1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of the spouses, namely six apartments acquired during the marriage.
2. The courts of the first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the wife’s claim for division of property and satisfied the husband’s counterclaim for recognition of his ownership of the apartments, based on the fact that the husband refuted the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses’ property, proving that the apartments were acquired at his personal expense. The Supreme Court did not agree with this conclusion, pointing out that the appellate court did not properly assess the wife’s statement in which she consented to the husband’s acquisition of real estate in the interests of the family, which indicates a common intention to acquire property in joint joint ownership. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that a claim for recognition of a right can only be filed to protect an existing right, and not to acquire it. The court also took into account that the appellate court did not examine all the evidence collected in the case, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
: The court in the decision notes that it departs from the previous position, which was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
