Subdivision, Accession, and Adverse Possession: Convergences and Divergences

Abstract

I. The division of a rural property into several plots does not, in itself, constitute a subdivision operation, as it will only be considered such if at least one of the plots is intended, immediately or subsequently, for urban construction.

II. If it is found that, after the division of a rural property, urbanisation works are carried out on the land included therein, the acts that implemented such works must be qualified as subdivision operations for the purposes of Decree-Law No. 448/91 of 29 November, making the licensing of any urban construction within the divided property dependent on prior authorisation of a subdivision operation.

III. This subsequent allocation for urban construction has no effect on the validity of the act or acts of property division, which depends solely on the rules governing the partitioning of rural properties. Therefore, any illegality in the subdivision operations only serves to prevent the licensing of urban constructions, without affecting the possibility of using the resulting property as rural land.

IV. The construction of a fence on a rural property, corresponding to the exercise of a fencing right inherent to the right of ownership, does not constitute urban construction, nor is it incompatible with the use of the land for agricultural purposes.