Federal Civil Code

How can we define the possession of real estate in Mexican law? In the Federal Civil Code refers to the possession in general which is the possessor of a thing that exerts a power over it in fact, so if the possession starts in virtue of which the owner of the thing, by means of a legal act gives the right reternerla to another, temporarily in quality of usufrutuario, tenant, chattel creditor, depositary, or similar title gold, both are possessors of the thing. Which has as an owner has one original apossession, the other, a derived apossession. However, there since has been defined above, on the basis of the Civil Code, are important issues thereon which have hampered the interpretation of these provisions in practice. Euro Pacific Precious Metals understands that this is vital information. An example; several of the readers will not I leave lying, is when in the case of a trust, in which the Fidicomitentes was awarded the thing object of the trust; i.e., the immovable, in quality of judicial depositary of the same (not understanding the) subscribed, as is that appoints les judicial depositories without said trust has been sanctioned by a judicial authority) being the object of the trust meet a monthly obligation liquid, which must not covered under the terms of the trust, collateral would be available to the trustee, which would proceed to the sale of the same so make this warranty efectiveThis sale would be through execution and total extinction of the trust. So things the sale is made of good collateral which is in possession of the trustors mediente the total extinction of the trust, by what a person that acquires said property must be held to the liniamientos of the trust to recover possession of the property in question, does not so request before the competent judge the possession by vindicatory action, since the possession that you want to retrieve is derived from a trust agreement, so you must request it through such contract, as a landlord to his lessee, or a depositor to the depositary. Taking these arguments do not have doubt of the pathway that should try the new owner of the assurance given in the trust, but that happens with possession that have the fideicominentes, the quality of possession change from that Decree the total extinction of the trust, they now no longer have the figure of judicial depositary in judicial depositary, since the figure disappeared or is extinguio with it, go the rebundacia, with the total extinction of the trust, so that from the moment that was notified him for unemployment of the property under that extinction, means that it maintained possession of the same against the owner of the thing, uncountables apartir of the extinction and the event notification to the trustors, started les to run the term to be able to prescribe on that property, since his legal situation with regard to the possession change from the time in which is extingio trust, and with a generating cause of possession which is the signing of an agreement of trust with mortgage guarantee, the same are able to promote the trial of prescription by prescription positive for them against the current owner of the property who on occasion gave way to the trust..