I am a Spanish lawyer based in South Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
My law practice covers the following areas of the Spanish law: international law, litigation and disputes related to foreign investments, property and business law, inheritance and family matters. Continue reading “WELCOME TO MY BLOG”
The purchase, the donation and the inheritance are the most common ways of acquiring a property. The people who become owners in this way have a valid title (public deed granted before a notary public) that makes them the legitimate owners of the property.
However, what happens when we occupy a property and we do not have a property title, nor have we leased it? Do we acquire any type of right over the property? For these cases, the Civil Code regulates the figure of usucapion. Usucaption is a way of acquiring rights to a thing by its continued possession for a time under the conditions provided by law, that is, by continued use, despite not being the owner, the property can be acquired (acquisitive prescription) . The goods that a person acquires by usucaption cancel the property title for the previous owner.
In case of non-payment of rent, the first question to resolve is: Can we file an eviction claim in court with a single month of non-payment.
In this regard, article 27.2 a) of the Urban Leasing Law (LAU) is clear; the landlord can in any case cancel the contract due to “non-payment of rent or, where appropriate, of any of the amounts whose payment has been assumed or corresponds to the lessee ”. This is so because payment of rent due is the main obligation of every tenant and, therefore, its non-payment represents an essential breach of the lease regardless of the amount of the debt.
When the Spanish government decreed the state of alarm in March 2020, certain fundamental freedoms and rights of citizens were restricted, such as:
1) limits were placed on public use of the roads or public spaces.
2) vehicular movement was restricted with the same exceptions as applied to the movement of people..
3) Roads or sections of roads were closed to traffic or restricted to certain vehicles for reasons of public health, safety or traffic flow.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court of 14 July 2021 has an evident implication because the 3 annulled clauses imposed restrictions on very basic rights (the right of movement of persons and vehicles) and this raises two questions.
Tourist apartments are a source of many conflicts in communities of owners as they represent the continuous movement of people through a building for its occupants, as well as the insecurity generated by the access of all types of strangers at all hours of the day and night, without the community of owners being able to exercise any control. Moreover, since the emergence of Covid-19, illegal parties have been held in some of these properties, bypassing restrictions on gatherings established to try to control the spread of coronavirus and increasing the chance of contagion. In this context, the question arises as to whether neighbours have a legal obligation to tolerate the presence of tourist accommodation in their complex.