Unanimously, the 7th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region dismissed the appeal against a judgment that dismissed the Third Party Injunctions, in which the author objected to deconstitute the attachment on the property given as guarantee in the Tax Enforcement. In the 1st Instance, the petitioner failed to prove ownership of the property seized.

In its appeal to the Court, the appellant argued that it acquired the property in 1985 by a verbal contract of sale and that it can prove its property with evidence and its meek and peaceful possession of the property.

The rapporteur, federal judge convoked Rodrigo Rigamonte Fonseca, in analyzing the case, pointed out that the Promise of Purchase and Sale of the Property is admitted in Third Party Assignments even though it is not registered in the Property Registry, under the terms of the Summary 84 / STJ, to purpose of proving the transfer of the property, provided that accompanied by proof of the exercise of the possession by the infringer.

According to the magistrate, in this case, there is no Purchase and Sale Commitment to prove the sale of the property. The appellant was based only on an alleged verbal contract of purchase and sale and the assertion that it owns the direct possession of the furniture.

“The verbal evidence is perfectly acceptable in our legal system, but it needs a minimum of proof, which was not the case, whereas mere possession is not sufficient to prove the alienation of the property,” the judge pointed out.

In this sense, it is not possible to assert under any approach that the owner is the owner of the property object of the done, or even if and when the sale was made, and it must be presumed that the property remains in the property of the executed.

Source: Jusbrasil