Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
1 comment 
The Tenant Managed to Acquire the Property Under the Same Conditions of the Simulated Deal and Paid Half the Advertised Price, in a Case That Exposed Notification Flaws and Reinforced the Strength of the Tenant’s Right of Preference
The tenant of a property in the interior of São Paulo turned a warning into a judicial victory. After receiving a formal proposal to exercise the right of first refusal for 600 thousand reais upfront, she refused. Months later, upon checking the property registry, she discovered that the actual sale had occurred for 300 thousand reais, in installments. The difference raised the signal of fraud and led to the legal action that ended with the property being awarded to the tenant for half the price.
The process followed the path outlined in the Tenancy Law and in the consolidated understandings on the subject. The court recognized the violation of the right of preference and ordered notifications to the municipal and federal tax authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate indications of tax evasion and the conduct of all involved, including the registry office. The case is unusual and didactic. When formalities are respected, the tenant is not only protected but can also reverse the outcome of the market.
What Happened in the São Paulo Case
The timeline was decisive.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The owner notified the tenant informing a price of 600 thousand reais, payment upfront, and other conditions.
The tenant, unable to meet this proposal, expressed disinterest.
After the deed with third parties was registered, she checked the property registry and found the reality: the deal had been closed for 300 thousand reais, in installments.
The contrast between the offer and the registered transaction supported the thesis of simulation and violation of preference.
In the response, the seller claimed that he had received 600 thousand reais and declared 300 thousand for “tax savings.”
The narrative compromised the defense itself by admitting a practice incompatible with legality.
The ruling favored the proven fact in the registry and the rule of preference, allowing the tenant to take over the purchase under the same conditions agreed upon with the third party, that is, for 300 thousand reais in installments.
Tenant’s Preference: How It Works in Practice
The right of preference gives the tenant the opportunity to buy the property under the conditions offered to third parties, provided that objective requirements are met.
The owner must clearly notify the price, form of payment, and charges and wait for the legal response period.
Proof of unequivocal knowledge is essential to avoid future disputes.
Another technical element makes all the difference: the registration of the lease contract in the property registry. Without this prior registration, the enforceability against third parties becomes compromised.
In the analyzed case, the registral publicity formed the basis of protection, shielding the tenant’s preference against the simulated sale.
Deadlines and Decisive Steps After the Sale to a Third Party
If the tenant is not properly notified and the sale occurs, there is a six-month deadline from the registration of the deed to seek judicial protection.
It is within this window that mandatory adjudication or damages are requested.
The financial capacity compatible with the real conditions of the deal must also be demonstrated.
In the process, she proved that she could acquire for 300 thousand reais in installments, reflecting the effective negotiation.
This procedural outline does not reopen the transaction indefinitely.
The clock of the registry governs the dispute, which reinforces the importance of monitoring the registry and keeping lease documentation.
What the Ruling Taught Property Owners and Tenants
For property owners, the lesson is straightforward.
Offer and sale must be identical in conditions, and notification to the tenant must reflect the reality of the deal.
Price or payment method discrepancies create an environment for nullity, adjudication, and administrative, tax, and criminal liability.
For tenants, the message is methodical: keep the contract registered, monitor the property registry, and save all communications.
The court also signaled that the attempt to reduce taxes through underreporting disrupts the deal itself, exposes all involved, and does not prevail over the legal protection of preference.
Legal security begins at the registry and ends with proof.
Why This is a Rare and Relevant Case
Situations like this are not trivial as they require a conjunction of factors: timely registration of the contract, robust evidence of the divergence between the proposal and the sale, financial capacity of the tenant to meet the real conditions, and filing within the deadline.
When these pillars align, jurisprudence tends to favor specific protection, that is, the very purchase by the tenant.
The economic effect is clear.
The correction of the deviation protects the market and discourages simulations, as well as rewarding the diligent behavior of those occupying the property and fulfilling the contract.
What to Observe in Similar Cases
For those living in a similar situation, some precautions are objective.
Demand formal notification, verify the registry before and after any proposal, check price and payment method, and gather proof of income or credit compatible with the offered conditions.
In case of denial of preference or indication of simulation, the tenant must act quickly and document every step.
On the owner’s side, good practices include transparent communication, accurate registration of conditions, and consistency between the proposal to the tenant and the final deed.
The cost of doing it right is always less than the risk of undoing it in court.
The outcome in São Paulo exposes how the tenant’s preference can come off the paper and change the fate of a property when form eclipses the substance of a sale.
When documentation, deadlines, and evidence align, Justice corrects the price and ownership, restoring market order.
Have you, as a tenant or owner, ever faced a purchase preference impasse? In your place, would you have pursued adjudication or sought damages? And for investors, should contract registration be a rule in all residential and commercial leases? Tell us in the comments how you see this case and what precautions you would take from now on.
O locatário e seu Advogado foram diligentes e se valeram da força da Lei do Inquilinato. A sentença proferida pelo Juízo de Direito na ação proposta para nulidade da venda e adjudicação do imóvel nas mesmas condições negociais foi perfeita e adquada ao caso concreto.