Portuguese 
Spanish 
Case in the interior of Rio Grande do Sul involved old rural possession, dispute with federal agency, correction of area near railway, and judicial recognition of property without title deed.
A report published by Portal 6 this Sunday, June 28, 2026, once again drew attention to the case of a 78-year-old farmer who obtained judicial recognition of the ownership of a rural area without a title deed in Marau, Rio Grande do Sul.
The story involves Lucia Solda Masetto, who claimed to have lived and worked for over 30 years on the rural property, located in the community of Cachoeirão.
The area recognized by the court measures 108,162.20 m² and was the subject of discussion because it was near a railway line, which led to the involvement of the Union and the National Department of Transport Infrastructure, Dnit, in the process.
-
Brazilian Supreme Court Pauses Fines for Workplace Regulation Violations for 90 Days, but Companies Must Still Address Harassment and Overwork
-
Seniors Over 60 Can Travel for Free Across Brazil: Elderly Statute Ensures Two Free Bus Seats and 50% Discount When Full for Low-Income Passengers
-
Detran RJ starts requiring a toxicological test for those obtaining their first driver’s license in the car and motorcycle category starting June 29; see who will be affected.
-
Florida takes TikTok to court and accuses the Chinese giant ByteDance of ignoring the law that bars minors under 14, while parents and authorities demand more protection for children on social networks.
Although it was mentioned again in 2026, the case was decided by the 3rd Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region on April 4, 2017, when the panel upheld a first-instance ruling in an adverse possession action.
Lucia Solda Masetto sought to regularize an area without registration in the Land Registry Office.
According to the records reproduced by Portal Direito Agrário, the farmer stated that she had been engaged in agricultural activity with her family for over 30 years on the rural property.
The action began in the State Court and was later referred to the Federal Court because the property bordered a railway line.
The discussion came to involve the Union and Dnit, due to the need to preserve the railway’s right-of-way.
The decision did not recognize adverse possession over public land.
The point analyzed by the Judiciary was the delimitation of the land claimed by the farmer and its relation to the railway limits.
After Dnit’s challenge, the plan and descriptive memorial were corrected, and the area indicated in the process was reduced to the 108,162.20 m² declared in the sentence.
Court analyzed rural possession and absence of opposition
In the judgment, federal judge Fernando Quadros da Silva, the case rapporteur, noted that the evidence confirmed peaceful, uncontested possession with animus domini, a legal expression used to indicate ownership behavior.
The summary of the judgment also pointed out the fulfillment of the requirements for extraordinary adverse possession.
The action dealt with extraordinary adverse possession, provided for in Article 1,238 of the Civil Code, and not the special rural adverse possession provided for in Article 191 of the Federal Constitution.
This distinction changes the applicable requirements to the case and corrects an inaccuracy in the original text.
According to Article 1,238 of the Civil Code, property can be acquired by someone who possesses a property as their own, without interruption or opposition, for 15 years, regardless of title and good faith.
The period can be reduced to ten years if the possessor has established habitual residence on the property or carried out works or services of a productive nature.
The first-degree judgment declared the farmer’s ownership over the property described in the rectified memorandum, with express mention of respect for the railway line’s domain strip.
As there was no voluntary appeal, the process was elevated to the court for necessary reexamination, a procedure provided for certain decisions submitted to the second instance.
Why Dnit entered the adverse possession process
Dnit’s involvement occurred because the rural area was related to a railway.
The concessionaire América Latina Logística Malha Sul S.A. was cited in the process but claimed lack of standing.
Subsequently, the Union was called to the case and pointed out a possible interest of the federal agency.
Dnit questioned the map presented by the author.
According to the technical report mentioned in the decision, there were discrepancies in three points between the data from the topographic survey presented in the process and the cadastral maps of the former Federal Railway Network.
The agency requested the correction of the map and the descriptive memorandum so that the railway domain strip would be preserved.
After the correction, the new technical report stated that the area subject to the action did not interfere with the railway domain strip and that Dnit could express no opposition to the adverse possession request.
The Federal Public Ministry also participated in the process.
According to the report reproduced in the decision, the MPF opined for the maintenance of the judgment, considering the correction of the area and the absence of opposition to the request after the technical adjustments.
Public area was excluded from judicial recognition
Brazilian legislation does not allow adverse possession of public property.
Article 191 of the Federal Constitution establishes this prohibition in the sole paragraph, and the same understanding appears in explanatory materials from the Judiciary on the subject.
Therefore, the delimitation of the property was a central point in the process.
The decision recognized ownership only over the portion described in the rectified memorial and preserved the railway’s right-of-way, as pointed out in the records.
In procedural practice, the discussion served to define the limits of the area that could be subject to adverse possession.
The judgment recorded that the evidence in the records confirmed the plaintiff’s claims and upheld the sentence that had recognized the requirements for extraordinary adverse possession.
The analysis also shows the importance of technical documentation in processes involving rural properties.
Measurements, confrontations, descriptive memorial, and compatibility with areas of public interest directly influence the judicial decision and subsequent registration in the notary’s office.
Difference between extraordinary adverse possession and rural adverse possession
Special rural adverse possession, also called pro labore adverse possession, is provided for in Article 191 of the Federal Constitution and Article 1,239 of the Civil Code.
This modality requires peaceful and uninterrupted possession for five years, in a rural area of up to 50 hectares, with use for housing and production by the possessor or their family’s work, in addition to the requirement that the person is not the owner of another urban or rural property.
In the case of Marau, another modality was applied.
The decision reproduced by the Agrarian Law Portal states that the process was judged as extraordinary adverse possession, based on Article 1,238 of the Civil Code.
This modality considers the prolonged possession period and does not require a just title or good faith.
The difference is relevant for understanding the case because the original text framed the situation as rural adverse possession provided for in the Constitution.
Although the area is rural and the plaintiff claimed to work the land with her family, the judgment cited in the process expressly dealt with the extraordinary modality.
Furthermore, the recognized area, of just over 10.8 hectares, is below the 50-hectare limit provided for special rural adverse possession.
Even so, this isolated data does not define the legal modality applied, as the decision was based on Article 1,238 of the Civil Code.
What the decision allowed the farmer
With the judicial recognition of ownership, the decision now serves as a title for property registration, subject to applicable administrative and registry requirements.
The process report itself indicates that the action sought the consolidation of ownership, with the opening of a registration and record with the Property Registry Office.
For the farmer, the result allowed the judicially recognized possession to be transformed into formal ownership over the area defined in the process.
For Dnit, the correction of the map preserved the railway’s domain strip, according to the technical report cited in the records.
The decision of the 3rd Panel was unanimous.
The panel denied the official appeal and upheld the judgment that declared Lucia Solda Masetto’s ownership over the rectified area.
The decision was signed in Porto Alegre, on April 4, 2017.
The process indicates that the lack of a deed does not, by itself, prevent the judicial recognition of ownership.
In such cases, the analysis depends on proving the legal requirements, the correct delimitation of the property, and the absence of opposition capable of preventing acquisition by adverse possession.
In rural areas crossed or bordering public structures, the analysis tends to involve other technical elements.
In the case of Marau, the area in question was adjusted during the process to align the plaintiff’s request with the limits related to the railway.
