Chile-2022-TENENCIA+COMPARTIDA+MASCOTAS+-Rol-1533.pdf (170.65 KB)
Baeza (Plaintiff) and Gonzalez (Defendant) were in a five-year relationship during which they adopted a dog, Igor. Three years after Igor’s adoption, the parties noticed that he seemed lonely and through assisted fertilization, used Igor’s DNA to get him a companion, Bambu.
The parties terminated their relationship sometime after Bambu’s birth and disagreed about what to do regarding the custody of the dogs. Defendant was in possession of the dogs and refused to let Plaintiff see them. Plaintiff brought this action claiming that he had suffered adverse consequences due to the close bonds he formed with the dogs and his no longer being allowed to see them. Plaintiff requested the cessation of Defendant’s free enjoyment of the dogs and recognition of Plaintiff’s status as co-owner, thus allowing Plaintiff full use and enjoyment of the dogs in proportion to his ownership rights.
To terminate Defendant’s free enjoyment and proceed with the action, the court employed a three-part test; a) common property must exist, b) the common property must be being used by one or some of the co-owners, and, c) the free enjoyment of the common thing must not be based upon a special title. The court held that all three prongs were satisfied as demonstrated in the documents submitted by the parties as evidence; including veterinary records, payment receipts, testimonies, and screenshots of conversations had between the parties.
In addition, the court reasoned that because this action applied to two dogs, applicable legislation must be taken into account. Animals, including dogs, are considered tangible, movable things under Chilean law and as such, their human owners have power over them and may use the animal to their advantage, including companionship. The court also noted the importance of recognizing that although dogs are “things” as a matter of law, they are sentient beings that express emotion and must not be treated as solely economic or otherwise inanimate objects. Lastly, the court expressed the prominence of the close and unique bonds often formed between owner and pet, likening them to a parent-child familial relationship.
Defendant’s free use was ceased and the parties were entitled to ownership of the dogs in community. The parties were to share custody of the dogs by each possessing them for three months, then giving them to the other party for the next three months, and so on.