The Provincial Court of Malaga has confirmed the eviction due to precariousness of an heiress who exclusively occupied the inherited family home from his father, for which he received rental income and used it as if it were his own and even made renovations without the permission of his brothers who were co-owners. Justice considers that this action violates the hereditary co-ownership regime and cannot be protected by either the tacit consent or the powers granted years ago to manage the home.
According to the ruling of July 15, 2025, after the father died, the family home was inherited by all siblingswhich granted the defendant powers to manage it, since the others resided outside. Over time, he appropriated the house as if it were his exclusively, receiving rental income and carrying out works without being accountable to the rest. Despite having formalized the declaration of heirs, the partition was never carried out, which kept the property in a situation of hereditary co-ownership.
You may be interested
The mistake of parents when donating their homes while they were alive: now one child has to compensate the other with 50,000 euros
A woman sentenced to pay 22,993 euros to the daughter of her deceased partner, the only heir: she took the furniture, souvenirs and dismantled the entire house
The brothers filed a demand for eviction due to precariousnesswhich was upheld by the Court of First Instance No. 5 of Marbella, understanding that the defendant was in a precarious situation, that is, occupying the home without legitimate title or consent of the rest of the owners.
His possession of the house was unjustified and harmed the rest of the family.
The Provincial Court of Malaga confirmed the resolution, recalling that in cases of hereditary co-ownership (when the inheritance has not yet been divided) no co-heir can claim exclusive use of a common asset.
Relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court of September 16, 2010, he explained that the fact that the home is not formally awarded does not allow only one of the heirs to possess and enjoy it without sharing it or justifying it. This unilateral possession constitutes an “objective excess” of the right of co-possession, according to the doctrine of the High Court.
The Court highlighted that the sister had occupied the property since 2012 without accounting, excluding the rest of her siblings from any use or benefit. Although he claimed to have made improvements and paid expenses, this behavior did not legitimize the exclusive use, and that, where appropriate, compensation could be claimed in another procedure, but it did not justify the occupation.
He also ruled out that his possession could be based on tacit tolerance from the other co-heirs, since sufficient proof of clear or continued consent was not provided.
For all these reasons, the Court confirmed the eviction of the home. However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it.