Real Estate Investment Newsletter - March 2026

Who is the owner in the case of overlapping registrations?

Determining ownership when two or more parties claim rights over the same property—or part of it—is one of the most complex and recurrent issues in real estate practice. This difficulty is heightened when each claimant holds a registered right, as occurs in cases of duplicate registry entries. In such scenarios, identifying the true owner requires the application of several legal principles.

In registry and judicial practice, it is common to rely almost automatically on the criterion of registration seniority, invoking Articles 2016 and 2022 of the Civil Code, as well as certain provisions of the registry system. From this perspective, it is argued that the holder of the right is the one whose registry entry is older than that of the opposing party, under the principle of registry priority. However, this interpretation is not always correct or sufficient to resolve ownership conflicts.

The principle of registry priority does not apply in cases of duplicate registry entries. As regulated in Articles 2016 and 2022 of the Civil Code, this principle is limited to resolving conflicts of enforceability between rights registered within the same registry entry, but not between rights registered in different entries, which is precisely the case in registry duplication. Therefore, mere registration seniority cannot, by itself, determine ownership.

In the absence of a clear rule, preference between competing apparent owners must be determined based on several factors. One of them is the analysis of the underlying titles. The mere seniority of a title does not guarantee its validity if it is affected by nullity, has been used in the commission of a crime or to conceal fraud, or is ineffective because it was executed with someone lacking authority or legal capacity.

When competing “owners” arise from duplicate registry entries, it is evident that not all titles can be valid. Only one of them could have been executed with the true owner of the property, and it is precisely that valid and effective title that must prevail in determining real ownership. Naturally, this criterion may be displaced if there are qualified third parties who, despite defects, are protected by legal mechanisms of priority (such as possession, older title, good faith, etc.).

However, the sufficiency-of-title criterion yields when acquisitive prescription, abandonment, reversion, expropriation, judicial auction, or any other original mode of acquisition of property comes into play. In such cases, by operation of law, these mechanisms prevail over others, even over older titles.

In conclusion, in cases of duplicate registry entries, ownership belongs to the party holding a valid and effective title, unless a qualified and preferential mode of acquisition has occurred. Therefore, to determine ownership in overlapping property scenarios, the analysis must follow a sequence: first, identify the duplication; second, examine the validity and effectiveness of the titles; and finally, verify whether a qualified mode of acquisition has taken place.