Facts
The bankruptcy of A. [B.] was declared on May 25, 1985. His creditors R.-M. and C. contested the claim of the furniture furnishing the marital apartment by his wife N. [B.], who had based it on a separation of property contract established in 1958. The creditors obtained the assignment of the rights of the estate to contest this claim again.
The Civil Court of the Cantonal Tribunal of the canton of Vaud examined the question by categories of seizable furniture. It admitted the claim on some of them, thus recognizing the exclusive ownership of the defendant N. B. On the other hand, the creditors' challenge was justified with regard to certain inventory numbers, the forced realization of which was therefore admitted.
N. [B.] appealed against this decision, contesting the consequence of the success of the challenge: the goods in question should not be the exclusive property of the bankrupt, but the co-ownership of the spouses, and should therefore only be realized for half of their value.
Considerations
According to case law, in an action to contest a claim, good faith implies that when the plaintiff establishes sufficient facts for there to be serious doubt as to the reality of the right invoked, the third party claiming the right is required to specify and justify the validity of the right he alleges.
Article 248 CC provides that the proof of ownership of a property lies with the one who alleges it. Failing this, the property is presumed to belong in co-ownership to the two spouses. However, the presumptions drawn from possession take precedence over this presumption of co-ownership.
Only exclusive possession creates the presumption of exclusive ownership; co-possession only gives…