194 P.R. Dec. 852
P.R.2016Background
- Petitioner Jesús Bones Cruz sought to annotate a “derecho a hogar seguro” on a house in Arroyo that is registered 50/50 in his name and Alicia Figueroa Rosa’s name.
- He executed a notarized act (Escritura No. 15) individually (without Figueroa Rosa) on March 3, 2012 and presented it to the Registro de la Propiedad (Guayama) in December 2013.
- The Registrador denied inscription because the property has more than one registered owner and Article 9 of Law No. 195-2011 requires all cotitulares to appear and authorize the notarial act; the registrador relied on this office’s prior decision in Rivera García v. Registradora.
- Petitioner sought recalificación and then filed a recurso gubernativo arguing (1) the derecho de hogar seguro does not alter ownership and thus does not require other cotitulares’ consent, and (2) the statute’s purpose favors allowing individual registration; petitioner also asserted he could not locate the cotitular.
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the registrador’s denial, holding that when a property has multiple registered owners, all cotitulares must appear to authorize the notarial act claiming hogar seguro; a dissent argued the law does not require cotitular consent and that inscription is declarative and constitutes an act of conservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all cotitulares must appear to authorize a notarial act to annotate a derecho a hogar seguro on a property already registered to multiple owners | Bones: No; inscription does not transfer or diminish others’ ownership and thus individual owner may register the hogar seguro | Registrador: Yes; Article 9 and Rivera García require all registered owners to authorize the act when property has multiple titulars | Held: Yes — when a property has more than one registered owner, all cotitulares must appear to authorize the Acta Notarial claiming the derecho a hogar seguro; affirmation of registrador |
| Whether the registrador erred by denying inscription absent cotitular consent | Bones: Denial frustrates statute’s protective purpose and is procedurally unnecessary | Registrador: Application of statutory text and controlling precedent (Rivera García) required denial | Held: Registrador acted correctly applying Article 9 and Rivera García; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera García v. Registradora, 189 DPR 628 (P.R. 2013) (interpreting Art. 9 of Law No. 195-2011 to require all cotitulares to appear to authorize an act claiming hogar seguro on property with multiple registered owners)
- SLG Pérez Rivera v. Registradora, 189 DPR 729 (P.R. 2013) (discussing effects of anotación preventiva and prolongation of presentation entry pending appellate resolution)