Centro de Recaudación de Ingresos Municipales v. Bobé Santiago
193 P.R. 943
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2015Background
- CRIM seeks an order directing the Property Registrar (Sección de Humacao) to qualify Escritura núm. 6 (1995) —instrument regrouping several parcels— allegedly presented to the Registry on Aug. 1, 2000; the deed itself was not appended to the administrative petition.
- After transfers, IATG Puerto Rico, LLC is the purported purchaser; CRIM initiated a tax-collection action and obtained a final judgment authorizing public sale of the parcels.
- CRIM wrote the Registradora in 2014 asking about the status; the Registradora met with CRIM, allegedly told counsel she would qualify the deed “shortly,” but later —by phone— reportedly told CRIM she refused to qualify and noted possible curable defects (missing supporting documents).
- CRIM filed a Recurso Gubernativo in Feb. 2015 asking the Supreme Court to order qualification.
- Statutory/regulatory framework: Art. 76/64 Ley Hipotecaria governs appeals from a final refusal to qualify; Law 216-2010 and its Reglamento set time limits for qualification and administrative remedies (written demand; complaint to Director Administrativo), but provide no automatic inscription for elapsed time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear CRIM’s petition | Fifteen years without qualification (and an alleged phone refusal) amounts to a denial allowing Recurso Gubernativo | Registradora’s communications show no final/express refusal; facts show delay, possible curable defects and ongoing process —administrative remedies available | No jurisdiction: no final/express denial; record shows delay and communications indicating willingness to consider qualification; matter is administrative, not judicial at this stage |
| Effect of Law 216-2010 time limits on creating a private right to judicial relief | CRIM: statutory “improrrogable” terms and 15‑year delay justify court intervention | Majority: Law 216 creates administrative supervisory remedies, not automatic inscription or direct judicial cause of action | Law 216’s deadlines do not create automatic inscription nor a direct right to judicial mandamus; administrative remedies must be exhausted |
| Whether prolonged inaction can be treated as implicit denial | CRIM: prolonged inaction (15 years) constitutes de facto denial | Registradora: absence of a definitive act refusing qualification; exchanges and meetings contradict an abdication of duty | Majority: mere lapse of time is not enough; must show a manifest, final refusal. Dissent would treat 15 years as de facto denial |
| Proper remedy for delayed qualification | CRIM seeks court order to compel qualification | Registradora/majority: administrative demand, complaint to Director Administrativo, and disciplinary process are the appropriate channels | Court dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction; CRIM must pursue regulatory remedies first |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta v. Registrador, 159 DPR 626 (2003) (scope of Supreme Court review of registral qualifications)
- Housing Inv. Corp. v. Registrador, 110 DPR 490 (1980) (recurso gubernativo proper when registrar expressly refuses to qualify)
- SLG Pérez‑Rivera v. Registradora, 189 DPR 729 (2013) (administrative remedy for delay in recalification)
- Algarín v. Registrador, 110 DPR 603 (1981) (delay vs. express refusal; refusal needed for judicial intervention)
- Bechara Fagundo v. Registradora, 183 DPR 610 (2011) (registral qualification is core registral duty)
- BL Investment v. Registrador, 173 DPR 833 (2008) (principle of legality requires prior examination/qualification of titles)