Real Estate Investment Newsletter - May 2026

Amendments to Various Provisions of the Property Registry Registration Regulations

On May 7, 2026, Resolution No. 00059-2026-SUNARP/SN was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, introducing amendments to various provisions of the Property Registry Registration Regulations. The purpose of the resolution is to simplify certain administrative requirements and align the regulations with recent legal developments.

With respect to urban development projects, the regulation provides for the preventive registration of development plans, allowing for the pre-subdivision of lots and the pre-registration of building declarations, provided that there is an urban development license with simultaneous construction and guaranteed sale. In addition, the requirement for municipal seals on documents related to the acceptance of works has been eliminated, and the subdivision of mandatory land contributions directly in favor of the beneficiary entities has been streamlined.

The amendments also introduce simplification measures for the consolidation of properties by clarifying cadastral requirements and eliminating the need for repetitive authorizations when properties are subject to the same security interest or precautionary measure. Furthermore, the representation requirements for the registration of building declarations and demolitions have been relaxed, and the cancellation of technical encumbrances on subdivided property records has been facilitated. Building declarations and demolitions may now be registered with the participation of either spouse when the property belongs to a marital partnership, and, in cases of co-ownership, with the participation of co-owners representing an absolute majority interest.

Finally, the regulation incorporates greater flexibility for amending internal regulations governing real estate units. Such amendments may now be formalized through either a private document with notarized signatures or a public deed, including on a unilateral basis where an authorizing clause exists and no other real estate units are affected.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Administrative Acts

The use of artificial intelligence tools in administrative action raises an important tension with traditional legal concepts, particularly the notion of a declaration of will as a constitutive element of a legal act. Under the classical approach, the validity of a legal act depends on a manifestation of will that is free, conscious, and attributable to a person, which is difficult to reconcile with statements generated by digital systems lacking independent judgment. However, this rule admits exceptions in the administrative context.

Indeed, administrative law recognizes several situations in which the State’s declaration does not result from a direct volitional process, such as administrative silence or automatic approval procedures. In these cases, genuine administrative acts exist without any psychological manifestation of will. What is required is that the act be attributable to a competent authority and consistent with the legal framework. From this perspective, the use of artificial intelligence is not inherently incompatible with the validity of an administrative act, provided that a competent authority adopts and endorses the decision.

Under the current legal framework, artificial intelligence may be validly used as a support tool in the processing, reasoning, and issuance of administrative acts, as it constitutes a material activity aimed at improving the efficiency of administrative action. In all cases, however, the participation of a public official is required to adopt the declaration and assume responsibility for its content. The complete delegation of decision-making authority to artificial intelligence is not currently permitted, as administrative powers may only be assigned or transferred to legally authorized bodies or entities.

Consistent with the foregoing, the use of artificial intelligence does not, in itself, invalidate an administrative act or undermine its presumption of validity. Any challenge should focus on the substance of the decision—such as errors, inadequate reasoning, or violations of the law—rather than on the use of the technology itself. In such cases, the issue would concern defective reasoning, a legally impossible object, or inconsistency with the applicable legal framework. Accordingly, what may be challenged is the outcome generated through artificial intelligence, not the mere fact that the technology was used. This supports the conclusion that its use does not compromise the independence of the authority or the conduct of due administrative process, provided that the authority has reviewed, verified, and formally adopted the content of the decision.

It is not possible to establish a general legal defect or remedy applicable to all administrative acts issued or supported through artificial intelligence systems. Each case must therefore be assessed on its own merits. Ultimately, artificial intelligence represents a paradigm shift that requires traditional legal categories to be reinterpreted from a functional perspective, prioritizing administrative efficiency while preserving the guarantees of due administrative process.