امارۀ مالكيت

Presumption of ownership

امارۀ مالكيت جزو قواعد مهم فقهي و يكي از شايع‌ترين وسائل اثبات مالكيت است. به ويژه در مالكيت اموال منقول كه نگاهداري سند مالكيت مرسوم نيست، حمايت از تصرف اهميت زيادتري پيدا مي‌كند و تعّدي به حق متصرف و مطالبه دليل از او موجب اختلال در نظم اقتصادي و بازار مسلمانان مي‌گردد. در تحليل و بررسي مباني امارۀ مالكيت دو ملاك وجود دارد: ملاك اول اغلبيت است و ملاك دوم مقتضاي طبيعت اوليه متصرف مي‌باشد ولي ما در مقاله ملاك سومي را ذكر نموديم و آن تشخيص عرفي است زيرا اگرچه ملاك در قاعده يد اغلبيت نيست ولي لزوماً هم به مقتضاي اوليه يد بر نمي‌گردد بلكه ملاك تشخيص عرفي است. در تعارض يد با اقرار ميان حقوق‌دانان اختلاف‌نظر است، به‌موجب مادة 37 قانون مدني: «اگر متصرف فعلي اقرار كند كه ملك سابقاً مال مدعي او بوده است در اين صورت مشاراليه نمي‌تواند براي رد ادعاي مالكيت شخص مزبور به تصرف خود استناد كند.» اعتبار امارۀ مالكيت از ميان مي‌رود. برخي از استادان حقوق امتياز يا تفاوتي ميان اقرار و ساير ادله مالكيت قائل نبوده و برآنند كه ثبوت حقانيت مدعي به هر دليل كه باشد اثر امارۀ مالكيت را از بين خواهد برد. در مقابل عده‌اي ديگر معتقدند كه از ادلة اثبات مالكيت تنها اقرار است كه طبق صريح مادة مزبور مي‌تواند اعتبار را از بين ببرد به ديگر سخن خصوصيتي در اقرار وجود دارد كه در ساير ادله اين خصوصيت نيست. ليكن ما به دو طريق حكم مقنن را توجيه نموديم يكي اينكه چنانچه متصرف اقرار به سابقه مالكيت مدعي نمايد تا پايان راه (تا زمان تصرفش) بار اثبات دليل به عهده اوست. راه حل دوم را از مقايسه ميان مادة 37 و مواد 1282 و 1283 قانون مدني مي‌توان استخراج كرد و گفته شد كه اقرار متصرف مشمول مادة 1283 ق.م است و اقراري مركب محسوب مي‌شود.

Presumption of ownership is one of the important jurisprudential rules and one of the most common proofs of ownership. In particular, protection of possession becomes more important in the ownership of tangible property, where the maintenance of a title deed is not customary, an‎d violating the right of the possessor and demanding a reason from him, disturbs the economic order and the market of Muslims. There are two criteria in analyzing the basics of tangible property: the first is the majority and the second is the primary nature's requirement of the possessor, but we mentioned the third criterion in the article that is customary recognition. Because although the criterion in the rule of possession is not the majority, it does not necessarily return to the basic requirement of possession but is the criterion of customary recognition. There is disagreement among jurists about the conflict between the rule of possession and confession. According to Article 37 of the Civil Code: if the present occupier admits that the property formerly belonged to the claimant, he cannot urge, in refutation of the other's claim, his own occupation of the property, unless he can prove that the property has been transferred to him according to the correct procedure. The validity of the ownership presumption is lost. Some law professors do not distinguish between confession and other evidence of ownership and believe that proving the legitimacy of the claimant will nullify the effect of the property statute for whatever reason. On the other hand, some others believe that according to the text of this article, the only proof of ownership that can destroy the validity is a confession among all other ownership proofs, in other words, there is a feature in the confession that is not in others. However, we have justified the article in two ways: first, if the possessor confesses to the plaintiff's ownership history, she is responsible for proving the reason until the end (until her possession). The second solution can be deduced from the comparison between Article 37 and 1282 and 1283 of the Civil Code, and it was said that the confession of the possessor is covered by Article 1283 and is considered a complex confession.