Real property case law: analysis and practical advice

Application pratique:

Under this case law, because the landlord is not in possession of the strip, he bears the burden of proving his ownership. He should gather his title deed, cadastral plans, and any historical documents showing the strip is part of his property. If he cannot prove ownership, the claim will fail even if the shop cannot show its own title. He should consult a French property lawyer before issuing proceedings to assess the strength of his evidence.

Application pratique:

Because the buyers are in possession of the shed, the relative (who is not in possession) must prove their ownership, not the buyers. The buyers should not hand over the shed or make admissions; instead, they should ask the relative to provide documentary evidence such as a title deed or will. They should keep their purchase deed, the property description, and photos showing the shed within the garden boundaries. If the relative cannot prove ownership, the claim will fail.

Application pratique:

The claiming co-owner is not in possession, so he must prove that the parking space is a private part of the building assigned to him. He should produce the co-ownership regulations (règlement de copropriété) and any title deed identifying the space. The co-owner in possession should simply maintain his use and ask for proof rather than proving his own right. If the claimant cannot show clear documentary evidence, his claim will be rejected.