Eminent Domain: The Standing of the Buyer with Reserved Title – Judgment 17635/2025

Eminent domain is a complex legal area that aims to balance collective interest with the right to private property. A crucial aspect is the determination of compensation and the possibility for involved parties to contest its valuation. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 17635 of June 30, 2025 (Rv. 675793-01), has provided essential clarification on the standing to sue for those who have acquired property with a reserved title agreement. This ruling is of significant practical importance for the protection of interests.

The Reserved Title Agreement and Eminent Domain

The reserved title agreement, governed by Article 1523 of the Civil Code, allows the buyer to immediately obtain possession and use of the property, but to formally acquire ownership only upon payment of the final installment. Although ownership remains with the seller, the risks pass immediately to the buyer. This configuration raises questions in the event of expropriation: who, between the seller and the buyer, is entitled to contest the compensation?

The Cassation's Position: Substantial Holder of the Right

The Supreme Court, with the aforementioned Judgment No. 17635/2025, has offered a clear answer. Presided over by U. S. and with G. M. as Rapporteur, the decision established a fundamental principle:

In matters of eminent domain, the buyer with a reserved title agreement is entitled to file an objection to the valuation, concurrently and alternatively to the seller, as the substantial holder of the ownership right.

The Cassation thus recognizes the buyer with a reserved title agreement as fully entitled to sue. The reasoning lies in the fact that, although formal ownership has not yet been transferred, the buyer is the "substantial holder of the ownership right." It is they who suffer the direct economic prejudice from the expropriation and have the primary interest in a correct valuation. The standing is "concurrent and alternative," ensuring that both the buyer and the seller have the opportunity to protect their interests.

Practical Implications and Legal References

This ruling has significant practical repercussions. The buyer with a reserved title agreement is equated, for the purposes of objecting to the valuation, to a full owner, possessing a legally protected interest. Their action is alongside that of the seller, offering a dual avenue of protection. The Court referred to Article 29 of Legislative Decree No. 150/2011, which governs objections to valuation, and Article 1523 of the Civil Code, the cornerstone of sales with reserved title agreements. This interpretation, in line with previous case law (such as No. 24495 of 2013), confirms the trend of prioritizing economic substance over legal form.

• The buyer is recognized as the substantial holder of the ownership right.
• The standing is concurrent and alternative to that of the seller.
• Compensation must be adequate for those who suffer the substantial deprivation of the property.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17635 of 2025 by the Cassation is a fundamental reference for eminent domain law, strengthening the position of the buyer with a reserved title agreement and ensuring their full capacity to act. For citizens and industry professionals, this decision brings greater clarity and legal certainty. In such specific contexts, qualified legal advice is essential to navigate the complexities of the expropriation procedure and ensure that every right is fully protected, obtaining fair compensation for the loss of the property.