Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Right to a Part of a Residential House by Acquisitive Prescription.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the evidence regarding PERSON_4’s residence in the disputed premises, without examining all submitted documents and not clarifying the legal basis for their settlement.
2. The Court of Appeal did not establish how the first instance court’s decision affects the rights and obligations of PERSON_4, prematurely concluding the possibility of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court confirmed that in cases of acquisitive prescription, the proper defendants are the owner, their legal successor (heirs), and in their absence – territorial communities represented by local self-government bodies.
Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the Court of Appeal and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance for proper examination of all circumstances of the case.
