Possession as the origin of property

Reading tells us about how things are acquired, this means about property rights. We
find a series of aspects which are studied and analyzed throughout the reading, the first
of which is in what way are things acquired? What is the origin of this acquisition?
What theory supports that the acquisition occurs in one way or another? It is these series
of questions that provide the basis for the debate raised in Carol M. Roset's article.

In the first place, we find the silver theory by John Locke, in which he states that one
becomes the original owner when he mixes the work with the thing, since through work
the property of the same is given. Clearly, it has a series of problems, the first of which
is that there is no previous theory that establishes that one is the owner of the job and
therefore, it cannot be proved that the thing is. On the other hand, if it is proven that one
owns the work, there is no proportion compared to the scope of the right that the
combination of the work with the thing provides.

Secondly, we find two theories contemporary to those of Locke, the first one states that
the basis of property is found in the consent of the rest of humanity and on the other
hand, the theory of common law states that possession or occupation is the origin of the
property. This theory is based on the common law maxim: the first possession is the
root of the title, which leads to the posing of two questions, What is possession? and
Why is it the foundation for claiming the title?

In order to have a better understanding of customary theory, Pierson v. Post, which is a

classic case of wild animals from the early 19th century. What is relevant in this case is
the regulation and decision that was made regarding the ownership of animals in
hunting circumstances. As a result of this case, there was a debate on when to give
possession of the animal when hunting it.

In this order of ideas, two opposite principles are established to understand possession
according to Pierson: the first is to warn the world through a clear act and the second is
the reward for useful work. At this point it is concluded that the possession is subject to
some type of communication, where the property seems a type of discussion where the
audience is everyone else who is interested in the acquisition of the object.

Later, we find a duality of interpretations against the doctrine, since this can be
understood on the one hand that to transfer property to a person who was considered an
intruder at first, and this is present for a continuous period of time where the The owner
does nothing to remove it, the transfer of the property could be given, where the
principle of the reward of useful work could be reflected, clearly if it is understood by
useful work to remain on the land for a period of time.

on the other hand, we find another interpretation, which will be subject to the second
principle, that of making the property known to the world through a clear act. The
interpretation is based on the fact that the owner must make it publicly recognized that
he is the owner of the land and that if someone wishes to acquire it, he must speak with
him and not with the intruder on the land.