Acquisitive Prescription: How to Establish Ownership Through the Court Without Facing Refusal

Acquisitive prescription is a legal mechanism that allows the formalization of factual possession of property, provided that such possession has been exercised openly, in good faith, and for a prolonged period under certain conditions. This institution is governed by Article 344 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and is classified as an original method of acquiring ownership.

It refers to situations where a person has been using property as their own for years without properly оформлених title documents. 

The law allows for the acquisition of ownership provided that several conditions are met simultaneously:

• the property was possessed in good faith;
• possession is open and continuous;
• the person treats the property as an owner would;
• the required period of possession has been observed:
  • 10 years — for immovable property;
  • 5 years — for movable property.

Key point: the mere lapse of time does not automatically create ownership rights. 

This is particularly relevant for real estate. In such cases, ownership arises only upon a court decision followed by state registration. Until that moment, factual possession does not equate to the legal status of an owner.

As for land plots, a separate legal framework applies. 

Article 119 of the Land Code of Ukraine provides not for the automatic acquisition of rights, but only for the possibility to apply to the competent authority with a request for the transfer of a land plot into ownership or use. In other words, in land-related disputes, acquisitive prescription does not replace the specific legal procedures for formalizing rights.

Thus, acquisitive prescription is not a universal way to “formalize long-term use,” but a legal instrument that operates only where all statutory conditions are met and a proper procedural approach is followed.

Judicial practice in applying Article 344 of the Civil Code of Ukraine shows that in cases involving acquisitive prescription, the decisive factor is not the mere lapse of 5 or 10 years, but the quality of proof of all required conditions.

The court does not “grant ownership” automatically upon expiration of the statutory period. It examines whether the possession met the legal criteria and whether alternative legal mechanisms for formalizing ownership existed. For this reason, cases on the recognition of ownership rights by acquisitive prescription are considered particularly complex from an evidentiary standpoint.

Good Faith Possession: When and How It Is Assessed

One of the most debated elements is good faith possession. The law does not provide a precise definition; however, established Supreme Court practice proceeds from the understanding that good faith means that, at the moment of acquiring possession, a person did not know and could not have known about the absence of legal grounds for such possession.

The key factor is precisely the moment of acquiring possession. If the property was initially used under a lease, storage, or gratuitous use agreement, such possession is derivative. It cannot automatically transform into possession “as an owner” without a clear change in the legal nature of the relationship.

A typical mistake is to equate good faith solely with long-term residence or use. The duration of possession alone does not prove good faith. The court analyzes:

• whether the person was aware that the property belonged to another;
• whether they attempted to formalize ownership through other legal means;
• whether there were disputes, claims, or refusals of registration.

The existence of a conflict with the owner, litigation, or claims usually indicates the absence of good faith. At the same time, in cases where the property was acquired under a void transaction and the person was unaware of its invalidity, courts may recognize such possession as being in good faith.

Open and Continuous Possession: Actual Conduct Matters

For acquisitive prescription to apply, possession must be open and continuous.

Openness means that the use of the property is not concealed. This involves not only physical presence, but conduct consistent with the exercise of ownership rights: residence, repairs, payment of utility bills, conclusion of service contracts, and payment of taxes.

Secret or concealed use precludes the possibility of satisfying the claim. If the owner was prevented from accessing the property or the fact of possession was concealed, courts typically refuse such claims.

Continuity implies the absence of legally significant interruptions. Short-term absence — such as vacations, seasonal use, or repairs — does not in itself interrupt the period, provided that actual control over the property is maintained.

Interruption may occur in cases of:

• loss of actual control;
• recognition of the owner’s rights;
• entering into a lease agreement after a period of factual use.

Such actions may “reset” the previously accrued period and effectively preclude the application of acquisitive prescription.

Possession as One’s Own (Animus Domini): The Most Challenging Element

One of the most difficult elements to prove is the intention to possess property as an owner — animus domini.

This is what distinguishes acquisitive prescription from ordinary lease or use. The court assesses not formal statements, but the actual conduct of the person.

