Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sodba II Ips 913/93 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1994:II.IPS.913.93 AI generated

Appeal dismissed for changing legal basis; new claim of inheritance gift invalid after first instance judgment.

Case Number Sodba II Ips 913/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the appellant's revision against the second-instance judgment regarding inheritance claims. The appellant attempted to switch from alleging a sham sales contract to claiming a gift of property, arguing the assets should be part of the deceased's estate. The court ruled that changing the legal basis of the claim constitutes a change of the lawsuit itself, which is not permitted during the revision phase.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 190, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 191, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure: A change in the legal basis of a claim constitutes a change of the lawsuit, which cannot be effected during the revision proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
revision proceedings change of lawsuit legal basis of claim inheritance dispute sham contract gift return code of civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 190, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 191, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sodba II Ips 649/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; civil court correctly reviewed contract validity despite land registry limitations.
Sklep II DoR 156/2013
Supreme Court allows review regarding whether land registry entries of usage rights caused state ownership of agricultural land.
Sodba II Ips 347/2010
Appeal dismissed; late evidence submission allowed if facts were unknown but relevant later. Expert bias claim inadmissible due to lack of prior objection.
VSL Sodba in sklep I Cp 1017/2022
Appeal allowed: oral 1960s gift contract created de facto co-ownership of salon despite lack of formal deed.
VSRS Sodba II Ips 289/2015
Supreme Court allows appeal against second instance dismissal of property claim based on acquisition by prescription. The court ruled that the decedent's death ended the good faith period, not the contract signing. The court held that the state does not acquire ownership of the estate in the original sense but only receives the assets and liabilities of the decedent at the moment of death (retroactively). The court found that the decedent's death in September 2002 ended the required ten-year period for acquisition by prescription before the lawsuit was filed in December 2012. The court also noted that the plaintiff's lack of awareness of the property in the GERK system did not affect her good faith, as the second instance court had already addressed this factual issue. The Supreme Court reversed the second instance decision, confirming the first instance judgment that the plaintiff acquired ownership through prescription. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs of 5,159.80 EUR, including court fees, lawyer's fees, and VAT. The court emphasized that the state does not acquire ownership of the estate in the original sense but only receives the assets and liabilities of the decedent at the moment of death (retroactively). The court held that the decedent's death in September 2002 ended the required ten-year period for acquisition by prescription before the lawsuit was filed in December 2012. The court also noted that the plaintiff's lack of awareness of the property in the GERK system did not affect her good faith, as the second instance court had already addressed this factual issue. The Supreme Court reversed the second instance decision, confirming the first instance judgment that the plaintiff acquired ownership through prescription. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs of 5,159.80 EUR, including court fees, lawyer's fees, and VAT. The court emphasized that the state does not acquire ownership of the estate in the original sense but only receives the assets and liabilities of the decedent at the moment of death (retroactively).

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revizija se zavrne kot neutemeljena.

[JEDRO]

Sprememba tožbenega temelja pomeni spremembo tožbe, kajti istovetnost tožbenega zahtevka je opredeljena s tožbenim temeljem in tožbenim predlogom. Sprememba enega ali drugega pomeni spremembo tožbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek na ugovitev, da spada v zapuščino po pok. L.M. idealna polovica nepremičnin vl.št. k.o. I. in vl. št. k.o. P. in nadaljnji zahtevek, da mora prva toženka izstaviti tožnici zemljiškoknjižno listino za vpis lastninske pravice pri njej lastni idealni polovici navedenih nepremičnin na ime pok. L.M. Ugotovilo je, da prodajna pogodba z dne 20.11.1968, v kateri sta kot kupovalki navedeni prva toženka in njena zdaj že pokojna sestra M., ni navidezna. Obe kupovalki sta bili res mladoletni in brez svojih sredstev, vendar je bila volja njunih staršev,da postaneta lastnici kupljenih nepremičnin in da se s tem zagotovi njuna eksistenca. Zato sporno premoženje ni bilo last pok. L.M. in ne spada v njegovo zapuščino. Ugotovilo je še, da sta kupnino prispevala oba starša.

Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo tožničino pritožbo in je potrdilo sodbo prve stopnje. Svojo odločitev je oprlo na ugotovitev, da sporne nepremičnine po zemljiškoknjižnem stanju niso bile last L.M., zato ne spadajo v njegovo zapuščino.

Proti tej sodbi vlaga tožeča stranka revizijo. Uveljavlja revizijski razlog zmotne uporabe materialnega prava in predlaga, da revizijsko sodišče spremeni sodbo druge stopnje tako, da ugodi pritožbi, podrejeno pa, da razveljavi sodbi prve in druge stopnje in vrne zadevo sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje. Navaja, da je toženka pridobila sporno premoženje z darilno pogodbo in bi bilo treba podarjeno premoženje upoštevati kot del zapuščinske mase. Da bi se ugotovilo, v kolikšnem obsegu gre za darilo pok. L.M., bi bilo treba odločiti, kolikšen je bil njegov delež pri pridobivanju skupnega premoženja v njegovi prvi zakonski zvezi. Osporava stališče, da so bile sporne nepremičnine kupljene z denarjem toženkine matere in navaja okoliščine, iz katerih izhaja delež pok. L.M. na skupnem premožemju.

Toženi stranki na revizijo nista odgovorili in Javni tožilec Republike Slovenije se o njej ni izjavil (3. odst. 390. čl. ZPP).

Revizija ni utemeljena.

Tožnica je v tožbi navajala, da je pogodba z dne 20.11.1968 navidezna in zato nična, lastnik kupljenih nepremičnin pa je bil L.M. V pritožbi in v reviziji pa je navedla drugo podlago za svoj zahtevek, namreč da je L.M. sporne nepremičnine hčerkama podaril in da je treba vrniti v zapuščino darilo v obsegu njegovega deleža na skupnem premoženju. Sprememba tožbenega temelja pomeni spremembo tožbe, kajti istovetnost tožbenega zahtevka je opredeljena s tožbenim temeljem in tožbenim predlogom. Sprememba enega ali drugega pomeni spremembo tožbe (1. odst. 191. čl. ZPP). Ta pa je mogoča samo do konca glavne obravnave (1. odst. 190. čl. ZPP). Da gre v obravnavanem primeru za spremembo tožbe, je razvidno tudi iz tega, da bi spremenjene navedbe o dejanski podlagi terjale tudi spremembo tožbenega predloga; vrnitve darila ni mogoče uveljavljati z enakim zahtevkom, kot sledi iz zatrjevane ničnosti kupoprodajne pogodbe. To tem bolj, ker revizijske navedbe kažejo prej na darilo kupnine kot pa na darilo kupljenih nepremičnin. Po navedenem gre vsekakor za poskus spremembe tožbe, česar pa pri revizijskem odločanju ni mogoče upoštevati (1. odst. 190. čl. ZPP).

Revizijsko sodišče je dolžno po uradni dolžnosti paziti na pravilno uporabo materialnega prava (386. čl. ZPP). Pri tem pa upošteva dejansko stanje, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v postopku na prvi in drugi stopnji. V obravnavani zadevi to pomeni, da je treba vzeti za podlago odločanja ugotovitev, da prodajna pogodba z dne 20.11.1968 ni bila navidezna in da ta ničnostni razlog ne obstoji. Sporne nepremičnine so na podlagi te prodajne pogodbe in vpisa v zemljiško knjigo prešle na toženko in njeno sestro M. Toženkin solastninski delež ob smrti L.M. ni bil njegova last, zato ni del njegove zapuščine. Glede na navedeno je bil tožbeni zahtevek na ugotovitev, da te nepremičnine spadajo v zapuščino pok. L.M., pravilno zavrnjen. Uveljavljani revizijski razlogi niso podani, prav tako ne razlogi na katere pazi revizijsko sodišče po uradni dolžnosti (386. čl. ZPP). Zato je revizijsko sodišče revizijo tožeče stranke zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno (393. čl. ZPP).