The Pontevedra Regional Court confirmed the eviction order issued against a neighbor who at all times denied taking over a property belonging to a hereditary community. However, the court finds that it has been proven that the man He moved his luggage and vehicles there After being expelled from another neighboring land, his appeal is completely rejected.
The ruling of the third section that I reviewed Spain informationsupports the decision taken months ago by the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Pontevedra, which has already upheld the claim submitted by Susana, representative of the hereditary community of her mother, Tamara. The court then concluded that the defendant, Humberto, was sitting inappropriately on the floor and should vacate it. Now, the court upheld both the reasoning and the ruling.
The conflict arose when Umberto was forced to abandon, in 2024, a farm owned by neighbors named Eleuterio. According to the heiress’s claim, once the man was evicted from the first plot of land, he would decide to move his belongings and vehicles to Neighboring farmthey belong to the Susana genetic community. He stated in his complaint that the new seizure made the use of the land difficult and was carried out without any license.
Humberto categorically denied this accusation. He assured the court that after he was evicted from the first plot of land, he and his family left for the Salcedo area and that they did not sit on any other property. He insisted that the photographs provided by the plaintiff did not correspond to the inherited land and that the photographs of her vehicles were taken when she was still living on the Eleuterio farm.
To support his version, K. suggested The only witness is his sonJuly. He announced that when they left the first farm, those who remained there were three Portuguese families. However, he was unable to provide more relevant information.
The heir’s family’s version is supported by another witness: Juan Carlos, A Private investigator Which, according to him, took photographs of the Earth in May 2024, almost a month after Humberto claimed to have left for Salcedo. These photos showed several vehicles that he himself admitted during the trial as his own.
Humberto’s appeal focused on questioning the authenticity and interpretation of these images. He claimed that the court accepted the investigator’s statements without sufficiently proving his professional status. There was no guarantee History of photos; Some of the images correspond to the ownership of his previous parcel and not to hereditary ownership.
He also said one photo showed a caravan, a fairground trailer and other items that, he said, belonged to the land he was evicted from in 2022, not the heiress’ land. He even added that a small stone bridge would prevent the passage of heavy machinery into the disputed property, therefore The pictures cannot match this place.
The Court rejects these arguments and maintains that the Court acted properly. In his sentence, he mentions that it was Umberto himself who admitted before the court that the photographed vehicles were his property and that they were located “on the other side of the bridge”, which – according to the judges – strengthens the conclusion that the photographs actually belong to hereditary property.
The judges also rule out the alleged impossibility of vehicles reaching the bridge. They consider that a Statement without technical support There is no evidence, and in any case, the presence of cars inside the ground indicates that they were able to reach.
Regarding the photo that, according to the defence, would confuse the court, the court explains that there is no error: the plaintiff himself acknowledged from the beginning that this photo corresponds to the defendant’s previous land and that It was not used as evidence The seizure of property is now being discussed.
In his appeal, Humberto also asserted that the court had improperly removed the burden of proof, requiring him to prove that he was not taking possession of the property. The Regional Court rejects this interpretation, and states that the court did not base its decision on insufficient evidence, but – on the contrary – on… There is sufficient evidence To prove the squatting: photographs, the testimony of the investigator and the confession of the appellant himself.
The judges explain that the burden of proof rule only comes into effect when there is no evidence of the relevant facts. Since it exists in this case, we cannot talk about improper investment. They add that the court’s assessment was “coherent” and “reasonable”, and no error was noted.