In my opinion, rights to possession supposes that a person is claiming a right to the possession i.e the person is alledging the full legal rights to the property.

Right of possession on the other hand is similar but differs to the extent that the person having right of possession is already in possession of the property whether temporally or permanently and the right ends at mere physical possession as it only attaches to the possession or the property e.g trustee

RTP confers a legal Right and RoP provides a claim right

The right to possession is a possibility, conditional to be; of possession is a really right... the first is an expectation, the second exists.

The right to possession may be the right to property (or the right to protection of property), a human right that means that every person has the right to own private property.

The right of possession means that somebody is the registered owner of an object.

First of all I believe that the so called "right of possession" is, in spite positions saying it is a right, not a right but, instead, a power. The so called right of possession corresponds to the material/legal power of control someone has over a material thing. In other words the right of possession corresponds to someone’s material control over a thing. The power of possession is completely different from the right of property. Someone might be a) owner and not have the possession of the thing; b) have possession and not be owner. The right to possession is the right someone as to be empowered in the control of material control over a thing. For example: in the systems where the contract of purchase and sale as immediate effects on the ownership, the buyer/new owner as the right to the delivery of the thing and therefore to be empowered in its material control. With the completion of the contract the buyer becomes quoad effectum owner. But he will not be possessor until the thing he owns is delivered to him. Said delivery is an obligation of the contract pending on the seller: he is obliged to deliver the object sold to the new owner. Therefore the new owner has the right to the possession. He is not possessor, since he has not yet been empowered with the control over the object, but can demand to performance of the delivery obligation and therefore of the empowerment.

You must be careful when you refer to possession. At least in South American law possession is a variable completely different property. As well questions, I think the difference between the two questions is exactly the same.

Right to possession or right of possession is exactly the same just change the item used. Depends on how much you are to say one or the other definition. The point is that the right of possession is the same and explains:

Possession is the sum of the animus (intent to possess) + corpus.

The property is the sum of the animus + corpus + domain title.

Dear Muhammad,

the right to possession and the right of possession are two completely different terms. It depends on the legal system how these terms are defined.

I will, however, make an example referring to German Property Law. The German law first differentiates between "ownership" (Eigentum) and "possession" (Besitz). Whereas the first legal term means that something belongs to somebody, the second one means that the person actually has the real possession. For instance, the owner and the "possessor" can be two different people. (The best example is for example a rental car: Whereas the rental company is the owner, the rentee is only the "possessor" of the latter.) It would be too difficult to explain the differences between both legal terms.

Hence, the "right of possession" (Eigentumsrecht) would be the "ownership" in German law, i.e. that a person is the legal owner of something. The "right to possession" (Besitzrecht) would be the "physical possession" of something by somebody having the right to possess it (e.g. by a rental contract).

However, there is always a problem when translating legal terms. Thus, some people use the two terms as synonyms.

For further reading see: Rahmatian, A Comparison of German Moveable Property Law and English Personal Property Law, http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/rahmatian.htm

Hope I could help you!

Kind regards,

Leonid

In Brazilian Legal System, right of possession is claimed to be one of the powers inherent to ownership, and right to possession is the legal effect of the fact of possession, just like in German Law (our first codifier, Clovis Bevilaqua, was an admirer of Rudolf von Jhering). The distinction remains in the new Civil Code. There are lots of kinds of possession: in an ecological way, possession is quite different of exteriorizing one or more of powers inherents to ownership (e. g., indian possession - Federal Constitution of Brazil, 1988 - article 231), there's also laboral possession, which permits even aquisition of ownership by prescription.

In South African law there is no fundamental distinction between the "Right to possession" and the "Right of possession". This is the case because "Possession" is either way temporary or continuing. Possession is a fact and not a real right in South African law. An example is a Vehicle purchased via an Bank Vehicle Loan Finance contract. The client acquires possession of the vehicle subject to him making obligatory payments for the amount of the loan to finance the vehicle. The bank has a right to "repossess" the vehicle should the client fail to make payments.

Another example is the trustee of a pension fund and the member of a pension fund. A trustee , as the fiduciary, always retains both the right to possession or right to possession of the pension fund assets. The member of the pension fund is the beneficial owner but can never obtain possession of the pension fund assets. Instead he is merely entitled to a pension benefit once certain conditions have been fulfilled like attainment of the retirement age.

In South Africa courts draw a distinction between the "fact of possession" and the "rights flowing from possession". The former leads to the conclusion that possession is a fact and the latter leads to the conclusion that possession is an approximation of real rights ( e.g entitlement,powers,alienation ).

Here in Brazil, possession is seen as a subjective right, although it is not confused with ownership. It is seen as an interest protected by Law, although it is a fact situation.

Right of possession has not only contractual origin. And the possession "ad usucapionem"?

Efectuado y no efectuado el derecho u objeto del derecho, es decir, acto o derecho ejercido correctamente y bajo derecho. Y el derecho explicito o tácito ensi mismo.

hi

i reckon they could be  used interchangeably .