Considerations on the Theory of the Module and the Subdivision of Rural Land

Abstract

The article examines the theory of the rural module and the subdivision of rural land, with the aim of demonstrating, on the one hand, the unconstitutionality of the attempt to alter, solely for the Federal District, the minimum subdivision fraction of the horticultural module and, on the other hand, of systematizing the legal modalities and formal requirements governing rural land subdivision. It adopts a legal-dogmatic methodology based on the analysis of the Constitution, the Land Statute, agrarian and land registration legislation, specialized legal scholarship, and the normative framework governing the module and the minimum subdivision fraction. It argues that increasing the minimum subdivision fraction in the Federal District from two to five hectares, by an isolated and discretionary criterion, violates the principle of equality and disrupts the general technical-scientific logic of Agrarian Law, which was designed to prevent the formation of minifundia and to ensure the democratization of access to land. The article further shows that the subdivision of rural land takes different forms, such as urbanization, industrialization, formation of leisure smallholdings, private colonization, and simple subdivision, each subject to specific requirements of approval, control, and registration, the latter being regulated mainly by compliance with the legal minimum dimensions and by notarial and land registration oversight. It concludes that the agrarian legal regime of rural land subdivision must be interpreted in a systematic, uniform, and federally coherent manner, prohibiting casuistic changes that undermine both the social function of property and the integrity of the national legal framework governing land structure.