Adjudicação compulsória extrajudicial como solução para regularização de imóveis em contrato de promessa de compra e venda não registrados

Abstract

The extrajudicial compulsory conveyance, introduced into the Brazilian legal system by Law No. 14,382/2022, constitutes a relevant instrument of dejudicialization and land regularization, as it allows for the transfer of real property ownership within the administrative sphere in cases of inertia or refusal by the promissory seller. In this context, the present research has the general objective of assessing to what extent the requirement of prior registration of the promise to purchase and sale agreement as a condition for the admissibility of extrajudicial compulsory conveyance constitutes a barrier to dejudicialization and a violation of the principle of equality when compared to judicial protection. As specific objectives, this study seeks to: (i) analyze the doctrinal foundations of compulsory conveyance and of the promise to purchase and sale, with particular attention to the distinction between personal rights and the real right to acquisition; (ii) examine the applicable legal doctrine and case law, especially Precedent No. 239 of the Superior Court of Justice, as well as the regulatory framework issued by the National Council of Justice, in order to assess how the requirement of prior registration and the evidentiary effectiveness of the notarial deed are treated; and (iii) investigate, through jurisprudential analysis, the practical impacts of the prior registration requirement on the effectiveness of the institute and on public land regularization policy. Methodologically, the research adopts a qualitative approach, based on bibliographic and jurisprudential analysis. The findings indicate that the requirement of prior registration, although traditionally associated with registral legal certainty, proves incompatible with the logic of compulsory conveyance and with the objectives of dejudicialization, insofar as the right to compulsory conveyance derives from the fully performed contractual obligation, rather than from the formal constitution of a real right to acquisition. It is therefore concluded that the imposition of such a requirement within the extrajudicial framework undermines equality between judicial and administrative avenues, restricts access to the institute, and weakens its social function, given that the notarial deed constitutes a legally secure instrument capable of adequately replacing the absence of registration of the preliminary contract.