Hereditas Analyzes Supreme Court Ruling on Eviction of Occupied Homes

In the case of a home inherited by several siblings, if one of them moves in without the consent of the others and the inheritance has not yet been divided, they will be required to vacate the family home. This was determined by the Supreme Court in its Decision 691/2020, dated December 21, 2020, making it clear that "the exclusive and excluding possession of a co-heir is not admissible." This implies that no heir has the right to exclusively enjoy the inheritance assets.

The ruling emphasizes that if a co-heir makes exclusive use of an asset without a deed supporting their possession, they are considered to be acting as a squatter. This situation allows for the judicial action of eviction. In this context, the other heirs have the right to formally claim the use of the asset in court. It is crucial to make this claim as soon as possible, as inaction could complicate future compensation for the use of the property.

Since Decision 547/2010, dated September 16, 2010, the Supreme Court has consolidated as a binding legal precedent the admission of the eviction action for squatting among co-heirs and for the benefit of the hereditary community. Therefore, any co-heir can initiate a legal action against whoever is occupying the property. This action is based on the fact that the exclusive use of a home without prior distribution is considered "precarious occupation". In other words, the use of someone else's property without authorization or legal justification.

Additionally, the General Council of Administrative Managers of Spain has indicated that if the squatter's occupation causes harm to the rest of the co-owners or co-tenants due to the lack of availability of the property or the inability to rent it, they may claim the appropriate amount as damages for their unlawful occupation. This means that if an heir enjoys a property without authorization and affects the others, they can demand monetary compensation for the damage caused, which can be based on the potential income that would have been caused if the property had been rented. For this, a prior eviction notice with coercive effectiveness will be necessary.

Recently, in November 2024, the Supreme Court decided upon a conflict between siblings related to the inheritance of the family home. The litigation began when one of the siblings occupied the home, which had been acquired by their parents and was the only asset of the inheritance, thus preventing the use and enjoyment of the property by the other heirs. Although the occupying sibling claimed that their mother had bequeathed their share of the home, the Supreme Court concluded that this did not grant them the right to exclusive possession until the inheritance was divided.

The first phase of the judicial process took place in the Court of First Instance of Vigo, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff siblings, arguing that the exclusive use of the home by one of the heirs violated the right of the others to enjoy the common asset. Subsequently, the occupying sibling filed an appeal, arguing that they had a larger share of ownership and that, by paying the expenses of the home, they were entitled to exclusive use.

However, the Provincial Court of Pontevedra dismissed their appeal, reaffirming that no co-heir can occupy a common asset exclusively while the inheritance has not been divided. It also recalled that "the consolidated case law recognizes the eviction for squatting among co-heirs for the benefit of the hereditary community."

Finally, the case reached the Supreme Court, where the defendant sibling insisted that their ownership percentage was greater and that an proceeding for the division of the common property should be exercised, as stipulated in the Civil Code. However, the Court dismissed their arguments and confirmed the previous decisions, emphasizing that their possession was exclusive and contrary to the interest of the community. The Court relied on Sections 394 and 398 of the Civil Code, which regulate the use of common assets. They prescribe that the defendant sibling had to vacate the home, as no co-owner can use the common assets to the detriment of the community's interest or prevent other owners from using them.

Furthermore, a reference was made to previous case law reaffirming that, in a situation of indivisibility, "there is no exclusive ownership by any of the heirs over any asset of the hereditary community and, consequently, no right to possess exclusively."

This ruling reinforces the importance of equity and respect for the rights of all co-heirs in the management of inherited assets, highlighting that, in a hereditary community, the exclusive interest of one heir should not prevail over the rest of the co-owners.

In this context, Hereditas, a law firm specializing in inheritance and successions, advocates for the fair resolution of these conflicts. Hereditas offers its expertise to help heirs solve disputes that may arise, promoting the proper management and distribution of inherited assets for the benefit of all involved. If you are facing a conflict related to the inheritance of a property or any other succession issue, Hereditas is prepared to advise and represent you in the necessary legal proceedings to ensure the fairness and protection of your rights.