The Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) denied the appeal of two siblings who sought to annul the sale of the rural property belonging to a sister of theirs – placed under interdiction by a court decision.
The sale was made to another sister, who was the guardian of the owner and later transferred the asset to third parties, but the panel held that the two siblings did not have standing to bring the action, since, after the death of the ward, they had renounced their inheritance.
What they pleaded
The siblings filed an action for nullity of the legal transaction, asserting that the deceased was an absolutely incapable person and that there was no judicial authorization for the purchase and sale. According to them, the deceased had only her siblings as heirs, and the two only learned of the disposal of the property at the opening of the succession – the moment at which they were informed that there were no assets to be inventoried. The sale of the property to third parties was made after the death of the ward.
At the first instance, the nullity of the transactions and of the deeds was declared. However, the Court of Justice of Goiás granted the appeal of the third-party purchasers of the property, on the understanding that the siblings did not have standing to request the annulment, since they had renounced before a notary the inheritance left by the deceased and, in this case, would be pleading another’s right in their own name.
In the appeal directed to the STJ, the siblings alleged that the renunciation of the inheritance was specific and that at no point did they renounce the right over the property in dispute. They argued that there was simulation in the disposal of the asset.
Unconditional and indivisible
The reporting justice of the appeal at the STJ, Justice Luis Felipe Salomão, explained that civil law confers on every heir the power to accept or reject the inheritance. Based on the doctrine on the subject, the justice emphasized that the rejection of the inheritance is regarded as a unilateral, voluntary, gratuitous, unconditional, indivisible, irrevocable legal transaction that retroacts to the moment of the death of the author of the inheritance, under the terms of Article 1.804 of the Civil Code of 2002, the effectiveness of the act being conditioned upon the solemn manifestation of the heir.
“Contrary to the informality of the act of accepting the inheritance, the renunciation, as an exception to the rule, requires express form, the solemnity of which must be set forth in a public instrument or by terms in the case records, with the succession occurring as if the renouncer had never existed, adding their hereditary portion to that of the other heirs of the same class,” he emphasized.
Salomão further stated that the renunciation, as much as the acceptance, is a pure legal act not subject to accidental elements. According to him, this is the rule established in the main clause of Article 1.808 of the CC/2002, according to which one cannot accept or renounce the inheritance in parts, under a condition (uncertain future event) or term (certain future event).
No benefit in annulling the sale of the property
In the case under analysis, the justice observed that the appellants’ renunciation occurred under the terms of the legislation: it took place after the opening of the succession and before the heirs accepted the inheritance, with observance of the form by public deed, and was made by capable agents.
For Salomão, there is no interest of the appellants in the decreeing of nullity of the sale of the property, since, with the asset returning to the estate of the deceased, whose inheritance they renounced, they would have no benefit from the new situation.
“With the act of renunciation, the renouncers are considered as if they had never existed; they would have no right over the asset that is the object of the transaction accused of being null, nor over any asset of the estate,” the reporting justice stated.
The justice emphasized that the allegation that the renunciation would have been specific, not reaching the property claimed in the action, should not prevail. “Based on weighty national doctrine, a conditional or partial renunciation is impossible, since the divestment of the right must be total and absolute,” he concluded.
Read also:
Rural producers with credit prior to the Collor Plan are entitled to compensation