¿Por qué el poseedor pierde la buena fe en la contestación de la demanda y no en la notificación en el caso de las prestaciones mutuas? El problema en Colombia.

In the regulation of the vindicating action, the Colombian, Argentine, and Chilean civil law use different procedural moments to determine when the loss of good faith and the duty to restore the fruits of the claimed assets occur. The Argentine Civil Law uses the legal notification of the demand, while the Colombian and Chilean Civil Code use the statement of defense. However, in Colombia, doctrine and jurisprudence, opposed to the text of articles 964 and 966 of the Civil Code, interpret that good faith is lost with the legal notification of the demand. The present work --making comparative lines between the legislations of the referred countries-- tries to outline what are the reasons behind choosing one or another procedural moment and, with this, elucidate why, if the Chilean and Colombian academy both start from an equal norm, they end up arriving at different interpretations, opposed to each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]