Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice Rules Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Quilombola Land Disputes

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The First Section of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice unanimously held that federal courts have jurisdiction over actions between private parties concerning possession of properties located on lands traditionally occupied by descendants of quilombola communities (communities founded by people who escaped slavery).

Jurisdictional Conflict Reviewed by the First Section

In a ruling published on April 23, 2026, the First Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held that federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between private parties concerning possession of properties located, at least in part, on territory traditionally occupied by quilombola communities. The decision was unanimous.

According to the panel, these land actions involve the legal interest of the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Incra), the agency in charge of the administrative process for demarcating quilombola territories. Incra’s involvement brings the case within federal jurisdiction, in line with precedents already well established in the higher court’s case law.

The jurisdictional conflict was raised by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region after it identified potentially conflicting decisions issued by the federal courts and the state courts of Espírito Santo over the same area, known as Quilombo Itaúnas, in the northern part of that state.

The Role of Incra and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office

In the state court, a large company in its industry had filed a repossession action seeking the eviction of occupants from a farm in the district of Itaúnas, in Conceição da Barra. The company obtained a preliminary injunction ordering the eviction, even though Incra had reported that the property was partly located within territory claimed by a quilombola community, whose administrative recognition was at the stage of preparing the Technical Identification and Delimitation Report.

At the same time, a public civil action filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office was pending in federal court. It challenged the validity of the ownership titles granted by the state of Espírito Santo over lands traditionally occupied by descendants of quilombola communities in the municipalities of Conceição da Barra and São Mateus.

The dispute is not limited to a purely property-title question; it involves an issue intrinsically tied to the traditional possession of the area.

The federal court declared the ownership titles granted to the company void, finding that they had been obtained by fraud, and recognized that the areas are traditionally occupied by quilombola communities under Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT). Given the risk of irreparable harm, the STJ itself had granted a preliminary injunction in September 2025 suspending the eviction order until the conflict was resolved.

The Precedent and Its Procedural Consequences

Justice Sérgio Kukina, the case’s rapporteur, observed that the dispute is not limited to a purely property-title question. It involves an issue intrinsically tied to the traditional possession of the area, which shows that a jurisdictional conflict exists between the state courts and the federal courts. The company’s own statement in the case file reinforced that conclusion: it admitted it would not seek repossession of areas proven to be occupied by quilombolas.

The rapporteur explained that the federal court’s earlier decision, which had sent the possession action back to the state courts on the ground that Incra had no legal interest, does not override the new procedural reality revealed by the public civil action. The company’s title was declared void in a judgment with full effect, and the area at issue in the possession action is apparently held, at least in part, by a traditional population.

The panel’s conclusion sends the possession action to the federal trial court, which must decide whether to let it proceed or to stay it because of external prejudiciality (that is, because another case must be resolved first). The precedent reinforces the line of case law holding that land disputes involving quilombola territories must be handled in federal court, given their link to Incra’s demarcation authority and to the constitutional command of Article 68 of the ADCT. If you are dealing with a land dispute, you can find guidance in the firm’s practice areas.

Quilombo Itaúnas and the Protection of Traditional Communities

Quilombo Itaúnas is part of a group of territories traditionally occupied by descendants of quilombo communities in northern Espírito Santo, with a historical presence in Conceição da Barra and São Mateus. The administrative demarcation process led by Incra involves complex stages, such as preparing the Technical Identification and Delimitation Report, consulting the affected communities, and publishing the recognition ordinance. Each of these phases has significant legal effects that can carry over into possession actions, actions to recover ownership, and actions to annul property titles.

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, Incra, and the Federal Public Defender’s Office work together to prevent evictions from areas where the State is still formally recognizing traditional possession. Preliminary injunctions granted by state courts on the strength of the apparent regularity of private titles are often challenged once it is shown that administrative proceedings to title quilombola land are underway. The STJ’s decision in this conflict reinforces that the administrative process involving traditional communities cannot be ignored by the ordinary civil courts, on pain of producing results contrary to constitutional protection.

For lawyers, agrarian experts, and public officials, the settled position calls for a review of the strategies used in land disputes. Possession actions filed in state court that involve areas overlapping with quilombola or Indigenous lands, or with conservation units, tend to be moved to federal court, with a possible consolidation of related cases. This procedural redesign strengthens the consistency with which a territorial conflict is handled and reduces the risk of contradictory decisions issued at the same time by different courts over the same piece of real property.

Frequently Asked Questions

When do federal courts take jurisdiction in land disputes?

Whenever the case involves the legal interest of a federal entity, such as Incra, or an area traditionally occupied by a quilombola community with an administrative recognition process underway. The STJ’s First Section has settled this position, removing jurisdiction from the state courts even when the original action is between private parties.

What role does Article 68 of the ADCT play in this dispute?

This provision recognizes that descendants of quilombola communities hold permanent ownership of the lands they occupy, and it is up to the State to issue the titles. This constitutional rule is the basis for judicial recognition of traditional areas and brings in Incra and, as a result, federal jurisdiction over related disputes.

Can cases pending in different courts be consolidated?

Consolidation is legally permitted while both cases are still pending, but it becomes impossible once either one has been decided, under Súmula 235 of the STJ. Even then, federal jurisdiction remains, and the case that was transferred may be stayed because of external prejudiciality.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.