Housing occupation

The Supreme Court (SC) has confirmed that the legitimate owner of a home can resort to the fast procedure (verbal trial) to recover possession when the house is occupied without his consent and those living inside cannot justify their situation with a valid "title." In this case, the owner filed a lawsuit against the "unknown occupants" (because initially it was not known who they were) and requested that they be required to provide some document within 5 days that explained why they were there.

When the occupants were finally identified, they defended themselves by saying that they were not "squatters" in the strict sense, claiming that they had a rental contract and that they paid rent to the person who, according to them, was the owner. The problem is that, according to the courts, the person who rented them the house was not actually the owner and, furthermore, was in precarious possession (that is, occupying without a title that allowed them to act as lessor). Therefore, even if there is a signed contract, that document does not serve to "bind" the true owner , because the contract only obligates those who signed it.

The SC also rejects the appeal for cassation on procedural issues, the appellants included several different complaints in a single ground (owner's legitimacy, intention to dispossess, and expiration), something that the SC considers incorrect. Additionally, they tried to discuss facts already established in the judgment (for example, that they "at least suspected" that the lessor was not the owner), and also raised the expiration as if it were a new issue, when it had not been discussed in that way in previous instances.

Therefore, the SC dismisses the appeal, upholding the recovery of possession by the owner.