Real Estate Investment Alert - September 2026

On September 17, 2026, various binding precedents approved at the CCCXXIV (324th) Plenary Session of the Registry Court, held on August 27 and 28, 2026, were published in the Official Gazette El Peruano. The precedents concern the electronic filing of titles, subdivisions based on archived titles, non-compliance with notice periods for general assemblies, and the requirement to submit the Cadastral Information Certificate.

The first precedent addresses the submission of documents through SID-SUNARP. The Registry Court clarified that documents filed by a notary through this platform are authenticated by the notary’s digital signature, which guarantees their authenticity and integrity and produces the same legal effects as a handwritten signature. Accordingly, documents filed through SID-SUNARP may not be deemed false or treated as simple copies for registry purposes. However, in the case of certified copies of minutes or certifications of signatures, in addition to digital validation, the certifications required under Articles 104 and 106 of Legislative Decree No. 1049 must also be included.

The second precedent clarifies that the general rule whereby subdivision acts must be requested by the owner or co-owners does not apply to subdivisions carried out as part of the regularization procedure provided for in the Seventh Transitory Provision of the Regulations for Registration in the Property Registry. This is because such procedure does not entail a new physical alteration of the property, but rather seeks to record in the Registry a pre-existing situation already reflected in the registry records. Its nature is similar to that of a registry rectification, which may be requested by any interested party. The sole limitation to its admissibility is that the subdivision may not affect rights previously registered in favor of third parties.

The third precedent concerns the effects of failure to comply with statutory or regulatory notice periods for convocations. The Registry Court held that failure to comply with such periods constitutes, in principle, an incurable defect that renders the general assembly invalid and warrants the substantive rejection of the title. However, it clarified that where the discrepancy in calculating the notice period constitutes merely a clerical or transcription error that does not affect the corporate will or the members’ participation rights, the defect will be deemed curable, and an objection should be issued to allow for its clarification or correction.

Finally, the Registry Court clarified the binding precedent concerning the submission of the Cadastral Information Certificate, confirming that this document is required for the first registration and physical modification of rural properties, including properties located in non-cadastral areas. It also confirmed that negative certificates stating that an area is not cadastral are no longer applicable to these procedures. As an exception, the Court established that the certificate is not required for title regularization acts involving state-owned property carried out by Regional Formalization Entities.