| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 466.04 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A venda judicial dos bens penhorados no processo executivo pretende efetivar a responsabilidade patrimonial do devedor executado perante o exequente e os demais credores que venham ao processo reclamar os seus créditos. Pode suceder que um desses bens alvo de penhora seja um imóvel sobre o qual exista, em simultâneo, um contrato de arrendamento e uma garantia real – por hipótese
uma hipoteca – constituída para garantir o ressarcimento de um dos credores do executado.
Saber qual destes interesses deve preponderar perante a venda em execução, se o do arrendatário, que almeja manter o seu contrato de arrendamento, se o do credor hipotecário do executado, que pretende que a venda do bem que garante a sua dívida seja feita pelo melhor preço, o que, por seu turno, pode originar a caducidade do contrato de arrendamento, é um problema que gera controvérsia, tanto ao nível doutrinal como ao nível jurisprudencial. Segundo a interpretação que fazemos do art. 824.º, n.º 2, do CC, se celebrado depois de a hipoteca ter sido registada, o contrato de arrendamento caducará no momento da venda executiva.
The judicial sale of attached assets within court enforcement proceedings aims to ensure the debtor’s financial liability before his creditors. A situation may arise in which one of the attached assets is not only a property under a lease contract but also a property securing a mortgage loan to ensure the creditor is reimbursed. Deciding on which of the involved parties’ interests must prevail, the lessee’s, who yearns to maintain his contract or the mortgage creditor’s, who seeks the judicial sale of the asset securing his mortgage is executed at the highest price possible, which, in turn, might lead to the termination of that very contract, is a topic of ongoing debate in light of our doctrine and national case law. According to our interpretation of article 824, no. 2 of the Portuguese Civil Code, the lease contract concluded after the establishment of a mortgage that is now being enforced automatically expires at the time of the judicial sale.
The judicial sale of attached assets within court enforcement proceedings aims to ensure the debtor’s financial liability before his creditors. A situation may arise in which one of the attached assets is not only a property under a lease contract but also a property securing a mortgage loan to ensure the creditor is reimbursed. Deciding on which of the involved parties’ interests must prevail, the lessee’s, who yearns to maintain his contract or the mortgage creditor’s, who seeks the judicial sale of the asset securing his mortgage is executed at the highest price possible, which, in turn, might lead to the termination of that very contract, is a topic of ongoing debate in light of our doctrine and national case law. According to our interpretation of article 824, no. 2 of the Portuguese Civil Code, the lease contract concluded after the establishment of a mortgage that is now being enforced automatically expires at the time of the judicial sale.
Description
Keywords
Arrendamento Caducidade Venda executiva Hipoteca Lease Termination Executive sale Mortgage