Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
5 min read
90 comments
Two proposals in the Senate are back up for debate widows and widowers of the inheritance, changing the rules of the Civil Code and the position of the spouse in the succession
As explained by the lawyer Flávio Romeu Picinini, the discussions about widows and widowers of the inheritance returned to the center of the legal debate with two initiatives in the Senate: Bill 3799/2019 and Bill 4/2025. Both propose profound changes to inheritance law, especially in the position of the surviving spouse, currently treated as a necessary heir in several cases.
The issue is sensitive because it involves family planning, property regimes and autonomy of will. Changing who inherits and how much directly impacts widows, widowers, children, and parents of the deceased., in addition to influencing wills and inventories. Below, what is at stake, who proposes it, why they propose it, and what the practical effects.
What is being proposed, who is proposing it and why the topic has returned now
The texts place the spouse and partner at the center of the reform.
-
Brazilian Chamber approves bill that limits land expropriation and changes agrarian reform rules three decades after the original law.
-
With the new law signed by Lula, banks are required to disclose all costs, allow automatic salary portability, and create credit options with lower interest rates.
-
'CPF for Real Estate' starts in 2026 and could change how your property tax is calculated, but the tax authorities deny a tax increase.
-
So, does paying tolls infringe on the right to come and go? Here's what the law clearly states.
The common idea is to allow the deceased, by will, may exclude the spouse from the legitimate succession or, depending on the version, remove the spouse from the list of necessary heirs.
In simple terms, this creates space for the survivor to no longer automatically receive the minimum installment guaranteed by law.
According to the proponents' justification, the expansion of private autonomy would correct distortions created in the Civil Code by equating the spouse with descendants and ascendants in scenarios that, in practice, frustrate the estate planning of many couples.
Bill 3799/2019, presented by Senator Soraya Thronicke, arises from a technical debate on successions involving entities in the family and succession area.
The proposal seeks equalize the treatment of spouses and partners and expand the testator's freedom, reducing litigation and speeding up inventories.
Bill 4/2025, initiated by the President of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco, is part of a broader agenda to update the Civil Code.
In this package, succession returns to the table with the central question: What should be the spouse's place in the inheritance in times of diverse family arrangements, more sophisticated contracts and complex assets?
How this would change the Civil Code
Today, the surviving spouse competes with descendants or ascendants in various situations and, in certain regimes, is a necessary heir.
With the changes, the spouse would no longer have automatic shielding in all cases, leaving room for the will expressed in the will to prevail more broadly.
In practice, the effect would be to shift the axis of succession: less automatic rule and more planningThis can reduce conflicts when there is a clear will, but it can also increase disputes where there is no prior legal guidance.
In the partial communion regime, the share of what was acquired for a fee during the marriage remains.
The discussion reaches the hereditary part that exceeds the share. If the spouse ceases to be a necessary heir, the share after the half-share may be reduced by will.
In total separation, where there is no share of private assets, the change is even more noticeable: the deceased's inheritance could go entirely to descendants and ascendants, if the will so provided, leaving the spouse without an inheritance share, except for specific protection provisions.
Impacts on partners in stable unions
The projects also bring the treatment of spouse and partner closer together.
In practical terms, partners may see reduced automatic guarantees in succession, reinforcing the importance of cohabitation contracts and wills.
Without robust proof of the union and without planning, the risk of litigation increases.
This equivalence seeks to eliminate distinctions considered unfair, but requires documentation and proof of cohabitation more careful, from shared expenses to formal records.
Those who advocate change maintain that freedom to test is a pillar of private autonomy. For this group, forcing a division with a spouse always and in any scenario ignores different realities, second marriages, and assets built before the relationship.
Critics warn of economic vulnerability of widows and widowers, especially in long marriages with financial dependence.
Without safeguards, the risk is pushing survivors into disputes with children and stepchildren, increasing judicialization and insecurity.
Possible safeguards and points of attention
Even with more testamentary freedom, the share should not be confused with inheritance and remains protected according to the property regime.
Another safeguard is to require robust forms of expression of will, with well-written wills, avoiding fraud and undue pressure.
The discussion about minimum housing rights of the surviving spouse, such as the real right to housing. Without this protective floor, helplessness can become an unwanted side effect.
If the proposals move forward, will ceases to be optional and becomes strategicCouples will need to align their property regime, lifetime donations, family holdings, and life insurance with clear clauses. A poorly drafted will protects no one; a clear will reduces disputes and costs.
For blended families, planning is even more critical. Define quotas, guarantee housing for the survivor and protect children from previous relationships avoids conflicts that often last for years and erode assets.
Processing and next steps
The proposals are under debate in the Senate and may receive amendments, public hearings, and committee reports. The final text may maintain, soften, or block the exclusion of spouses from the status of necessary heirs.
Until there is approval and sanction, the current rules of the Civil Code apply. Those who are in the planning process can already consult a lawyer to prepare scenarios, as Changes of this magnitude require time and well-written documents.
The discussion about widows and widowers of the inheritance It is not an ideological issue, but rather an issue of institutional design of the family and heritage.
More autonomy can mean more responsibility: Without planning and safeguards, the vulnerable suffer. With clear rules and solid wills, litigation is reduced and the deceased's wishes are guaranteed. minimum protection for the survivor.
And you, what do you think? In a long marriage, the spouse must have minimum right guaranteed or testator's will Should it prevail almost entirely? In which property regimes would the change make the most sense? Tell us in the comments how this would affect your family and what safeguards you would include. Your real-life experience helps inform the debate.
At a time when a person finds themselves weakened, suffering, and helpless due to loss, they will also have to deal with the loss of their livelihood, their roof over their head, and their stability, because these two hypocritical and insensitive senators want to take away what the couple often built. Taking away the widow's/widower's inheritance is condemning them to live their old age in misery and helplessness, often benefiting those who did nothing. This is incredibly cruel and cruel to those already suffering from widowhood.
I don't think they'll ever think of anything that's good for the majority of the population. Parasites with mandates are experts at benefiting themselves.
I am totally against this deputy and the deputy does not represent me, they will look for something to do. It is shameful to do this from a woman, it could only be the PL party...