Here Is Why High Walls Cannot Keep People Out

[Dave Hounddriver]

In many countries, property rights are more rigid than in Philippines.  I was browsing some Philippine laws and came on this one.  It seems that any time a filpino wants to come on your (or your wife's) land all he has to say is that his bees flew over your wall and he came to get them:

 

Art. 716. The owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to pursue them to another's land, indemnifying the possessor of the latter for the damage. If the owner has not pursued the swarm, or ceases to do so within two consecutive days, the possessor of the land may occupy or retain the same. The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

 

 

 

http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook3.htm

[stevewool]

So what you are saying i or should i say we cannot tell this person to BUZZ OFF then :lol:

[Methersgate]

I thought it would be interesting to compare the position in English law with that of the Philippines: 

Here is a summary of the report in the case of Kearry v Pattinson, which is the leading case in English law on swarming bees, and dates from 1939.

The case went to the Court of Appeal, . A decision of the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts, and will be followed unless and until Parliament changes the law or a beekeeper with very deep pockets goes to the Supreme Court with a swarm problem. Indeed you may wonder why this went to the Court of Appeal - the answer is that the plaintiff and the defendant were both Yorkshiremen...

K and P were next door neighbours, and were not on good terms. K's bees swarmed into P's garden. K asked if he could go in and collect them and P replied "No, you only speak to me when you want something". By the time P relented the bees had moved on (don't you just hate it when they do that?).

K sued for the loss of the swarm and on the loss of profit on the honey. He lost in the County Court and so appealed. 

K's barrister went back a considerable way in presenting his arguments. He quoted from Blackstone's Commentaries (ed 1776), who in turn quoted Bracton, a 13th century jurist, who himself went back to Justinian. He cited cases from 1613, 1661, and many from the 19th century. Blackstone said that bees are ferae naturae, but when hived and reclaimed a man may have a qualified property in them, "but a swarm, which flies from and out of the hive are mine so long as I can keep them in sight, and have the power to pursue them".

The Appeal Judges felt the case to be interesting and important. They accepted K's barrister's (and Bracton's) line of argument on the ownership of a swarm, but didn't even call on P's barrister to speak before dismissing the claim. They held that the power to pursue them was lost once the bees went onto another man's land, as that would be an act of trespass. A landowner has no duty to allow another on to his land to collect a swarm, and if he wants he can keep them for himself. 

And here is a summary by a lawyer, in 2013:
 

 The ownership of a swarm follows Roman Law. The Roman Law provided that bees remain the property of the beekeeper as long as they were kept in sight. In Mr Beer’s notes he cited several Case Histories, but did not include the case of Kearry v Pattinson (1939. 1 Kings Bench 471) in which the following passage from the Institutes of Justinian (Bk II I 471) was quoted:

 

Bees are naturally wild. Hence if a swarm settles on your tree, it is no more yours until you have hived it, than the birds which build their nests there. Consequently, if it is hived by someone else it becomes his property. A swarm which has flown from your hive is considered to remain yours so long as it is in your sight and easy of pursuit; otherwise it belongs to the first person who catches it. (My emphasis)

 

It is noteworthy that over 1700 years have passed since the time of the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century A.D. and it still summarizes English law today.

 

If your swarm settles on your neighbour’s land and you wish to retrieve it, you must first seek permission (although trespass in itself is not a crime – in order to proceed against intruders it has to be proved that damage has been done). If permission is refused then the matter is at an end. The Court will not compel the landowner to grant access – assuming a swarm is sufficiently patient to await due process of the law! This was decided in Kearry v Pattinson.

 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Methersgate

[Lou49]

In many countries, property rights are more rigid than in Philippines.  I was browsing some Philippine laws and came on this one.  It seems that any time a filpino wants to come on your (or your wife's) land all he has to say is that his bees flew over your wall and he came to get them:

 

Art. 716. The owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to pursue them to another's land, indemnifying the possessor of the latter for the damage. If the owner has not pursued the swarm, or ceases to do so within two consecutive days, the possessor of the land may occupy or retain the same. The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

 

 

 

http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook3.htm

Good luck with the dobermans.....

[Thomas]

The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

ONLY 20 days even if can proove it has been yours!!!   

The owner need to know where they are to claim them, so if someone MOVE e g cows unnoticed and HIDE them 21 days, then the THIEF can STEAL them "LEGALY", even if the owner notice the cows later and can proove they were his before they were moved !!! :1 (103): 

[stevewool]

 

The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

ONLY 20 days even if can proove it has been yours!!!   

The owner need to know where they are to claim them, so if someone MOVE e g cows unnoticed and HIDE them 21 days, then the THIEF can STEAL them "LEGALY", even if the owner notice the cows later and can proove they were his before they were moved !!! :1 (103):

 

so if i mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ved them i could keep them then

[i am bob]

 

The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

ONLY 20 days even if can proove it has been yours!!!   

The owner need to know where they are to claim them, so if someone MOVE e g cows unnoticed and HIDE them 21 days, then the THIEF can STEAL them "LEGALY", even if the owner notice the cows later and can proove they were his before they were moved !!! :1 (103):

 

 

Nope!  That's still considered theft as they were removed fraudulently and hidden during the commission of a crime...

 

:rolleyes:  :mocking:

[Jack Peterson]

 Ahhhhhhhhhhh! Milk and Honey Stories, Great for a Monday morning  :rolleyes:

 

Hey come get your bees  but leave the Cow  :thumbsup:

 

JP :tiphat:

[Thomas]

 

 

The owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them

ONLY 20 days even if can proove it has been yours!!!   

The owner need to know where they are to claim them, so if someone MOVE e g cows unnoticed and HIDE them 21 days, then the THIEF can STEAL them "LEGALY", even if the owner notice the cows later and can proove they were his before they were moved !!! :1 (103):

 

 

Nope!  That's still considered theft as they were removed fraudulently and hidden during the commission of a crime...

No, it wouldn't. I wrote moving them "unnoticed".  Then the owner CAN'T prove it was a theft,

while the thief can CLAIM the animals LEGALY... 

[Jack Peterson]

No, it wouldn't. I wrote moving them "unnoticed".  Then the owner CAN'T prove it was a theft, while the thief can CLAIM the animals LEGALY... 

 

 Thomas as funny as it is, Please explain your reasoning,  trying to deprive someone of their property is Theft, Deception is a crime in it'self.

 

JP :tiphat: