## Facts

- Maria Terezinha Oriente Rodrigues de Moraes owned a rural estate in Brazil.
- Federal agrarian-reform policy was implemented through the National Institution of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), which issued technical evaluations used to determine whether rural property could be taken for agrarian reform as a “social interest” expropriation when land was deemed unproductive.
- In 1990, INCRA issued a technical report finding that the estate satisfied the applicable efficiency/productivity measures, which (at that time) allowed the property to avoid expropriation on unproductivity grounds.
- After the 1990 finding, landless families occupied the property. The owner asserted that the occupation prevented rational exploitation and normal productive use of the land.
- In 1994, the President of the Republic authorized expropriation of the estate for agrarian reform by presidential decree, with execution to be carried out through INCRA.
- The owner filed a mandado de segurança (writ of mandamus) directly in the Brazil Supreme Federal Court (STF), challenging the legality of the presidential decree and related administrative action.
- The owner argued that (1) the prior 1990 INCRA finding that the land met productivity measures prevented the government from treating the property as expropriable for unproductivity without a lawful, updated basis; (2) the government could not use productivity loss caused by third-party occupation as a justification for agrarian-reform taking; and (3) she did not receive proper notice tied to the 1994 expropriation decree.
- The federal government responded that the 1994 expropriation was valid notwithstanding the 1990 report and argued that the earlier INCRA process/report supplied adequate notice regarding the taking.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior INCRA technical finding that a rural estate met productivity/efficiency standards constrained the President’s later ability to expropriate the same land for agrarian reform on unproductivity grounds.
2. Whether the government could base an agrarian-reform expropriation on alleged unproductivity when the owner claimed the loss of productive use resulted from occupation by third parties.
3. Whether the owner received legally sufficient notice and procedural regularity in connection with the 1994 expropriation decree.
4. Whether mandado de segurança was available to challenge the legality of the presidential agrarian-reform expropriation decree on these grounds.

## Decision

- The STF granted mandamus relief to the landowner.
- The STF declared the 1994 expropriation decree invalid (null) as applied to the challenged estate.
- In doing so, the STF accepted that the prior administrative productivity finding and the claimed effects of third-party occupation and defective notice bore on the legality of the expropriation.

## Legal Principles

- Agrarian-reform expropriation based on unproductivity requires a lawful, procedurally regular administrative basis establishing the statutory/constitutional prerequisites for taking.
- The executive may not treat a property as unproductive for expropriation purposes without addressing prior official technical findings indicating compliance with productivity standards, and without following proper steps to support any later contrary conclusion.
- Procedural regularity, including proper notice in the expropriation process, is required when the state takes property through a presidential decree for agrarian reform.
- Mandado de segurança can be used to set aside an unlawful governmental act, including a presidential expropriation decree, when the claimant asserts a clear legal right and challenges the legality of the act rather than seeking fact-intensive damages.

## Conclusion

Maria Terezinha sought mandamus relief in the STF after a 1994 presidential decree authorized agrarian-reform expropriation of her rural estate despite a 1990 INCRA report finding the land met productivity measures; she argued the state could not rely on unproductivity tied to third-party occupation and that notice was defective, and the STF granted relief by declaring the expropriation decree invalid as to her property.


Maria Terezinha Oriente Rodrigues de Moraes v. President of the Republic, Writ of Mandamus No. 21.193 (1996)