Real Estate Investment Newsletter - April 2026

The new Consolidated Text (Texto Único Ordenado) of the Law on General Administrative Procedure – Law No. 27444 is approved

On April 30, 2026, Supreme Decree No. 006-2026-JUS was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, approving the new Consolidated Text (Texto Único Ordenado – TUO) of Law No. 27444, the Law on General Administrative Procedure (LPAG). The purpose of this regulation is to compile and systematize the multiple amendments introduced in recent years, which were primarily aimed at the digitalization of administrative procedures, the standardization of processes, the rationalization of fees, and the expeditious resolution of appeals.

The new TUO of the LPAG organizes and summarizes the changes introduced by Legislative Decree No. 1497, concerning electronic notifications. The regulation clarifies within the LPAG that the express consent of the administered party to be notified by electronic means may also be granted electronically.

In the area of digital document management, the regulation incorporates the changes introduced by Law No. 31465, which established that entities must maintain a permanently available digital filing office (mesa de partes digital).

With respect to administrative appeals, the regulation incorporates the amendments introduced by Law No. 31603, which established that motions for reconsideration must be resolved within 15 business days, thereby reducing response times and reinforcing procedural efficiency.

Finally, regarding simplification and standardization, the regulation incorporates the amendments introduced by Legislative Decree No. 1561, which established the mandatory content of the TUPA with respect to access channels, services provided on an exclusive basis, and applicable forms, in addition to administrative procedures, and further developed aspects of the process for the ratification of fees or processing charges, articulating competencies between the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (PCM) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF).

OPPOSABILITY FACTORS

In a previous installment, the main criteria for resolving conflicts of rights in cases of overlapping registrations were addressed, emphasizing the insufficiency of an automatic solution based exclusively on registration priority. To determine to whom ownership corresponds, the analysis must follow a methodological sequence: first, identifying the existence of duplication; then, examining the validity and effectiveness of the titles; and, finally, verifying whether any qualified mode of acquisition of ownership has occurred. When this analysis does not allow the determination of the preferential right, because the parties are in similar conditions, it is necessary to resort to the so-called mechanisms of cognoscibility.

In real estate matters, the principal mechanisms of cognoscibility are registration and possession. Both mechanisms perform an informative function with respect to ownership, although they differ in scope and levels of reliability. The registry provides formal, centralized, and standardized publicity, aimed at ensuring predictability and reducing transaction costs. Possession, in turn, constitutes a form of material publicity of the right, based on its effective and socially perceptible exercise.

From an ideal perspective, both mechanisms should coincide. The concurrence of registration and possession significantly reinforces the recognizability of the right and its opposability against third parties. However, when this does not occur—when the registered owner does not coincide with the possessor—conflicts arise in which the determination of prevalence cannot be resolved through rigid rules.

Indeed, in such cases, opposability requires assessing which of the two available mechanisms offers, in the specific case, greater scope, precision, and reliability in informing third parties of ownership. Neither registration nor possession can be preferred absolutely: disregarding the registry may deprive it of its ordering function; but ignoring possession may distort the factual reality.

This circumstance requires a case-by-case assessment, taking into account each mechanism’s effective capacity to render the right opposable against third parties and to reduce uncertainty in real estate transactions. For this purpose, it is useful to identify certain guiding criteria that allow structuring such assessment without falling into arbitrariness.

A first criterion is the antiquity and continuity of each mechanism. A very old registration that has not been followed by subsequent acts of disposition or encumbrance may not prevail over a consolidated, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession over time. Conversely, a chain of successively registered transfers—even where possession is held by a third party—may generate a sufficiently robust registral recognizability to prevail over a recent and uncertain possession.

A second criterion is the effective publicity of each mechanism. Registration, in principle, has general publicity: any person may consult the registry and ascertain the formal ownership of the asset. However, such publicity may be diminished where the registry system presents technical deficiencies, outdated information, or inconsistencies. In such cases, possession—exercised in a visible manner, through evident material acts—may provide more accessible and reliable information for those intending to acquire or contract over the asset.

A third criterion is the good faith of each holder. A person who registers with knowledge of a pre-existing, consolidated, and public possession cannot fully invoke the protection afforded by registration. Likewise, possession exercised with knowledge of another’s registered ownership significantly reduces its capacity to prevail. Good faith thus operates as a corrective factor that modulates the weight of each mechanism according to the subjective circumstances of the case.

The application of these criteria does not lead to the automatic predominance of registration over possession, nor vice versa. The solution will depend on the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account the particularities of each party involved, as well as the scope and characteristics of their possession and registration.