Payment of rent, recognition of another person’s ownership, or applications for extension of use indicate the absence of possession “as one’s own.”

Conversely, substantial investments in the property, reconstruction, preparation of technical documentation, and payment of taxes as an owner may confirm the existence of animus domini.

Owner’s Conduct: A Relevant Factor

In cases concerning the recognition of ownership by acquisitive prescription, courts assess not only the actions of the possessor, but also the conduct of the owner.

Prolonged inactivity of the owner may be taken into account when assessing openness and continuity of possession. However, inactivity alone does not automatically result in the loss of ownership rights.

The existence of a registered title in the State Register of Proprietary Rights, the submission of claims, correspondence, or other actions aimed at protecting the property indicate the preservation of ownership rights and may serve as grounds for dismissal of the claim.

Common Mistakes in Acquisitive Prescription Cases

Most refusals are related not to the period of possession, but to an insufficient evidentiary basis.

The most common mistakes include:

• relying solely on witness testimony without documentary evidence;
• absence of proof of expenses for maintenance or improvement of the property;
• ignoring prior lease or use agreements;
• incorrect identification of the defendant;
• failure to analyze registration data.

The court evaluates evidence in its entirety. Therefore, an effective strategy in acquisitive prescription cases requires a comprehensive approach: technical documentation, receipts, contracts, completion certificates, correspondence, and extracts from registers.

The case law of the Supreme Court has effectively shaped the modern understanding of the institution of acquisitive prescription. It is through court decisions that the boundary has been clarified between the genuine acquisition of ownership and attempts to circumvent statutory procedures.

Let us consider several illustrative cases.

1️⃣ Disputes Between Relatives: Residence Does Not Equal Ownership

Supreme Court Decision of 04.07.2018 in Case No. 539/1605/16-c

The situation appeared typical:
the mother had lived in the house for over 10 years, maintained it, paid utility bills, and carried out repairs. The registered owner was her son under a gift agreement. Following a conflict, a claim was filed for recognition of ownership by acquisitive prescription.

The courts dismissed the claim.

Key factors:

• the claimant was aware of the identity of the legal owner;
• her use of the property was as a family member;
• possession was derivative rather than “as an owner.”

The Supreme Court explicitly stated:
long-term residence, even with maintenance expenses, does not transform use into ownership where the person is aware that the property belongs to another.

2️⃣ Acquisitive Prescription as an Original but Strict Mechanism

Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Decision of 14.05.2019 in Case No. 910/17274/17

In this decision, the Grand Chamber systematically explained the nature of the institution.

Acquisitive prescription is an original method of acquiring ownership, not a transfer of title from a previous owner.

However, it applies only where all conditions are met simultaneously:

• good faith possession;
• open possession;
• continuity;
• expiration of the statutory period;
• absence of statutory restrictions.

Key points:

• good faith is assessed at the moment possession is acquired;
• if the property is transferred under a contract (lease, storage, etc.), acquisitive prescription does not apply;
• for real estate, ownership arises only on the basis of a court decision.

In effect, the Court сформував a clear “filter”: the absence of even one element precludes recognition of ownership.

3️⃣ Land Beneath a Building: Special Mechanisms Prevail

Supreme Court Decision of 20.01.2021 in Case No. 318/1274/18

The claimant had possessed a house for more than 15 years and sought to recognize ownership of the land plot beneath it by acquisitive prescription.

The Court referred to Article 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine (the principle of unity of the legal fate of a building and the land plot).

The core position:

• where the law provides a specific mechanism for the transfer of land rights,
• such mechanism must be applied as a priority.

Acquisitive prescription cannot be used as a universal method of formalizing land rights.

It was also confirmed that:
the burden of proving all conditions rests entirely with the claimant.

These decisions demonstrate a consistent approach:
acquisitive prescription is not a tool for legalizing factual use where there is a registered owner or a specific legal procedure for formalizing rights.

Each condition — good faith, openness, continuity, and possession as one’s own — is assessed both individually and cumulatively.
This forms the foundation of the current case law of the Supreme Court.