Rural leases

The Supreme Court (TS) has resolved a case regarding a lease of a rural property in which the tenant (who continued the lease that his relatives had previously held) claimed from the owner and landlord (a foundation) a compensation for the improvements made to the property. Specifically, it involved reductions and leveling significant to make the land more uniform and to be able to cultivate rice, thus improving a property that previously had an uneven and heterogeneous configuration. It was also requested the reimbursement of certain fees related to the Irrigation Community.

The contract ended (was extinguished) due to a judicial resolution for expiration of the term , and thereafter the tenant claimed to be paid the value of those improvements . The foundation appealed, but the TS dismisses the appeal and confirms what was decided by the previous courts, yes it is appropriate to compensate because it is considered proven that the landlord knew that these works were being carried out and, moreover, the consented , although there was no written "yes." For the TS, it is not enough to say "I did not oppose," but in this case, the entity of the works and the absence of objections over the years fit with effective knowledge and tacit consent.

The TS also makes it clear that it does not reopen the debate of facts, as it respects the assessment made at first instance and on appeal regarding the expert and testimonial evidence, and accepts the expert evidence supported by orthophotos and plans. Furthermore, it takes into account that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the condition of the property at the beginning, despite having more ease to do so. Finally, the Supreme Court also rejects a request to rectify or supplement the ruling.