c.p.c. (if not examined in the first instance), also applies to the lateness of the reconventional exception of adverse possession, as it too does not constitute mere defense, but an exception to be raised or reintroduced, at the request of the party, and is not susceptible to ex officio detection.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 9452 of 2024 provides an important clarification regarding the management of exceptions on appeal, emphasizing the importance of formality and timeliness in raising one's defenses. Lawyers must pay particular attention to these dynamics to ensure the protection of their clients' rights and the proper application of justice. Adhering to these principles is essential for the smooth functioning of the legal system, preventing substantive issues from being excluded due to formal defects.

Bianucci Law Firm