Page:Civil code of Japan compared with French (1902-05-01).pdf/7

360 of prescription, it does not seem logical to say that a title over a movable is acquired at the same time with the act of possession, on the theory of prescription. In respect to rights the French Code does not recognize acquisitive prescription, but there is no reason why it should be confined to rights  and the Japanese Code has wisely made it applicable to rights  as well as to rights.

. — Rights recognized by the Japanese Civil Code are nine in number. They are: Possession; Ownership; Superficies; Emphyteusis; Easements or Servitudes; Liens; Preferential Rights; Pledges, and Mortgages. In the French Civil Code, Possessions and Liens are not considered as rights, nor does it recognize Superficies or Emphyteusis. On the other hand Usufruct, Use and Habitation occupy important places. Usufruct is defined to be a right to enjoy the property belonging to another, in the same manner as the owner, without consuming the substance itself. It may be created by law or the will of the parties, and may have relation to any kind of property, either movable or immovable. Use is a species of usufruct, the right to enjoy it being restricted to oneself and one’s own family. Habitation or the right of residence is a species of use exercised in respect of a house (Arts. 578, 625, 631, 633). Hence use and habitation are rights which can not be sublet or assigned. These rights are created in France for the benefits of women. A daughter is about to marry: her father desires to give her dowry. Should he give her money she may readily spend it; should he give her absolute ownership of land or building she may be induced to sell it. A husband desires to provide for his wife after his death; the same reason obtains here, supplemented by the consideration that he may not care to pass his property entirely to his wife’s kin. By creating usufruct in favor of a daughter or a widow, provision is made for her and at the same time the rights of the heirs are not impaired. It is necessary to make this species of right a right. Otherwise if the property affected should pass to third persons, the right in question would not be available against such third persons, and the wife might consequently be deprived of her portion or the widow might be left penniless. By making it a right, that is, making it good against all the world, the main object is secured, regardless of all