Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
663 comments 
Survey Shows Public Resistance to Bill No. 4/2025, Which Aims to Exclude Spouses from Mandatory Inheritance, Limiting Inheritance Only to Children and Parents
A survey conducted with readers of Campo Grande News revealed that 70% of participants oppose the removal of the spouse from the list of necessary heirs, as provided in Bill No. 4/2025 currently under review in the Senate. The proposal, presented in February, seeks to amend the Civil Code of 2002 and allocate mandatory inheritance only to direct descendants.
According to the survey, only 30% of voters support the idea of restricting mandatory inheritance to children and parents, excluding spouses. The bill, which is still to be debated in the National Congress, has sparked controversy on social media and divided opinions regarding the legal protection of the surviving spouse.
The proposed text suggests that only descendants be considered necessary heirs, which would change the current rule, in effect since 2002, that includes spouses in this category. If approved, the spouse would only be entitled to inheritance when specified in a will or in specific cases regarding property regime.
-
Larger than entire cities in Brazil: BYD is building a 4.6 km² complex in Bahia with a capacity for 600,000 vehicles per year, but the discovery of 163 workers in conditions analogous to slavery has shaken the entire project.
-
With an investment of R$ 612 million, a capacity to process 1.2 million liters of milk per day, Piracanjuba inaugurates a mega cheese factory that increases national production, reduces dependence on imports, and repositions Brazil on the global dairy map.
-
Brazilian city gains industrial hub for 85 companies that is equivalent to 55 football fields.
-
Peugeot and Citroën factory in Argentina cuts production by half and opens a layoff program for more than 2,000 employees after Brazil drastically reduced purchases of Argentine vehicles.
The information was disclosed by Campo Grande News, which highlighted the significant public mobilization around the topic, emphasizing the social relevance of the inheritance debate.
Readers’ Reactions
Among the comments received, some defend the change as a way to value the joint construction of assets. According to Henrique Barbosa, the new model would benefit couples who have built assets throughout their union but would prevent partners without any property participation from inheriting part of the assets.
Other readers pointed out that the change could reduce disputes in separation proceedings. “If it is for the good of both, so be it, because in litigated separations the children are the ones who suffer the most, financially and without future expectations,” commented José Corsine.
Voices in opposition emphasized that the proposal could remove protection from the spouse who helped build the assets, especially in long-term unions. For Cristiane Vicente, removing this right is unfair and could leave people vulnerable in the face of ungrateful children or family conflicts.
Alternatives Raised
Some participants suggested different ways to deal with inheritance. Some advocated that older couples sell their accumulated assets to enjoy them during their lives, avoiding future disputes. Others pointed out that only assets acquired before the union should be excluded from division.
Despite the differences, the majority reinforced that the spouse should be recognized as a necessary heir in the Civil Code, especially in cases where there has been mutual dedication to the construction of the family estate.
Bill No. 4/2025 will still undergo analysis in committees and voting in the Senate, and may be amended before reaching presidential sanction. Until then, the debate remains open and mobilizing opinions across the country.
And you, what do you think about this proposal under discussion in Congress? Do you consider it fair for the spouse to be removed from the list of necessary heirs, leaving inheritance restricted only to children and parents, or do you believe that the husband or wife, having often contributed to the construction of the family estate over years of union, should continue to guarantee this legal right?
O cônjuge ou a cônjuge, devem continuar sendo herdeiros (meeiros) no inventario.
Na minha opinião, Acho totalmente injusto com o meu parceiro e comigo!!! Acho que o cônjuge tem que ser herdeiro necessário, sim!!! Indiscutível.tudo isso é um absurdo!!!!A mulher cuida da família a vida inteira, e saí no final de mãos vazias? Errado! O companheiro, passa uma vida ajudando a companheira em tudo! Incluindo na doença, quando os filhos estão vivendo a vida deles, e não estão nem aí… E quem leva é os filhos que estão **** e os pais? Me poupe!!! Tudo errado.
Tem que tirar sim! O que mais tem é mulher interesseira (homens também mas nunca vi um caso até então) que se junta com a pessoa só para ficar com os bens. Minha “querida” madrasta que o diga! Sabendo que meu pai tinha alergia a determinada medicação permitiu com que os médicos fizessem o uso alegando desconhecimento e ele morreu em decorrência de anafilaxia. Adivinha só? A dondoca ficou com 50% do patrimônio de mão beijada e os filhos bocós não têm como provar de fato que a morte na verdade foi homicídio pois “foi um erro devido a desconhecimento da alergia por parte da cônjuge”. Achou um rico bobão que achava que a guria amava ele (mas amava o bolso!) disposto a pegar uma novinha e ela fez isso aí. Tem sim que acabar e quem discorda é porque ou é muito inocente ou mal intencionado! Herança se partilha já em vida para evitar esse tipo de problema! (Testamento)
-Mas cada caso é um caso. No meu caso estou há 53 anos juntos. Os dois não tinham nada, lutamos, os dois trabalhando sempre e agora um morre, o outro fica sem nada> E a justiça, onde fica?