DONATIONS, FORCED HEIRS AND THIRD PARTIES. ARTICLE 44 LAW 182/2025 REDESIGNS THE PLAYING FIELD

1. Introduction

Article 44 of Law 2 December 2025, no. 182 in force as of 18 December 2025 (“Law 182/2025”) [1], recasts the remedies available in the context of Italian forced heirship rules[2][3], shifting the protection of forced heirs from property-based remedies to monetary claims. The stated objective of Article 44 is to facilitate the circulation of gifted real estate and access to credit. [4] The market implications are significant, given that annual real-estate donations in Italy are estimated at over 200,000, representing a substantial share of the national housing stock. [5] This reform aligns Italy with the solutions that are prevailing in the EU, as reflected in Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 [6] and domestic models such as the German Pflichtteil [7]. Read together with Legislative Decree No. 139/2024 on the rationalization and self-assessment of inheritance, registration and donation taxes, Article 44 marks a broader shift towards a more predictable, bankable framework for both inter vivos and mortis causa transfers.  

2. From an overprotected bloodline to a compensation-based system

To grasp the significance of new Article 44, one must first appreciate the legal background of the previous regime. For around one a half century, anyone buying previously donated real estate could, years later, be compelled to hand it back to the donor’s heirs. This rationale was to prioritized the bloodline-based forced heirship principle over the free movement of real estate and the good-faith purchaser’s position. Under the former rules, a forced heir whose reserved share was impaired could bring an “action for reduction” against the donee and, if the donee’s assets were insufficient to satisfy the forced heir’s entitlement, could then sue the subsequent acquirers through an “action for claw-back/restitution” (Articles 561, 562 and 563 Civil Code). The forced heir held a right, armed with ius sequelae, i.e. a right attached to the property through all subsequent transfers, with the potential to unravel mortgages and other security interests granted in favor of good-faith third parties. It is precisely this mechanism that Article 44 dismantles recasting Articles 561, 562, 563, 2652 and 2690 of the Civil Code.  

3. Article 563 Civil Code. Obligation of the donee and liability of gratuitous transferees

The key innovation is to be found in the amendment to Article 563 of the Civil Code. Under the former rules, the forced heir was entitled to restitution of the donated real estate – even if it had been sold to a third party – where the donee’s assets were insufficient to satisfy the forced heir’s entitlement, provided that no more than twenty years had elapsed since registration with the Land Register [8] of the donation. The new rule provides instead that an action for reduction of a donation does not prejudice third parties who have acquired the property from the donee for value, provided that the purchaser has registered the deed of acquisition before the forced heir has registered the claim for reduction (Article 2652(1) Civil Code). In such cases, the forced heirs are entitled to obtain from the donee monetary compensation to the extent necessary to reinstate their reserved share or, where the donee is insolvent and has transferred the asset by gratuitous transfer, to obtain monetary compensation from the transferee within the limits of the benefit received. Protection of the forced heir is therefore not abolished but converted into a monetary claim against the donee, equal to what is needed to restore their reserved share. The legislature thus trades in-kind protection for greater legal certainty and stability. For practical purposes, the focus of legal advice shifts. For a forced heir, the issue is no longer who holds the asset – since the third-party purchaser is structurally protected – but whether the donee (and, where relevant, their gratuitous transferees) is solvent. The effectiveness of the remedy depends on the debtor’s financial health. The same framework extends to registered movables, coordinated with Article 2690, which now aligns the protection afforded where the transferor is a donee with that provided where the transferor is an heir or legatee. In this connection, it is recalled that registered movables are not only vehicles, but likewise vessel and aircraft whose value may evidently be considerable.  

4. The new Articles 561 and 2652 Civil Code. Encumbrances, mortgages and the end of symmetry between donee and legatee

  The intervention on Article 561 Civil Code is less visible, but equally relevant. Under the former rules:

1. The first sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code provided that, where an action for reduction of a donation was brought, the immovable property had to be restored to the estate free from any encumbrances or mortgages created by the legatee or the donee. This “cleansing” effect applied only if the claim for reduction was registered within ten years from the opening of the succession pursuant to Article 2652(1)(8). Once that period had elapsed, any rights acquired for value by third parties under an instrument registered before the claim for reduction were preserved, even in the face of a judgment upholding the action.
2. The second sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code provided that encumbrances and mortgages remain effective only if the action for reduction is brought more than twenty years after registration of the donation, subject, however, to the donee’s obligation to compensate the forced heirs in money for the reduced value of the assets where the claim for reduction is brought within ten years from the opening of the succession.

Following the amendments, the regime set out in the first sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code remains applicable only where it is the legatee who has encumbered the property to be restored with charges and/or mortgages. This provision should be read together with Article 2652(1)(8) Civil Code, also as amended, which requires registration of claims for reduction of testamentary dispositions infringing the reserved share. That provision now stipulates that the action (in practice, the restitution remedy) is always enforceable against purchasers from the heir or legatee for three years from the opening of the succession. The reform thus cuts from ten to three years within which the forced heir must register the claim to keep it effective against third parties acquiring the property from the heir or legatee and clarifies that this regime governs conflicts between the forced heir and such third parties. Thereafter, priority depends on which is registered first: the claim for reduction or the third party’s acquisition. An immediate effect should be to facilitate the circulation of immovable property acquired mortis causa, by reducing from ten to three years the timeframe during which the action for reduction can be asserted against third parties – mirroring the solution adopted for registered movables in Article 2690(1)(5) Civil Code. By contrast, under the amended second sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code, encumbrances and mortgages created by the donee over the property remain effective, and the donee is required to compensate the injured forced heirs in money for the lower value of the assets, within the limit necessary to restore their reserved share. This is without prejudice, pursuant to Article 2652(1)(1), to the protection of rights acquired by third parties who registered their rights over the property before the claim for reduction. A simplified regime is thus introduced, as compared with the rules laid down in the second sentence of Article 561(1) of the Civil Code. In substance, under the amended Article 561 Civil Code:

• For the legatee, nothing changes in principle. Any property restored as a result of an action for reduction must be returned free of encumbrances and mortgages created by the legatee, subject to a re-balancingrule, introducing the three-year term from the opening of the succession, beyond which third-party acquirers from the heir or legatee who have registered before the claim are in any case protected.
• For the donee, the principle is reversed. Encumbrances and mortgages created by the donee on assets subject to restitution remain effective. The “cleansing” effect of the action for restitution is shifted onto the donee’s estate, which must compensate forced heirs in money for the reduced value of the encumbered asset, to the extent needed to reintegrate their share.

For the real-estate market, the message is that a mortgage granted to a bank over property deriving from a donation no longer risks vanishing because of an action for reduction. It is exposed only – like any other claim – to the debtor’s insolvency. A further, less visible feature is the extension of this model to registered movables and even to unregistered movables. The new Article 561 expressly refers to movables recorded in public registers and, in a newly added sentence, to unregistered movables. This is a systemic move in the sense that legal protection of assets arising from succession is no longer one of “variable-geometry” depending on the nature of the asset.  

5. Article 562 Civil Code and the estate reduction

Article 562 Civil Code, often nearly forgotten in legal textbooks, returns to the foreground. In its amended form, it provides that if the donated property has perished through the fault of the donee or of his or her successors, or if a situation arises where  the property can no longer be effectively seized (typically because it is burdened with enforceable mortgages or transferred to third parties protected under Article 563), and the donee is insolvent, the unrecoverable value is deducted from the estate. This occurs “without prejudice to the claims of the forced heir and of prior donees against the insolvent donee”. By this provision, a subtle exercise in engineering the calculation of the forced share is introduced. On the one hand, it avoids locking forced heirs into a permanent reduction of their share owing to “evaporated” donations; on the other, it confirms that the natural means of protection is the obligation relationship between forced heir and donee, not the rights in rem over the property. The system thus remains coherent with Articles 536 et seq. Civil Code (forced heirship) and with the mathematical structure underpinning calculation of the reserved share.  

6. Transitional rules. A six-month window of high-stakes litigation

Paragraph 2 of Article 44 introduces a transitional regime.

• Successions opened after entry into force. The new rules apply in full, so that no further “at-risk” situations for third-party purchasers should arise in the future.
• Successions already opened at the date of entry into force. These remain governed by the old regime, but only if:

• a claim for reduction has already been served and registered; or
• such claim is served and registered within six months from entry into force; or
• within the same term an out-of-court notice of opposition to the donation is served and registered, following the pattern already known under former Article 563, fourth paragraph, Civil Code.

In the absence of any such steps within the six-month window, the new regime extends even to earlier successions, producing a kind of “general amnesty” for past donations. At least two consequences stand out:

1. For several years, two “stocks” of donated properties will coexist: those still exposed to possible actions for restitution (because protected by opposition or a registered claim) and those fully “clean”. Due diligence will need to check not only the date of the succession, but also the presence of any registrations or oppositions within the relevant six-month period.
2. Oppositions already registered before the reform remain fully effective, as paragraph 2 expressly confirms by referring to former Article 563; this means that potential litigation remain in place and will continue to follow the old rules for many years.

 

7. Insurance features

It is finally recalled that, under the old regime, there existed a florid market for expensive insurance to cover the risk of third-party acquirers if an action for restitution by forced heirs against donees and legatees proved successful. With new regime, much emphasis is taken away from the issue, and this particular incidental cost hampering the circulation of immovables ought to fade away.   Takeaways Within a few months, transactional practice will look very different. In sales of property derived from donations, clauses making completion conditional on insurance or waivers from forced heirs will become the exception rather than the rule. Notarial and banking due diligence will focus on checking the registers for claims for reduction and notices of opposition, rather than tracing back the remote history of the donor’s family. In wealth-planning strategies, the straightforward donation – long viewed as a double-edged sword – may regain ground over more complex structures (family settlement agreements, trusts, corporate holding vehicles), at least for medium-high-net-worth clients seeking simple, financeable solutions. A political-legal question remains: how far can the reserved share be compressed without betraying its social function? The reform does not abolish forced heirship, but it profoundly alters its grammar: from the language of assets to that of money. It will fall to the courts – and, even earlier, to the practices of leading law firms and notaries – to determine whether this new equilibrium between family conflict and market efficiency can withstand the test of real-world cases.  

Download the article.

---