The Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands has confirmed the eviction of a widow who continued to live on a rural property after the death of her husband. The lawsuit was filed by the daughter of the deceased, who confirmed that the property had been donated by his father with reservation of usufruct for life and after his father died he wanted to recover the home. The court considers that the occupation constituted a precarious situation (occupation without legitimate title), as there was no legal title that legitimized the widow’s possession.
According to the ruling of June 23, 2025, the father donated the property to one of his daughters during his lifetime, transmitting to her bare ownership of the property, reserving for himself and his wife the usufruct life. Years later, with both usufructuaries deceased, the daughter tried to regain possession of the property, but found that her father’s widow was still living there. Although she claimed a right to remain in the home for having resided there for decades, there was no formal agreement that justified her occupation after the usufruct expired, which led the daughter to file an eviction lawsuit.
You may be interested
Nephews forced to include in the inheritance 200,000 euros that their aunt donated to them during her lifetime and distribute them with the rest of the heirs
Gonzalo Bernardos, economist, on the danger of making donations while alive: “I would not recommend it to anyone”
The Court of First Instance No. 3 of Inca fully upheld the eviction claim, understanding that the widow could not prove any title to the property, since it had been validly transmitted by her husband years before. Furthermore, according to article 513 of the Civil Code, the usufruct expires with the death of the usufructuary, without the possibility of subrogation to him.
The property was no longer part of the deceased’s estate.
The Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands confirmed the sentence, rejecting the widow’s arguments, which were based on a subsequent universal donation and a will in which the deceased attributed other assets to her. The court recalled that a provision of this nature cannot be extended to assets that were no longer part of the deceased’s estate.
The Chamber cited articles 881 and 885 of the Civil Code, which establish that legatees or donees cannot themselves occupy property that is not in the hereditary estate, and reiterated that the right of usufruct is extinguished with the death of the usufructuary.
In the words of the Court, “Universal donation cannot affect property that no longer belonged to the donor; “The property was donated many years before, so the occupant lacks legitimate title to remain in it.”
He also pointed out that the deceased’s will only attributed other urban assets to the widow, but not the rural property that was the subject of the litigation, which never became part of the inheritance again.
For this reason, the Court declared that he was in a precarious situation, confirming the eviction. However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.