التصرف المكسب للحقوق العينية الأصلية على العقارات بين الورثة
Date
2023-01-28
Authors
نزيه علي حسين حناتشة
Nazeeh Ali Hussain Hanatsheh
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Al-Quds University
Abstract
تعتبر الحقوق العينية الأصلية وبتعريف الفقه لها: سلطة مباشرة على شيء معين يعطيها القانون لشخص بذاته، فمالك قطعة الأرض هو صاحب حق عيني وله سلطة مباشرة، وقد حدد المشرع التصرفات القانونية التي تكون مكسبة لهذه الحقوق – الحقوق العينية الأصلية – والتي تتمثل أساساً في سبعة حقوق وهي الحق في الملكية والتصرف والأنتفاع والاستعمال والسكن والمساطحة وحقوق الارتفاق.
وقد ارتأيت تخصيص هذه الدراسة في التنظيم القانوني لاكتساب الحقوق العينية الأصلية بين الورثة في العقارات التي لم تتم فيها اعمال التسوية خصوصاً حقوق الملكية، و التصرف، و الانتفاع والمساطحة، وفي هذا الشأن فان مجلة الاحكام العدلية قد نصت في المادة 1674 منها على ان الحقوق لا تسقط بالتقادم، إلاأنها ومن باب وجوب استقرار المعاملات القانونية آثرت عدم الأخذ بهذه المادة على إطلاقها أو النظر إلى مفهومها الواسع فنصت في المادة 1660 منها على فكرة عامة وهي عدم سماع الدعاوي في بعض العقارات بعد تركها مدة خمسة عشر عاماً.
وقد سارت القوانين الخاصة على ذات المضمون الذي سارت عليه مجلة الأحكام العدلية حيث أكد قانون تسوية الأراضي والمياه رقم 40 لسنة 1952 في المادة 14/3 منه على أن دعاوي الاعتراض على جدول الحقوق لا تسمع بعد مضي المدة المحددة في القانون لأقامة الدعوى ، مشيرة الى أن هذه المدة تبدأ من بداية تصرف الوريث دون موافقة بقية الورثة في الأراضي والمياه الموروثة من جد مشترك ، وهو ذات المبدأ الذي أشار اليه القانون المعدل لقانون التصرف في الأموال غير المنقولة رقم 51 لسنة 1958 والذي أكد في المادة 4/1 منه على أن تصرف الوريث بموجب بينة قوية هو تصرف استقلالي وليس بالوكالة عن باقي الورثة ، مانحاً المشرع في ذلك سلطة تقديرية واسعة لقاضي الموضوع لتحديد هذه البينة ، علماً بأن المشرع في هذه المادة اعتبر تصرف الوريث هو بالنيابة أو الوكالة عن باقي الورثة ما لم يثبت التصرف الاستقلالي بالبينة القوية .
ومن خلال هذه الدراسة فقد تم طرح مجموعة من التساؤلات حول مدى قانونية تطبيق مبدأ اكتساب الحقوق العينية الأصلية في العقارات بين الورثة بالتصرف الناتج عن الحيازة والتقادم؟ وهل يعتبر اكتساب الحقوق العينية بين الورثة مانعاً من موانع سماع الدعوى بين الورثة؟
وقد اختتمت هذه الدراسة بخاتمة تضمنت مجموعة من النتائج والتوصيات التي توصلت اليها من خلال هذه الدراسة ، ومن أبرز هذه النتائج أن مرور الزمان المحدد قانوناً على التصرف بأرض لم تتم تسويتها، يصلح سبباً لكسب الحقوق العينية الأصلية، بصورةٍ عامة، أما بين الورثة فإن القانون المعدل يعتبر تصرف أي وريث في تركة مورثه بالنيابة أو الوكالة عن باقي الورثة، ما لم يُقيم هذا الوريث بينة قوية تثبت أن تصرفه لم يكن على ذلك الوجه (استقلالاً) ، مع الإشارة إلى أن مجلة الأحكام العدلية وقانون تسوية الأراضي والمياه بموجب المادة سالفة الذكر، أخذت بمرور الزمن المانع من سماع الدعوى بشكل عام، وهذا المرور يمنع من سماع الدعوى ولا يكسب الحائز ملكية العين التي يحوزها، فالحق لا يسقط بمرور الزمن إنما الوسيلة التي أعطاه إياها القانون لحماية حقه هي التي سقطت بمرور الزمن، وعليه فالاعتراض على الحائز يواجه من قبل المعترض عليه بالدفع بعد سماع دعوى الاعتراض مثل واحدٍ من دفوع عدم القبول.
