Property

Renunciation of ownership for all properties, but mortgages remain

The origin of the owner's right is irrelevant, but any debts are not cancelled

by Angelo Busani

14 October 2025

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

Unilateral act
Unnecessary compliance
Mortgages and debt positions
Transcription and volture
Waiver of co-ownership

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The act of renouncing the right of ownership or a share in the co-ownership of a piece of real estate (the legitimacy of which was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Joint Sections in its judgment 23093/2025) entails significant consequences in terms of professional enforcement.

Notaries are frequently asked to draw up deeds of quitclaim because there are innumerable situations in which the owner not only derives no benefit from the buildings and land he owns, but also has to bear costs that are often not insignificant: apart from the municipal property tax, one thinks of the insurance for damages caused by the property, ordinary and extraordinary maintenance, securing landslides or unsafe buildings, cutting down trees that threaten road traffic or power lines, etc. Very often these are cases in which the owner cannot find (even by paying) a buyer or a donee to dispose of these situations.

Unilateral act

The deed of renunciation of the right of ownership is a unilateral act: ownership is validly renounced by a simple declaration of the person who is the owner of the right of ownership of the nuisance property. It is irrelevant how the right to be renounced was acquired: thus, regardless of whether it is a contract (such as a sale, a gift or an exchange) or a inheritance.

Conformity not required

Ruling 23093 states that, since the renunciation of the right to real estate is a unilateral non-translative act (the State's acquisition occurs by way of original title), the rules on the conformity of the cadastre of buildings do not have to be applied in the first place, and property can therefore be renounced even if there is a cadastral situation (census or planimetric) that does not conform to the state of affairs.

From the non-translative nature of the deed of renunciation, judgement 23093 also derives that it is not necessary, for its validity, to list the building titles that have authorised the construction of the building (or to affirm that the construction dates back to 1 September 1967); nor is it necessary, in the case of the renunciation of ownership of land, that the certificate of urban destination be attached to the deed of renunciation. Nor is it necessary to attach the energy performance certificate. In short, these deeds are very easy to conclude.

Mortgages and debtor positions

If the owner is already burdened with debts (e.g. for compensation for damage caused by the property or for having polluted the land), the quitclaim deed certainly does not extinguish those debts and therefore the owner, by giving up ownership, does not get rid of them. On the contrary, a creditor could well even bring a revocation action against the quitclaim deed.

Transcription and volture

The deed of renunciation is transcribed 'against' the renouncing party (this can be either a natural person or a legal person). It is not necessary, but it is useful, to transcribe it 'in favour' of the State Property Office with the tax code 97905320582, as per the circular of the State Property Agency 3616 of 12 October 2016. The transcription 'in favour', in fact, makes possible the automatic cadastral transfer, with the consequence that the renouncing owner will finally see the cadastral company of the renounced property no longer in his name.

It may be, however, that the Land Registry (in these first weeks following judgement 23093) is resisting the registration of the renounced property with the State: apart from the fact that this resistance is destined to cease - as absurd and illegitimate - the important thing for the owner is to have signed the deed of renunciation and to have transcribed it. The cadastral registration is completely irrelevant.

Waiver of co-ownership

Judgment 23093 makes no mention of this, but in fact also clears deeds of renunciation of co-ownership. In this case, there is no acquisition by the state, since the effect of the renunciation is to cause an automatic increase in the shares of the remaining co-owners. For example, if the ownership of a building is held by four persons, in equal shares, the renunciation of one of them means that the other three become shareholders at the rate of one third each.

A fronte della sentenza delle Sezioni unite, non c’è più il timore che costoro possano pretendere un risarcimento asserendo il patimento di un danno provocato dall’altrui rinuncia. In primo luogo, in quanto il rinunciante sta esercitando un suo diritto: per definizione, l’esercizio di un diritto (anche se può provocare fastidio al prossimo) non provoca un danno “ingiusto” (articolo 2043 del Codice civile) e, come tale, non provoca un danno risarcibile. In secondo luogo, perché il comproprietario “accresciuto”, se la situazione non gli aggrada, può anch’egli, a sua volta, rinunciare al suo diritto di comproprietà. E se da una situazione di tanti comproprietari ne rimane alla fine uno solo, quest’ultimo può anch’egli, del tutto legittimamente, rinunciare al diritto di cui, a suon di rinunce, è divenuto esclusivo titolare, provocandone così l’acquisizione da parte dello Stato.