The STJ, confirming a judgment of the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso (TJMT), stipulated that the georeferencing of rural property is only mandatory in cases in which the claim may entail a modification to the real estate registry.
The action, at its origin, sought the cessation of a threat of dispossession over rural property due to the undue extrapolation of the boundaries of a smallholding (chácara). The first-instance judge ruled the claims well founded so as to order the issuance of the writ of maintenance of possession of the disputed area and the return of the boundary to the location of the old wall. The TJMT confirmed the judgment.
Read also:
Family holding company for rural producers
In the appeal presented to the STJ, the appellant alleged that the georeferenced description of the disputed area would be indispensable for filing the possessory action over the rural property. It further stated that the georeferencing of the said property was a procedural prerequisite for the validity of the action, and its non-presentation would entail the extinction of the proceeding without resolution on the merits.
Georeferencing of rural property
In denying the special appeal, the reporting justice, Justice Villas Bôas Cueva, explained that georeferencing is dispensable for rural property in possessory actions in which the granting of the claims formulated in the initial action does not give rise to a modification of the registry. “Georeferencing is indispensable only in judicial proceedings capable of bringing about alterations to the real estate registry,” he emphasized.
The justice said it was important to make the distinction between the present case and another judged also in the Third Panel, whose judgment held that the georeferenced descriptive memorial is mandatory in cases involving the claim of adverse possession (usucapião) of rural property.
“In the case now under review, georeferencing is dispensable because the judicial determination does not entail an alteration to the property’s real estate registry, since only possession is in dispute. Different is the factual scenario of the proceeding already reviewed by this Superior Court (REsp 1.123.850), given that the recognition of adverse possession brings about the transfer of ownership of the title,” he explained.
Source: STJ
← Back to blog