Third-party embargoes to allege unregistered possession must have proof, says...

nila44

Verbal evidence is admitted by the Judiciary system as long as it is accompanied by a minimum amount of proof. With this understanding, the 7th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region denied a request to cancel the seizure made by a third party claiming to be the owner of a property given as collateral in a tax foreclosure.


The plaintiff company maintains that it B2B Lead acquired the asset in 1985 through a verbal purchase and sale contract. But, in the first instance, it was unable to prove any commitment that made it the owner of the seized building. Therefore, their embargoes were denied.

The rapporteur of the case at TRF-1, judge Rodrigo Rigamonte Fonseca, highlighted that Precedent 84 of the Superior Court of Justice allows the opposition of third-party embargoes to claim possession with a purchase and sale commitment without registration at a notary's office.

However, according to the judge, the request must be accompanied by proof of exercise of possession. And, for the magistrate, in the case at hand, the plaintiff was based only on an alleged verbal purchase and sale contract and the statement that he holds direct possession of the furniture.



“Now, verbal evidence is perfectly admitted in our legal system, but it requires a minimum of proof, which did not occur in the case, while mere possession is not enough to prove the alienation of the asset.”

In this sense, it was not proven that the plaintiff is the owner of the asset, or even if and when the sale took place. Therefore, it is presumed that the property continues to be owned by the defendant, as per the unanimous understanding of the class. With information from the TRF-1 Press Office.