Considered are the original rights in rem, which, according to the concept of jurisprudence, have direct control over a particular item that the law grants to a person. The landowner is the holder of a real right and has direct authority, and the legislator has defined the legal actions that are a gain for these rights - the original rights in rem - which are essentially seven rights: The right to ownership, disposition, usufruct, use, housing, musataha, and easements rights. I decided to devote my study to the legal organization of gaining the original rights in kind amongst heirs in unsettled real estate, namely the rights of ownership, disposition, usufruct, and Musataha. In this regard, the Journal of Judicial Rulings stipulated in Article 1674 that rights do not lapse by prescription. However, as a matter of the necessity of the stability of legal transactions, it preferred not to take this article into its general or form or investigate its broad concept, so it stipulated in Article 1660 a general concept, which is not hearing lawsuits in certain real estate after leaving it for fifteen years. The private laws followed the same content as the Journal of Judicial Rulings, as the Land and Water Settlement Law No. 40 of 1952 emphasized in Article 14/3 that claims of objection to the bill of rights are not heard after the lapse of the period specified in the law for filing a case, noting that This period begins with the heir's disposal of the lands and waters inherited from a common grandfather without the consent of the other heirs.It is the same principle referred to by the law amending the Law of Disposal of Immovable Funds No. 51 of 1958, which confirmed in Article 4/1 that an heir's disposition based on strong evidence is an independent act and not by proxy on behalf of the rest of the heirs, thereby granting a judge broad discretionary authority and granting the legislature broad discretionary power. The topic is to determine this evidence, keeping in mind that the legislator in this article regarded the activity of the heir to be on behalf of or on behalf of the other heirs, unless compelling proof demonstrates autonomous action. This study presented a number of questions about the validity of applying the concept of gaining original rights in real estate via the disposition arising from ownership and prescription amongst heirs. Is the acquisition of real property rights by the heirs regarded an impediment to hearing their lawsuit? This study concluded with a conclusion that included a set of results and recommendations, the most prominent of which was that the passage of the legally specified time for disposing of land that has not been settled is a reason for gaining the original rights in kind, and between the heirs, the amended law should be implemented. The disposition of any heir in the estate of his inheritor is on behalf of or on behalf of the rest of the heirs, unless this heir establishes strong evidence proving that his disposition was not in that manner (independently), noting that the Land and Water Settlement Law and the Code of Judicial Rulings according to the aforementioned article took precedence. This section prohibits the lawsuit from being tried and does not provide the possessor possession of the property he now owns. After hearing the objection case as one of the reasons for non-acceptance, he must pay.
Considered are the original rights in rem, which, according to the concept of jurisprudence, have direct control over a particular item that the law grants to a person. The landowner is the holder of a real right and has direct authority, and the legislator has defined the legal actions that are a gain for these rights - the original rights in rem - which are essentially seven rights: The right to ownership, disposition, usufruct, use, housing, musataha, and easements rights. I decided to devote my study to the legal organization of gaining the original rights in kind amongst heirs in unsettled real estate, namely the rights of ownership, disposition, usufruct, and Musataha. In this regard, the Journal of Judicial Rulings stipulated in Article 1674 that rights do not lapse by prescription. However, as a matter of the necessity of the stability of legal transactions, it preferred not to take this article into its general or form or investigate its broad concept, so it stipulated in Article 1660 a general concept, which is not hearing lawsuits in certain real estate after leaving it for fifteen years. The private laws followed the same content as the Journal of Judicial Rulings, as the Land and Water Settlement Law No. 40 of 1952 emphasized in Article 14/3 that claims of objection to the bill of rights are not heard after the lapse of the period specified in the law for filing a case, noting that This period begins with the heir's disposal of the lands and waters inherited from a common grandfather without the consent of the other heirs.It is the same principle referred to by the law amending the Law of Disposal of Immovable Funds No. 51 of 1958, which confirmed in Article 4/1 that an heir's disposition based on strong evidence is an independent act and not by proxy on behalf of the rest of the heirs, thereby granting a judge broad discretionary authority and granting the legislature broad discretionary power. The topic is to determine this evidence, keeping in mind that the legislator in this article regarded the activity of the heir to be on behalf of or on behalf of the other heirs, unless compelling proof demonstrates autonomous action. This study presented a number of questions about the validity of applying the concept of gaining original rights in real estate via the disposition arising from ownership and prescription amongst heirs. Is the acquisition of real property rights by the heirs regarded an impediment to hearing their lawsuit? This study concluded with a conclusion that included a set of results and recommendations, the most prominent of which was that the passage of the legally specified time for disposing of land that has not been settled is a reason for gaining the original rights in kind, and between the heirs, the amended law should be implemented. The disposition of any heir in the estate of his inheritor is on behalf of or on behalf of the rest of the heirs, unless this heir establishes strong evidence proving that his disposition was not in that manner (independently), noting that the Land and Water Settlement Law and the Code of Judicial Rulings according to the aforementioned article took precedence. This section prohibits the lawsuit from being tried and does not provide the possessor possession of the property he now owns. After hearing the objection case as one of the reasons for non-acceptance, he must pay.
Description
Keywords
Citation
حناتشة، نزيه علي. (2023). التصرف المكسب للحقوق العينية الأصلية على العقارات بين الورثة [رسالة
ماجستير منشورة، جامعة القدس، فلسطين]. المستودع الرقمي لجامعة القدس. https://arab-
scholars.com/d98517