The Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously decided that prolonged occupation of a property belonging to the family is not, by itself, enough to establish the possession required to recognize extraordinary adverse possession (usucapião). The panel dismissed the appeal of a couple who had occupied, for 29 years, a property that was part of an estate.
According to rapporteur Justice Raul Araújo, it is essential to prove animus domini — the intention to hold the property as its true owner — in addition to peaceful, uninterrupted possession, under Article 1,238 of the Civil Code. In the case, the occupants were the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased owner, and the Court of Justice of Alagoas concluded that the occupation stemmed from mere liberality, in a property still subject to probate and opposed by other heirs.
The STJ stressed that adverse possession of property in an estate is not absolutely prohibited: case law allows an heir to acquire an estate property if they show exclusive possession, exercised with animus domini for the legal period and without opposition from the other heirs. In this case, however, the occupation was seen as part of family and succession relationships — which can explain staying out of solidarity or tolerance — without sufficient proof of possession as an owner.
The rapporteur also noted that adverse possession cannot be used as an indirect mechanism to bypass succession rules. The decision is recorded in AREsp 2,983,084.
Informational summary prepared from the source cited. For the full content and any updates, consult the original source. This is not legal advice.
Source: Juristas (com informações do STJ)
