Italian LawInheritance LawProperty Law
With the final adoption of the so-called DDL Semplificazioni on 26 November 2025, the Italian legislature has brought to an end a long-criticised peculiarity of Italian succession and real estate law. At the centre of the reform is Article 44 of that statute, which substantially rewrites Articles 561, 562 and 563 of the Italian Civil Code and fundamentally reshapes the legal framework governing donated real estate. For the Italian property market, this is a change of considerable significance.
Until now, under Italian law, forced heirs, the so-called legittimari, could in certain circumstances reach donated real estate even years after the estate had opened, including where the property had long since been sold to good-faith third parties. Anyone acquiring such a property had to reckon with the possibility of losing title and being left only with recourse against the seller. Banks, for their part, ran the risk that a mortgage granted over the property could become ineffective if a forced-heirship claim succeeded. The result was a structural mistrust of property with so-called provenienza donativa, that is, property that had at some point in the past been the object of a donation.
The new legal framework addresses precisely this problem. It considerably strengthens the position of purchasers and lenders and shifts the forced-heirship issue back into the relationship between the forced heirs and the donee. At the same time, the institution of the forced share remains untouched; the reform does not concern the amount of the protected quotas or the circle of entitled persons, but rather the question of how far their protection may extend to the detriment of third parties.
Italian forced-heirship law belongs to the stricter models in Europe. Certain close relatives, in particular the surviving spouse, the children and in some constellations the parents, enjoy as legittimari a legally guaranteed minimum share of the estate, the so-called quota di legittima. This forced share is calculated on the basis of the entire estate, taking into account both testamentary dispositions and gifts made during lifetime. If the legittima is infringed by a donation or a testamentary disposition, the disadvantaged forced heir has the azione di riduzione at his or her disposal, a reduction action aimed at cutting back excessive dispositions and restoring the statutory minimum entitlement.
Italian forced-heirship law belongs to the stricter models in Europe.
A particular source of conflict arose where a property was first donated and later, either during the donor's lifetime or after his death, sold to a third party. Under the previous legal regime, the protection of the forced share was not limited to a monetary claim against the donee. If the donee was insolvent or otherwise unable to satisfy the forced-heirship claim, the forced heir could, in a second step, seek restitution of the property itself from the third-party purchaser.
In doctrinal terms, this situation was often described as a real action with restitutory effect. The starting point was an obligation claim for supplementation of the forced share; if this proved ineffective, the claim would crystallise into a proprietary recourse against the real estate itself. In practice, this meant a considerable risk. Even where the purchaser had acquired the property for value and in good faith, had carried out the relevant register checks and had concluded the purchase before a notary, ownership was not definitively secure. The often lengthy limitation and exclusion periods in forced-heirship law meant that this risk could in reality persist for many years.
This constellation was by no means merely theoretical. In practice, property burdened by past donations was regularly more difficult to sell and significantly harder to finance. Many credit institutions either refused altogether to finance property with provenienza donativa or did so only subject to reservations, for example requiring additional security or special insurance covering forced-heirship risk.
For purchasers, the legal regime entailed a substantial advisory and due-diligence burden. It was not enough to verify the current ownership situation and existing encumbrances. One also had to investigate whether and when donations had taken place in the past, who might qualify as a potential forced heir, and whether claims were likely to be asserted. As a result, donated property was often traded only at a discount and in some cases was effectively excluded from the market.
This uncertainty also affected cross-border situations. From a German perspective in particular, the idea that forced heirs could indirectly reach assets long since acquired by third parties was unusual. Under German law, the Pflichtteil is traditionally a pure monetary claim; it does not transform into a proprietary claim against third-party acquirers. Against that background, the Italian solution appeared to be a systematic outlier, with palpable consequences for the legal and economic attractiveness of the jurisdiction.
This is where the reform intervenes. Article 44 of the DDL Semplificazioni rewrites the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles 561 and 563, and significantly limits recourse by forced heirs against third-party purchasers. The core idea can be stated simply: whoever acquires a property for value and properly registers the acquisition should no longer run the risk of having to surrender that property later to forced heirs. Forced-heirship protection is instead concentrated on the person who actually received the benefit, namely the donee.
More specifically, this means that the so-called azione di restituzione against acquirers for value is largely abolished. The good-faith purchaser remains owner; a successful forced-heirship claim no longer leads to a retransfer of title, but only to a monetary claim against the donee. In this way, the structure of Italian forced-heirship supplementation is brought closer to the model more commonly found in comparative European law, where forced-heirship rights are systematically framed as monetary claims.
