Real Estate Investment Newsletter - July 2025

The real estate team at Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Abogados shares its fifth newsletter, featuring the most noteworthy real estate regulations, resolutions, and opinions from the month of July.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF PUBLIC REGISTRIES

On July 1, 2025, Resolution No. 00090-2025-SUNARP/SN of the National Superintendency of Public Registries was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, amending various articles of the Consolidated Text of the General Regulations of Public Registries, approved by Resolution No. 126-2012-SUNARP-SN. Below, we detail the main amendments:

The expiration of the filing entry as a means of concluding the registration procedure has been eliminated, leaving only the configuration of expiration as sufficient cause. In addition, the regulation of the Digital Intermediation System (SID-SUNARP) has been incorporated, allowing titles and withdrawals to be submitted in electronic format. Although the SID-SUNARP is available 24 hours a day, the entry in the Journal is only generated during business hours and in order of receipt.

Aspects regarding the submission of documents have also been clarified: public documents with a digital signature may be submitted in printed form if they include verification mechanisms such as the Digital Verification Code. Electronic copies of paper documents authenticated by an institutional notary public have legal value. In the case of physical court titles, if the applicant is acting on behalf of another person, the withdrawal may be submitted by their authorized representative. Likewise, an automatic extension of the validity of the filing entry is established if the payment of fees is made in the last five days, and another additional extension if a higher fee is paid.

Finally, the role of the Registrar and the Registry Court in ensuring compliance with registry and administrative principles is reinforced, with emphasis on the principle of predictability. Observations and objections must be drafted in clear language, with legal grounds and, if possible, indicate how to correct the errors. Vague or generic reasons are not accepted. Furthermore, the modification or clarification of the registrable act made after the filing entry in order to correct observations shall not be considered a substantive objection.

BILL No. 11977/2024-CR, BILL AMENDING THE ORGANIC LAW ON REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE FORMALIZATION OF PROPERTY

The bill seeks to enable regional governments to formulate, approve, and sign contracts, agreements, or inter-institutional cooperation agreements with provincial and district municipalities and/or public entities specializing in the formalization of informal property, through COFOPRI, in the provision of services for the formalization and physical and legal regularization of informal property in urban and urban expansion areas. The regulation would seek to expand the powers of regional governments to include the regularization of urban property, which is currently the responsibility of local governments.

BILL No. 10405/2024-CR, BILL AMENDING THE REGULATION OF URBAN INSPECTORS

The bill seeks to amend Article 4° of Law No. 29090, the Law on the Regulation of Urban Planning and Building Permits, with the aim of strengthening the role of urban reviewers. Urban reviewers verify that urban and building projects comply with current regulations, issuing a technical report according to their area of expertise. The bill proposes that the Associations of Architects and Engineers take over the administration, supervision, and oversight of urban reviewers, functions that currently fall to the Ministry of Housing. Each association would manage its own registry, applying merit-based competitions for the registration of qualified professionals.

The bill proposes the creation of a Technical Review Body, made up of representatives from the Associations of Architects and Engineers, responsible for reviewing appeals and exercising sanctioning functions over Urban Reviewers, although it has not yet been defined which public entity it would be attached to.

PUBLIC PROPERTY

In this section, we will discuss public property. Specifically, we will address its material and formal requirements. This topic is relevant because not all state-owned land is public property and, therefore, is not always subject to the limitations and restrictions applicable to this type of property.

As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that state-owned properties are classified as public or private property. Public property is that which is intended for public use or which serves as a support for the provision of a public service. These properties include beaches, squares, roads, and paths. Because they are involved in public use or service, the State exercises administrative powers over these properties (paragraph 2, section 3.3 of Article 3° of Supreme Decree No. 008-2021-VIVIENDA)[1].

Public domain assets are characterized by being inalienable, unattachable, and imprescriptible. In other words, they are excluded from legal transactions. On this point, Article 73° of the Constitution establishes that “Public domain assets are inalienable and imprescriptible. Assets for public use may be granted to private individuals in accordance with the law for their economic exploitation.”

Private property, on the other hand, is property that is not intended for public use or service and over which the State exercises private ownership. This includes all State-owned land not used for public purposes. In other words, all property that is not public property.

Private property is transferable and attachable, although it is also imprescriptible. This imprescriptibility is provided for in Law No. 29618, with the exceptions provided for in Law No. 32267 (reclamation of land occupied by human settlements) and Law No. 32371 (agricultural land), among other legal provisions.

However, from the definitions set forth in Article 3° of Supreme Decree No. 008-2021-VIVIENDA, it can be noted that public domain assets are those assets owned by the state, which are intended for public use and whose administration and management corresponds to a public entity. These rules provide for three concurrent requirements: public ownership, public utility, and public responsibility.

In this regard, it is not enough for the property to belong to the State (ownership basis) or to be factually intended for public use (factual basis), but it must also be managed by a public agency that ensures its administration and care (institutional basis). Naturally, in order to comply with these requirements, it will be necessary to verify whether there is a formal act declaring the existence of the public domain asset and assigning competence to a specific entity for its administration and conservation (act of appropriation)[2].

In effect, the act of appropriation is the most important requirement for determining the existence of public property, not only because it compromises the jurisdiction of a public entity, which ends up assuming responsibility for the property, but also for market reasons. Appropriation excludes state assets from legal transactions, making them inalienable and unattachable. In other words, it converts them into limited property or ownership. Sectoral regulations establish that this type of property can only be subject to acts of administration and others that do not involve loss of ownership, such as transfer of use, usufruct, easement, lease, etc. These acts must not distort or hinder the normal functioning of the public use of the asset or the provision of the service (Article 18-A of Law No. 29151).

Finally, the source of the encumbrance can be discussed, whether it should be legal or administrative. In our opinion, both avenues are suitable, although, depending on the wording of the law, it will be necessary to assess whether an enforcement action is required to declare the existence and extent of the public domain asset. Similarly, when exercising administrative powers over the property, the State may grant surface rights over these assets, either through administrative authorizations or surface contracts. In this case, it will be necessary to evaluate the applicable special regulation to determine the applicable route and the sufficiency of the administrative authorization to grant a surface right.