ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper was to fathom how many contradictory decisions about the outcome of the same case are reached in a system of explicit rules. The dialectic method was used to approach decisions previously selected by Purposive non-probability sampling concerning squatting of abandoned properties. As a starting point for the dialectic bias, this study used the dissimilarity between the theoretical common sense of legal experts and the critical knowledge by Warat, along with his critique of the epistemology of concepts and the analysis of the syllogism by Katharina Sobota as presentation style of the court decision. As a result, it was concluded that the theoretical common sense of legal experts disguises strategies of speech. The decision is developed so as to convey a sense of comprehensiveness and logical coherence, failing to disclose that what actually fuels the interpretation of these actions is either the inflexible defense of a liberal property in which the owner is the absolute master of the power legally assigned to him or the defense of the social function of the estate. Despite many advances, the current political arena supports the upkeep of the former. Thus, there is no consensus in the decision-making process of lawsuits about squatting private property: the abandoned estate either “allows entrance” or “does not allow it”. The trespassers are either squatters or occupants.
Keywords:
Squatting; Invasion; Estate; Abandoned property; Social function of the property