Prescription under Portuguese Civil Code upheld for long hostile possession; Article 510 failed because possession was never in owner's name.

Long, open and continuous possession, followed by repudiation of the true owner's title and no proof of permissive occupation, can mature into ownership by prescription under the Portuguese Civil Code. The Court held that the defendants had acquired title to the land occupied by their house, so eviction was not available for that portion. It also held that Article 510 did not defeat the prescription plea because that provision applies only where possession is held in another's name and prescription is claimed without inversion of title; here, the defendants had never held the land in the plaintiffs' name. Relief remained available only for the remaining portion of the property.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendants had acquired title to the land occupied by their house by prescription under the Portuguese Civil Code; (ii) whether Article 510 of the Portuguese Civil Code applied so as to defeat the defendants' plea of prescription.

Issue (i): whether the defendants had acquired title to the land occupied by their house by prescription under the Portuguese Civil Code.

Analysis: Possession under the Portuguese Civil Code includes holding or enjoyment of a thing or right, while acts done by licence or permission do not amount to possession. Prescription operates on the basis of long possession, and in the absence of registration title may be acquired in respect of immovable property by possession for the prescribed period. The evidence showed long, open and continuous possession by the defendants and their predecessors, repudiation of the plaintiffs' title in 1920, notice of that repudiation to the plaintiffs, and no satisfactory proof that the defendants were in permissive possession under the plaintiffs or their ancestors. On that material, the plea of perpetual lease was not established, but the defendants' possession was sufficient to ripen into ownership by prescription.

Conclusion: The defendants had acquired title by prescription to the land on which their house stood, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to eviction from that portion.

Issue (ii): whether Article 510 of the Portuguese Civil Code applied so as to defeat the defendants' plea of prescription.

Analysis: Article 510 governs a case where a person possesses in another's name and seeks to prescribe without inversion of title. The defendants never held the land in the plaintiffs' name; their case was that they occupied under a perpetual lease claimed through another source, which the plaintiffs themselves denied. In the absence of proof that the defendants were permissive occupants under the plaintiffs, the prerequisite for invoking Article 510 was absent.

Conclusion: Article 510 did not apply against the defendants' plea of prescription.

Final Conclusion: The defendants succeeded only in relation to the portion of the land occupied by their house, while the plaintiffs retained relief regarding the remaining portion of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: Long, open and hostile possession after repudiation of title, without proof of permissive occupation under the true owner, can mature into ownership by prescription, and the rule requiring inversion of title does not apply where possession was never held in the owner's name.

---