The Provincial Court of Navarra has resolved the conflict that arose following a lawsuit by an owner against his community of neighbors, whom he accused of occupying part of his premises during the construction works. installation of an elevator without adjusting to what was agreed. The court recognizes that there was an excess of occupation, but limits it to 0.20 square meters, considering that it is the only one that has been proven and that the invasion of a greater surface of the property has not been proven.
According to the ruling of March 17, 2026, the parties had signed an agreement in 2017 that allowed the occupation of 0.90 square meters of the premises for the execution of the works. However, after its completion, the area actually occupied amounted to 1.10 meters, which led to the owner’s claim, who maintained that the excess was greater by also including the space under the building’s stairs.
The Supreme Court equates tourist rentals with lodging and endorses the community statutes that veto this use
A community prohibits tourist apartments in its building after a neighbor ended up with a fractured cheekbone after confronting some tourists who were urinating in the pool: Justice supports it
The Court of First Instance No. 9 of Pamplona only recognized that excess of 0.20 meters and condemned the community to compensate the ownerconsidering it proven that the additional occupation occurred due to the needs of the work, but ruled out that it affected a larger area as the ownership of the rest of the claimed space was not proven.
The space under the stairs does not belong to the owner and he cannot claim more surface area.
The Provincial Court ruled out that the owner was entitled to greater compensation for not having proven that the space under the stairs that he claimed was part of his premises. The court recalled that, in accordance with article 396 of the Civil Code, stairs and their associated elements are common elements in the horizontal property regime, unless there is an express disaffection that makes them private.
In this sense, it was up to the owner of the premises to prove his exclusive ownership of that space, in line with the requirements of the action brought based on the right of property, which implied conclusively proving the ownership title, the surface area and its specific identification, something that did not occur in this case.
Furthermore, the Court considered that the deed of sale provided by the owner was insufficient, since it did not allow the delimitation of the premises to be clearly determined or whether the space under the stairs was included, generating uncertainty about its scope.
Consequently, and in the absence of sufficient accreditation of ownership of the claimed space, the Court concluded that the only compensable occupation was the difference between what was agreed and what was executed, that is, 0.20 meters, maintaining the compensation set at 888.80 euros.
However, the sentence was not final, and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.