**Audiência Cível - Ação de Usucapião Extraordinário

Summary

In this legal proceeding, Josué Ferreira Novais and Luzia dos Santos Novais filed a possessory action for usucapion against Elizabeth Dias Pires and the estate of Natal José Pires, involving a property located in Campo Grande. The court reviewed the case after the parties reached an agreement on previous obligations, including a bank loan. Testimonies confirmed that the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession of the property for over 15 years without opposition. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them ownership of the property and formalizing the agreement. The case was concluded with the settlement and the plaintiffs' victory, including a waiver of appeal.

Takeaways

• 😀 The court session is focused on a 'usucapião' (adverse possession) case regarding a property in Campo Grande, involving plaintiffs Josué Ferreira Novais and Luzia dos Santos Novais, and defendants Elizabeth Dias Pires and the estate of Natal José Pires.
• 😀 The property in dispute is located at Rua Sequoia, number 33, Campo Grande, with registration number 9,4251 in the local land registry.
• 😀 The plaintiffs have lived on the property for over 15 years and have maintained continuous possession, despite lacking formal ownership documentation.
• 😀 Testimonies from witnesses confirm the long-term and uninterrupted possession of the property by the plaintiffs.
• 😀 The first witness, Tomás Alexandre Fernandes Denófrio, attests that the plaintiffs have lived on the property since the late 1990s and have never faced any opposition regarding their ownership.
• 😀 The second witness, Márcio Moura de Souza, affirms that Josué has resided in the property since 1988 and has always presented himself as the property owner, with no contestation from third parties.
• 😀 The court determines that the plaintiffs’ possession of the property meets the legal requirements for 'usucapião', as it has been continuous, peaceful, and without any opposition.
• 😀 The court dismisses the argument of precarious possession, acknowledging that the plaintiffs' actions (such as paying taxes and living on the property) reflect ownership rights.
• 😀 The judge approves an agreement between the parties, ensuring the plaintiffs' ownership of the property through 'usucapião' once the decision becomes final.
• 😀 The court orders the formal registration of the property in the plaintiffs' name after the judgment becomes final, and the defendants are responsible for the lawsuit's costs, but they are granted legal aid.

Q & A

What is the central issue of the case discussed in the transcript?

The central issue of the case is a **usucapião** (adverse possession) claim, where the plaintiffs, Josué Ferreira Novaz and Luzia dos Santos Novaz, seek to establish ownership of a property they have occupied for more than 15 years without contestation.

What is **usucapião** and how is it relevant to this case?

**Usucapião** is a legal concept where an individual gains ownership of a property through continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession over a certain period, typically 15 years. In this case, the plaintiffs claim they have possessed the property for over 15 years, making them eligible for **usucapião**.

Who are the parties involved in this case?

The plaintiffs are **Josué Ferreira Novaz** and **Luzia dos Santos Novaz**, and the defendants are **Elizabeth Dias Pires** and the **estate of Natal José Pires**.

What agreement did the parties reach before the hearing?

Before the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding certain **obligations** between them, which was related to a prior contract and a bank loan. This agreement was presented to the court for approval.

What did the testimonies confirm about the plaintiffs' possession of the property?

The testimonies from witnesses confirmed that the plaintiffs have resided at the property for more than 15 years, continuously and without opposition. The plaintiffs also presented themselves as the owners of the property during this period.

Did the court recognize the plaintiffs' possession as legitimate?

Yes, the court recognized the plaintiffs' possession as legitimate, stating that they exercised the property as if they were the owners, paying taxes and maintaining the property for over 15 years without any contestation.

Was there any argument presented that the plaintiffs' possession was **precarious**?

Yes, the defense argued that the plaintiffs' possession could be **precarious** due to an informal contract related to a bank loan. However, the judge dismissed this argument, stating that the plaintiffs' long-term possession and payment of taxes demonstrated ownership-like control over the property.

What was the outcome of the case?

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them ownership of the property through **usucapião**. The settlement agreement was also approved, making it legally binding. The case was dismissed with a judgment of merit.

What are the next steps following the court's decision?

Following the court's decision, the plaintiffs must submit required documents, including proof of tax payments, for the official registration of the property title. The decision will become final after the appeal period, which the parties waived.

How did the court handle the issue of the appeal period?

The court noted that both parties waived the appeal period, effectively renouncing any right to appeal the judgment, which allowed the decision to be finalized immediately after being published in the hearing record.