Closely linked to this is the issue of proprietary security rights. Under the previous regime, a mortgage created in favour of a bank over donated property could, following a successful azione di restituzione, effectively become worthless because ownership would revert to the forced heir. The reform addresses this problem by safeguarding the continued effectiveness of such encumbrances. Mortgages and other rights registered in the public registers remain valid even where forced-heirship claims exist. The risk of a subsequent de facto expropriation of the lender is thereby significantly reduced.
Even though recourse against third-party purchasers is restricted, this does not mean that forced heirs are left without protection. The reform changes neither the fundamental concept of the legittima nor the category of entitled persons. What is new is the consistent concentration of forced-heirship protection on monetary claims.
A legittimario whose forced share has been infringed by a donation may still bring the azione di riduzione. If that action succeeds, he or she has a claim for supplementation of the protected quota, which is now directed against the donee. The donee owes payment of an amount corresponding to the value of the benefit that infringed the forced share, insofar as this is necessary to restore the statutory minimum entitlement. The conflict is thus relocated back into the classic triangular relationship between the deceased, the donee and the forced heir.
The legislature provides an exception only for narrowly defined situations in which the donee is insolvent and has transferred the property gratuitously onwards, for example by making a further gift. In those cases, the forced heir may claim a proportional monetary indemnity from the new gratuitous acquirer, limited to the value of the benefit received. Even in these exceptional cases, however, the issue is no longer restitution of ownership, but payment of money. The acquisition of title remains, as a rule, untouched.
It is noteworthy that the legislature has not limited the new regime to immovable property, but has extended it to all assets recorded in public registers. This means that other registered assets, such as certain vehicles or ships, also fall within the new logic. The aim is a coherent and register-wide solution.
For practice, transitional provisions are particularly delicate. The legislature differentiates here between future estates and estates already opened. As a rule, the new legal regime is to apply to estates opening after the reform enters into force. If the deceased dies after that time, forced-heirship claims in respect of previously donated real estate fall directly under the new regime: the third-party purchaser is protected and the forced heir is referred to the donee.
For estates already opened, the statute provides for a transitional period. Within a limited time window, forced heirs may either commence proceedings or register a notarial opposition against the donation. If this option is exercised, the old legal regime continues in principle to apply to that constellation, with the consequence that recourse against third-party purchasers may still be possible. If, however, neither an action is brought nor an opposition registered within that period, the relevant legacy cases fall under the new rules.
Proceedings already pending are to be concluded under the previous provisions. Here the courts will have to clarify on a case-by-case basis how far the transitional provisions extend and in which situations the application of the new law in ongoing proceedings is excluded. For advisory practice, this means that pending and future estates must be carefully distinguished and the relevant time limits monitored with particular care.
The reform brings about a clear approximation to German forced-share law. In Germany, the Pflichtteil has always been a pure monetary claim against the heirs; supplementary claims in respect of gifts made during lifetime do not alter that. The forced heir does not participate directly in individual estate assets, but receives a payment claim based on the difference between the statutory inheritance share and what has actually been received.
Until now, Italian law diverged from this model by allowing, in the sphere of donated real estate and under certain conditions, proprietary recourse against third-party purchasers. The new regime amounts to a return to a clearer doctrinal distinction: in Italy as well, the forced share is in essence a monetary claim, and the circle of persons liable is, subject to the described exceptions, limited to the donee and his successors.
In German-Italian succession matters, this may facilitate coordination between the two legal systems. Wherever Italian substantive law applies, the risks for third-party purchasers and banks now become more predictable. At the same time, the protection of the forced share under Italian law remains intensive, both with regard to the amount of the protected quotas and the taking into account of lifetime gifts. The reform does not neutralise the forced share; it primarily removes frictions with legal commerce.
The reform of Italian forced-heirship and real estate law through the DDL Semplificazioni 2025 is more than a technical correction. It marks a fundamental paradigm shift in the relationship between mandatory succession law and the protection of transactions. The legislature turns away from a solution that in individual cases maximised the position of forced heirs but burdened the property market for decades, and opts instead for a system in which the interests of the legittimari are realised primarily where the economic benefit is actually located: with the donee.
For clients with Italian real estate interests, whether as purchasers, sellers, donors or heirs, it is worth reassessing previous risk evaluations. Numerous constellations in which one previously had to warn against involvement with property of provenienza donativa now appear significantly less problematic. At the same time, forced-heirship law remains a complex and dispute-prone area which, especially in cross-border settings, requires careful coordination between the applicable legal systems.
Sound legal advice should therefore take into account both the new statutory framework and the continuing particularities of Italian succession law and, where appropriate, build a bridge to German forced-share and property law. Only in this way can the potential of the reform truly be realised: greater legal certainty for purchasers and market participants without sacrificing the constitutionally anchored protection of forced heirs.