Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Zorrilla Posada y otro, 2024 TSPR 62

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) sought to execute a mortgage on a property following borrower’s default.
The mortgage, per both its contract and foreclosure petition, described the property as 252 square meters, but an earlier registry inscription listed it as 600 square meters following a judicial possession proceeding in 1974.
The Registrador (Registrar of Property) later issued a note unilaterally clarifying the cabida should be 600 square meters, referencing the earlier inscription.
BPPR argued this clarification corrected the contract’s error and extended the mortgage to the full 600 square meters.
Manny Dávila, Inc. (property holder) contested, arguing that only 252 square meters were ever mortgaged, and a registrar’s annotation cannot amend a contractual registry entry without consent or a court order.
Lower courts granted summary judgment for BPPR, but the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico was asked to review whether that was proper given the factual dispute over the property’s true mortgaged area.

Issue	BPPR's Argument	Manny Dávila, Inc.'s Argument	Held
Can a registrar’s note alone amend a mortgage’s property ascription?	Yes; the note clarifies the error, extending coverage to 600 sqm.	No; such amendment requires parties’ consent or a judicial order.	No; only consent or court order can change a registered mortgage’s area.
Should summary judgment have been granted with factual dispute over the property’s size?	Yes; no material dispute, intent was to mortgage the whole property.	No; there is a genuine dispute over the area subject to the mortgage.	No; issue about true covered area is material and requires trial.
Does the error in the mortgage’s area impact the validity/enforceability of the mortgage?	No; the error was corrected in the registry, so the full area is included.	Yes; the mortgage is only valid for the area specified in its terms.	Error in cabida is material where no proper procedure was followed to amend.
Can a judicial summary process resolve this type of registry correction dispute?	Yes; the record suffices to establish all facts.	No; trial is required due to factual disputes over contract scope/intent.	No; trial is necessary, summary judgment was improper.

Gasolinas PR v. Registrador, 155 DPR 652 (P.R. 2001) (rectification by registrar cannot prejudice rights of registered holders without consent or court order)
Westernbank v. Registradora, 174 DPR 779 (P.R. 2008) (elements and requirements for valid mortgage under Puerto Rican law)
Lugo Montalvo v. Sol Meliá Vacation, 194 DPR 209 (P.R. 2015) (standards for summary judgment).
Córdova Dexter v. Sucn. Ferraiuoli, 182 DPR 541 (P.R. 2011) (material fact in dispute bars summary judgment).