A recent case involving an inheritance property claim in Italy transpired last year when two brothers sued for ownership of a wine cellar which was being occupied without a property title. Their argument was that the property was part of their inheritance and that they were being unlawfully denied an asset.
The defendant in the case was a woman who had been using the wine cellar for more than 30 years uti dominus, or rather as someone acting or using a good as if they are the rightful or legitimate proprietor. She added that those bringing the lawsuit did not prove ownership of the property, instead merely asserting their status as heirs.
The court sided with the defendant and explained that there is a difference between restitution and claiming of a good. Property restitution in Italy presupposes that the good has been voluntarily passed down by the owner to those who will utilize it through a lease, loan, safekeeping, etc. If the beneficiary doesn’t voluntarily return the good in question, the party claiming ownership makes a judicial request, using the contract as proof of loss of property.
A contract makes the intent of the original owner clear. They would have been able to take back the property and so by extension would heirs to their estate.
A claim on unclaimed property, meanwhile, requests the release of an asset simply because the current holder lacks an ownership title. This is not easy to accomplish in claims court as adverse possession, or squatter’s rights, is protected in Italy (provided the holder meet certain conditions).
In fact, recently the Court of Arezzo (sentence no. 650/2018), ruled that self-declaration of ownership does not constitute proof of a title, nor does declaring that the asset fulfills a reserved quota for heirs to an estate. This was rightly considered a significant victory for the legal principle of adverse possession.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the defendant based on the inability of the plaintiffs to prove ownership of the original title.