Preferencias académicas de los estudiantes de la carrera de Derecho y su vinculación con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) a través del estudio de sentencias

Abstract

Abstract: In Judgment 1178-19-JP/21, the Constitutional Court, in a review judgment, established the inadmissibility of using the Action for Protection (AP) to declare extraordinary acquisitive prescription of ownership, indicating that this undermines the nature of the Action for Protection (AP). According to the precedents established in Judgments 1-16-PJO-CC and 1285-13-EP/19, the AP is not appropriate to declare rights that must be managed through ordinary judicial channels. The Court's analysis included the nature and purpose of the Action for Protection (AP), the concept of acquisitive prescription of ownership as a means of acquiring property, and the inadmissibility of the Action for Protection (AP) for this purpose. Furthermore, it differentiated between violations of property rights that must be addressed through ordinary channels and those that fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The Court determined that granting adverse possession is not appropriate if its primary purpose is to obtain a declaration of acquisitive prescription. However, if the adverse possession focuses on the violation of constitutional rights unrelated to the requirements of prescription, it will be pertinent.