The Promissory Contract of Purchase and Sale (CPCV) is one of the most important instruments in Portuguese real estate law. Its relevance becomes evident whenever the buyer and seller reach an agreement on the essential elements of a future property transfer, establishing from the outset the fundamental terms of the transaction.
The CPCV sets out, in a binding manner, the conditions under which the final deed will be executed. It typically includes:
the price and payment terms
full identification of the property
essential deadlines
guarantees and obligations of each party
conditions for the handover of the property (traditio rei)
As an intermediate step, the CPCV provides legal certainty, reducing risks and protecting both parties until the final deed is executed.
Portuguese law is unequivocal regarding the formal requirements for a valid CPCV involving real estate. The contract is only valid if:
it is signed by both parties, and
the signatures are notarised in person.
Under Article 410(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code, the document must also include:
the in‑person notarisation of the signatures of the promisor(s), and
certification of the existence of the use licence or construction licence for the property.
The legislator’s intention is clear: to ensure the identity and authority of the signatories and to confirm that the property complies with legal documentation requirements, preventing illegal construction or the absence of a valid licence.
Failure to comply with this formality results in mixed invalidity of the contract. However, this invalidity may be remedied later, for example, by obtaining the required use or construction licence.
Portuguese case law consistently affirms that Article 410(3) establishes an imperative rule, designed to protect the promissory buyer given the significant financial and patrimonial interests involved. The notarisation requirement reinforces:
the solemnity of the act
the parties’ awareness of their obligations
the overall legal security of the transaction
It is common for parties to ask whether they can include a clause in the CPCV that waives the need for notarised signatures or prevents either party from invoking the resulting nullity.
The answer is unequivocal: they cannot.
Case law has repeatedly confirmed that:
Article 410(3) is a rule of public interest and mandatory nature
any clause attempting to waive the notarisation requirement is null and void
any clause preventing a party from invoking nullity is also null, under Article 220 of the Civil Code
Likewise, a clause that automatically classifies such an invocation as abuse of rights is invalid, as this assessment must always be made on a case‑by‑case basis.
Despite the mandatory nature of the rule, abuse of rights may occur when:
both parties knowingly dispense with the formal requirement
they execute the contract for months without raising objections
and only later does one party invoke nullity for convenience
In such cases, courts may consider the behaviour contrary to good faith.
Although the SIMPLEX legislative package introduced significant changes in urban planning — including the removal of the obligation to present the use licence in property transfer deeds — Article 410(3) of the Civil Code was not amended.
Therefore, the use or construction licence is still required for the notarisation of signatures in a CPCV.
The CPCV remains a fundamental instrument in Portuguese real estate transactions, requiring strict compliance with formal and documentary requirements. The notarisation of signatures and certification of the property’s licence are mandatory legal safeguards designed to protect both parties and ensure the legality of the transaction.