Bill 95/2026: Possible new contours for the protection of small rural property

On February 2, 2026, Bill 95/2026 was introduced in the Federal Senate by Senator Flávio Arns (PSB/PR). The proposal seeks to amend legal frameworks related to security interests and asset protection, with the goal of reinforcing and expanding the protection afforded to small rural properties against attachment and enforcement measures.

Protection of small rural property, however, is not new to the Brazilian legal system. Article 5, item XXVI of the Federal Constitution already provides for its non-attachability when worked by the family. In the same line, the Code of Civil Procedure, in article 833, item VIII, also classifies this asset as non-attachable.

To grasp the scope of this protection, it is important to define what counts as small rural property. In broad terms, agrarian legislation considers as such a rural property with an area between one and four fiscal modules, per article 4, item II, sub-item "a" of Law 8.629/1993.

Although constitutional and procedural protection already exists, Bill 95/2026 seeks to reinforce the non-attachability of small rural property — particularly in scenarios that still generate controversy in practice.

Current protection, while relevant, does not fully eliminate discussions about the scope of non-attachability. In practice, controversies remain regarding the possibility of attachment or enforcement of the property in certain types of obligations, especially in transactions involving fiduciary collateral.

That is precisely where the bill intends to advance. If approved, Bill 95/2026 would expressly provide for protection where rural activity has been affected by weather events, pests, diseases or by commercial or market setbacks and frustrations.

The proposal also seeks to extend this protection to operations involving fiduciary alienation, which represents a potential broadening of the protection of small rural property to scenarios that, under current dominant interpretation, are not always covered by non-attachability in the strict sense.

One point likely to spark greater debate is the reference to "commercial or market setbacks and frustrations." Unlike the other situations mentioned in the bill — typically tied to more objective, delimitable events — this expression has more open and subjective contours, which may give rise to controversies in its practical application.

From a credit-recovery perspective, the progress of this discussion deserves attention, since it directly impacts the assessment of the effectiveness and enforceability of guarantees, as well as the very pricing of risk in rural credit operations. Depending on the final wording approved and, above all, on how the rule is interpreted, it will be even more relevant to assess in concrete terms the context in which a given procedural or contractual guarantee was constituted.

In sum, Bill 95/2026 reveals a trend of strengthening protection for small rural property in scenarios of productive, economic and contractual vulnerability. If approved, it could significantly impact how creditors, debtors and legal practitioners assess risk, security and recoverability in rural credit.