In a unanimous decision at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), it was established that the demarcation action is the appropriate avenue to resolve discrepancies between the factual reality of the boundary markers of the land and what is recorded in the real estate registry.
With this understanding, the panel granted the special appeal of two companies that had filed a demarcation action with the aim of altering the limits of a tract of land, whose boundaries were challenged by the defendants in the course of an administrative proceeding for rectification of the registry.
The court of first instance terminated the proceeding without resolution of the merits, on the understanding that the demarcation action was inappropriate to the plaintiffs’ claim to add about 149 thousand hectares to their property – which could only be achieved through an adverse-possession action. The Court of Justice of Minas Gerais upheld the judgment.
In the appeal to the STJ, the plaintiffs maintained that the demarcation action is admissible in the event of a controversy involving overlapping area. They argued that they do not intend any addition of area to their estate, but rather the correction of the property’s boundary markers of the already existing property, for subsequent rectification of the real estate registry, if necessary.
Demarcation action when there are doubts
The reporting justice for the appeal observed that the factual and legal grounds of the initial petition make it clear that the plaintiffs did not intend the acquisition of ownership of lands adjacent to theirs – which overturns the understanding of the lower instances.
The magistrate explained that, since the attempt at administrative rectification of the property’s registry record was frustrated by the opposition of the defendants, who alleged that there were points of overlap with areas of their property, it became necessary to resolve the controversy regarding the limits of the properties through the ordinary channels (article 213, paragraph 6, of Law 6,015/1973).
The justice stated that, according to the case law of the STJ, where there is divergence between the true line of confrontation of the properties and the corresponding limits fixed in the title of ownership, the demarcation action is the appropriate avenue to establish any new limits.
Following the vote of the reporting justice, the panel granted the special appeal and ordered the return of the case to its origin for its regular processing.
← Back to blog