Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Understand Why The Transfer Of Possession Did Not Guarantee Co-Ownership And Allowed Revocation Before The Owner Died.
The 1st Civil Chamber of TJ SC denied the request of a man seeking to be recognized as a co-owner and take possession of a property in Florianópolis.
The decision reinforced that the transfer of possession with a usufruct clause did not have the nature of a donation and could be revoked during the owner’s lifetime, without the need for a specific action to undo a donation.
The ruling also upheld the ownership with the transferor and validated the testamentary provision that excluded collateral heirs, since they are not necessary heirs.
-
New vaccination and mandatory testing rules in Brazil raise alarms, redefine public health regulations, and spark debate on sanitary control and individual rights.
-
The noise ban in Germany will no longer be at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
New vaccination rules and mandatory exams in Brazil raise alarms, redefine public health regulations, and spark debate on sanitary control and individual rights.
-
In Portugal, a boss who sends messages outside of working hours may violate the law, as the country has turned digital rest into a legal obligation and prohibited professional contact outside of working hours.
What Happened And Why It Gained Attention
The case involved a property in Florianópolis and a request to recognize co-ownership and guarantee possession to the plaintiff.
The discussion revolved around an old document and the legal implications of a transfer and assignment of possession with a condition of future effect.
The central point was the difference between donation and a simple indication of future transfer, with the possibility of alteration while the owner was alive.
How The Transfer Was Made And What It Anticipated
In 1981, when the nephew was 15 years old, the aunt executed a public deed of transfer and assignment of possession for a couple of nephews.
The effect was future, linked to the hypothesis of the owner’s death.
Even after the deed, she remained as usufructuary and maintained control of the asset, continuing to exercise powers of possession and ownership.
Why The Justice Understood That There Was No Donation
The conclusion was that there was no immediate transfer of the property as donation.
The aunt’s status as usufructuary and her effective control over the asset were elements considered to set aside the idea of a consummated donation.
The understanding was that there was merely an indication of a possible future destination, something that could be adjusted by new documents while the owner was still alive.
What Weighed In The Revocation Made In Life
In December 2001, faced with family conflicts, the woman registered a new document and revoked her previous manifestation of will.
The revocation was deemed valid as it did not fall under the category of undoing a donation.
The owner died during the proceedings, but the analysis considered that the change of will occurred while she was still alive and had power over the property.
What Were The Nephew’s Arguments In The Appeal
After losing in the first instance, the nephew appealed to the TJ SC and insisted on the thesis that he had received the property as a donation.
He argued that, if the intention was to revoke a donation, a specific action would need to be proposed within one year, a deadline tied to the hypotheses of revocation.
This argument did not succeed, as the situation was framed as an indication of future transfer rather than a donation that had already been executed.
What Changes In Practice For Those Receiving Possession With Usufruct
The case shows that transfer of possession with usufruct may not generate co-ownership or consolidate a donation, depending on how the relationship was maintained in practice.
When the owner continues as the usufructuary and retains control of the asset, there may be room for revocation during life through new documents.
It also serves as a warning about the scope of provisions that exclude collateral heirs when they are not categorized as necessary heirs.
The decision of the TJ SC reinforced that transfer of possession with usufruct does not automatically equate to donation and can be reviewed while the owner is alive.
In practice, the outcome prevents the recognition of co-ownership and maintains the validity of subsequent adjustments that alter the destination of the asset, including through testamentary means.
-
-
-
-
13 pessoas reagiram a isso.