Questão 53 Remoção concurso Cartórios TJ-RO 2025: Uso Privativo de Área Comum em Cond. dá usucapião?

Question 53 In a condominium assembly held in 2010, the exclusive use of a certain common area by a condominium owner was authorized. This area, although part of the common property, was inaccessible to the other condominium owners. Since then, the condominium owner has been exclusively occupying the space, based on the authorization granted by the condominium assembly. In addition to the originally authorized conservation interventions, the condominium owner has made structural modifications to the area, installing furniture and promoting extensive landscaping. Based on this hypothetical situation and the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), it is correct to state that the appropriation of a common area of ​​a condominium building by a condominium owner for private use A. is subject to acquisitive prescription by ordinary usucaption. B is not subject to acquisition by adverse possession, but imposes on the condominium the duty to respect the use of the common area within the limits of the assembly authorization, and it cannot reclaim the area subject to permission without demonstrating a new fact, and the condominium owner is prohibited from carrying out reforms or modifications without a new resolution from the assembly. C is subject to acquisitive prescription by extraordinary adverse possession. D is not subject to acquisition by adverse possession, but generates the duty of the condominium to respect the use of the common area within the limits of the assembly authorization, and it cannot reclaim the area subject to permission without demonstrating a new fact, and authorizes the condominium owner to reform the common area without a new resolution from the assembly. E is not subject to acquisition by adverse possession, nor does it generate the duty of the condominium to respect the use of the common area within the limits of the assembly authorization, and it can reclaim the area subject to permission regardless of demonstrating a new fact, but authorizes the condominium owner to reform the common area without a new resolution from the assembly. In this video, we will analyze and solve Question 53 in a didactic way, which addresses a very recurring theme in exams and in everyday life: the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) regarding the exclusive use of a common area by a condominium owner and the impossibility of adverse possession. ✅ Answer: Alternative B 💡 Summary of the Explanation: To prevent you from falling into traps about condominium law, we break down each of the alternatives in the video: Why is adverse possession not applicable (Alternatives A and C)? The STJ has consolidated the understanding that a common area in a condominium is not subject to adverse possession by one of the condominium owners, since possession of that space stems from mere permission or tolerance of the community. Can you carry out works without authorization? (Alternatives D and E are incorrect): The authorization for use does not grant the condominium owner the right to carry out structural reforms in the common area arbitrarily. Any innovation requires prior and new deliberation by the assembly. Can the condominium take the area back out of nowhere? (Option E is wrong): No. In respect of the principles of objective good faith (institutes of suppressio and surrectio), the condominium cannot arbitrarily reclaim the permitted area after years of peaceful use, requiring the demonstration of a "new fact" that justifies this change. The STJ Rule (Option B): The area is not subject to adverse possession, but the condominium must respect the authorization given in the past (unless a new fact arises), and the condominium owner is strictly prohibited from carrying out structural works without the assembly voting and approving again.