Prescriptive Use Versus General Prohibition on Alterations

In a dispute concerning the right to use a specific portion of shared property, the parties disagreed over whether a long-standing, tolerated use by one party constituted a prescriptive right, despite a general agreement that prohibited alterations without mutual consent. The court held that while a general agreement might exist, the continuous, open, and undisputed exercise of a right over a significant period, even if initially tolerated, can establish a prescriptive right to that specific use, meaning the lower court erred in ruling against the established use solely based on the general prohibition against unilateral alterations, as prescription overrides such general contractual stipulations when fully established.