He The Supreme Court has ended a conflict between siblings over the inheritance of the family home. It confirms that, in the case of a home inherited between several siblings, if one of them moves in without the rest agreeing, and it has not yet been partitioned, they will be obliged to vacate the family home. .
This was dictated in a ruling from November 2024 in which the lawsuit filed by some brothers for precarious eviction to another who had settled in the house. In it he considers that exclusive possession of the house harms the rights of the rest of the heirs and must be free for the benefit of the entire hereditary community
As indicated therein, the home was acquired by the parents and became the the only inheritance asset that the brothers would receive after death of both. As a result of that, the conflict began, since one of them stayed living in the house of which they were all co-heirs, preventing the rest from using and enjoying the property.
For this reason, the rest of the brothers filed the eviction lawsuit even though this He claimed that the mother had bequeathed him her share of the house. However, this does not give the right to exclusive possession until the division of the inheritance has been carried out.
The Supreme Court concludes that he does not have the right to use the house exclusively
The first phase of the judicial process was in the Court of First Instance in Vigo, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff brothers, considering that the exclusive use of the home by one of the heirs He violated the right of others to enjoy the common good, and they forced him to vacate the house.
After the court’s decision The ‘squatter’ brother filed an appeal, in which he argued that he had a greater share of ownership of the home than his brothers and that he was also the one who paid the expenses of the home, which gave him the right to exclusive use of the home.
The Provincial Court of Pontevedra, rejected it confirming the same as the court of first instance, that is to say that no co-heir can occupy a common property exclusively while the inheritance has not been divided. Furthermore, he recalled that ““Consolidated jurisprudence recognizes the action of eviction due to precariousness between co-heirs for the benefit of the hereditary community.”
Finally, and after a new appeal by the defendant brother, the case reached the Supreme Court, iHe insisted that he had a greater percentage of the home and considered that the eviction route was not the correct one, that action should be taken to divide the common property.
This action is included in the Civil Code, which in article 400 establishes that “No co-owner will be obliged to remain in the community. Each of them may request at any time that the common property be divided.”
Despite his arguments The High Court rejected their arguments and confirmed the previous resolutions, highlighting that its possession was exclusive and contrary to the interest of the community, and ruling that the title of co-owner does not legitimize an exclusive occupation of a common property without the consent of the other co-heirs.
Based on articles 394 and 398 of the Civil Code, which regulate the use of common property. The Supreme Court established that the defendant brother would have to vacate the home, since they establish that no co-owner may use the common things, harming the interest of the community or preventing the rest of the owners from using them.
The court also made reference to previous jurisprudence indicating that in a situation of indivisionThere is no exclusive ownership of any of the heirs over any of the assets of the hereditary community and, consequently, not a right to exclusive possession.”