Real Estate Acquired by Gift: Will Selling Become Easier from 2026?

Article 44 of Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025, entitled “Simplifications concerning the facilitation of the legal circulation of assets derived from gifts”, has introduced substantial changes in the field of succession law, amending Articles 561, 562, 563, 2652 and 2690 of the Civil Code, which govern the restitution of assets by the legatee and the donee, as well as the reduction of donations following an action for reduction brought by heirs entitled to a statutory share.

The relevant provisions had already been amended by Laws Nos. 80/2005 and 263/2005, through which the legislator sought to address the persistent issues affecting the circulation of assets, particularly those originating from donations.

The reform introduced at the end of 2025 continues the work begun by the legislator twenty years earlier, pursuing the aim of fostering competition in the real estate market and facilitating the transferability of assets, both immovable and registered movable assets, by reducing the uncertainties that have traditionally affected their marketability and their “bankability”.

I. The amendment of Articles 561 and 2652(8) of the Civil Code

Originally, Article 561 of the Civil Code established the principle of the so-called “release from encumbrances and mortgages”: once a final judgment had been obtained reducing a prejudicial gift, the forced heir was entitled to receive the asset free from any encumbrance or mortgage created by the donee, except where the application for reduction had been registered more than ten years after the opening of the succession, pursuant to former Article 2652(1)(8) of the Civil Code.

However, under Article 44 of Law No. 182/2025, the legislator has introduced a clear distinction depending on whether the action for restitution is brought against the beneficiaries of testamentary dispositions prejudicial to the statutory share (i.e. the legatee) or against the donee.

In the first scenario – concerning restitution against the legatee – the legislator has retained, for immovable property, the traditional framework, whereby the forced heir is entitled to receive the property “free and clear”, subject to a corrective provision.

In fact, alongside Article 561 of the Civil Code, Article 2652(8) has been amended, reducing from ten to three years (from the opening of the succession) the time limit within which the registration of the application for reduction is required for the claim to be enforceable against third parties. Therefore, if that period expires without such registration, a purchase for valuable consideration made by a third party from the legatee can no longer be challenged by the forced heir.

As regards the actions brought against the donee, the legislator has stated that encumbrances and mortgages created by the donee on immovable property or registered movable assets remain enforceable against the forced heir, unless the application for reduction has been registered.

The forced heir is therefore entitled to the restitution of the asset, but must accept it with the existing encumbrances, receiving from the donee monetary compensation equal to the reduction in value of the asset, to the extent necessary to make up the reserved share.

This regime has been extended to registered movable assets and, subject to the general principles governing possession in good faith, also to unregistered movable property.

II. The amendment of Article 563 of the Civil Code

Under the previous regime, Article 563 of the Civil Code provided that, after unsuccessfully enforcing the claim against the donee, the forced heir could recover the immovable property in kind from a third-party purchaser – regardless of whether the acquisition had taken place for valuable consideration or free of charge – provided that the action for reduction had been brought within twenty years from the registration of the donation.

Once twenty years had elapsed from the registration of the gift, the transfer became no longer enforceable against the forced heir, unless an opposition notice had been filed to suspend the running of that period.

However, this system proved ineffective for three main reasons:

1. the starting point of the twenty-year period was uncertain;
2. the length of that period was clearly incompatible with the speed required in real estate transactions, which demand a much earlier stabilization of title;
3. the effectiveness of the reform was undermined by the introduction of the notice of opposition (pursuant to Article 563(4) of the Civil Code), which allowed the twenty-year period to be suspended, hypothetically extending the time limit for bringing an action for restitution indefinitely.

The 2025 reform, however, marks a shift in perspective, whereby the protection of forced heirs is progressively balanced against, and ultimately subordinated to, the need for legal certainty in transactions.

In particular, Article 44 of Law No. 182/2025 provides that, without prejudice to the donee’s obligation to compensate the forced heirs in cash to the extent necessary to make up the reserved share:

1. purchasers who have acquired the property for valuable consideration are released from any obligation to return the property;
2. purchasers who have acquired the property free of charge are required to compensate the forced heirs in cash, up to the amount of the benefit received.

The protection of the forced heir thus shifts from real to mandatory: although the forced heir retains a substantive right to restoration of the reserved share, monetary compensation is given priority over restitution in kind as against third parties.

This means that any person acquiring, for valuable consideration, property originating from a donation obtains a fully secure title at the time of transfer, without having to wait for the expiry of the twenty-year period from the registration of such donation.

It should be noted, however, that the action for reduction does not affect the third party’s acquisition only where such acquisition has been registered prior to the registration of the application for reduction (Articles 2652 and 2690 of the Civil Code).

This regime applies to all categories of movable property: for assets registered in public registers, the same rules apply as for immovable property, based on the principle of priority of registration; for unregistered movable property, however, the forced heir cannot claim restitution from third-party possessors, subject to the general principles governing possession in good faith.

III. The transitional regime

In order to regulate ongoing legal situations and the rights accrued by forced heirs under the previous regime, the legislator has introduced a transitional framework (paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Law No. 182/2025).

In particular, the legislator has provided that:

1. for successions opened before 18 December 2025 (the date on which the reform entered into force), the previous legislation remains applicable, provided that the application for reduction (or the notice of opposition) is served and registered by 18 June 2026;
2. for successions opened on or after 18 December 2025, the new rules apply immediately, limiting the protection of forced heirs to monetary compensation and eliminating the possibility of recovering the asset from third parties;
3. for gifts made before 18 December 2025:

• if the succession was opened after that date, the new compensation rules apply;
• if the succession had already been opened, a distinction must be made depending on whether or not the notice of opposition or the registration took place by 18 June 2026 (in the former case, the previous provisions apply; otherwise, the new rules apply).

IV. Conclusions

The reform introduced by Article 44 of Law No. 182/2025 represents one of the most significant developments in succession law over the last twenty years. The focus of the system shifts from proprietary protection of the forced heir – based on the recovery of the asset – towards a predominantly obligatory form of protection, based on financial compensation.

The objective pursued by the legislator is clear: to enhance legal certainty in transactions, to improve the marketability of assets originating from donations, and to reduce resistance from both the market and the banking system.

It remains to be seen whether this new balance between the protection of forced heirs and the stability of property acquisitions will be upheld in practice and in judicial interpretation.

Dott.ssa Sara El Ghorayeb