Real Estate Investment Newsletter - October 2025

Guidelines approved for the ex officio updating of the Registry Graphic Database

On October 24, 2025, Resolution No. 00161-2025-SUNARP/SN was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, regulating the procedure for the ex officio updating of the registry graphic database. The resolution seeks to establish a standardized procedure for updating the graphic registry database, allowing any person, including the authorities, to request the verification, modification, or incorporation of polygons of properties registered in the graphic registry database, either through observations in the BGR Viewer or through a formal request, either in person or online (MTDV).

Requests must contain the following minimum information: name and ID number of the applicant, entry number, registry area and office, and details of the lot or plot. Requests are limited to four entries per request.

Requests will be processed within ten (10) business days, except in cases of bulk requests from public entities, which will be processed progressively according to operational capacity. Updates will only be made if there is sufficient technical information in the archived titles; otherwise, the user will be notified that it is not possible to process the request.

Finally, it should be noted that updating the graphic database does not constitute a publicity or registration service, and that the result will be communicated by the same means by which the request was received.

The Public Hearing of the XI Civil Cassation Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic was held

On October 29, 2025, the hearing of the XI Civil Cassation Plenary Session was held, with the aim of establishing uniform jurisprudential criteria on the acquisitive prescription of ownership. This legal concept, which is important for real estate practice, has been treated differently by judges throughout the country, affecting legal certainty and the principle of equality before the law. In view of this, the aim is to set a binding precedent for the entire national justice system.

The hearing addressed key issues such as peaceful, continuous, public, and owner possession; the interruption and suspension of the statute of limitations; the concept of just title; the sum of possessory periods; the evidentiary standard of possession; the types of acquisitive prescription; and the non-prescriptibility of state property under Law No. 29618.

On this occasion, we will address possession and its potential to be the subject of real estate contracts. The issue is relevant, given that in real estate practice it is common to enter into contracts for the transfer of possession and/or possessory rights and actions, without necessarily involving ownership or other real rights. Only possession is negotiated, with the intention of acquiring ownership later, by contracting with whoever is determined to be the true owner. With this in mind, it is necessary to determine whether these contracts are valid or not.

To answer this question, it is important to delve into the legal nature of possession. It must be determined whether possession is a fact or a right. While we do not seek to settle the debate, we consider acceptable the thesis that possession can be considered an autonomous real right and, therefore, can be the subject of a contract. This position is supported by the following two arguments:

Considering the above, it can be argued that possession can indeed be the subject of a contract. There is an express rule. That is, Article 898 of the Civil Code. Naturally, given the obligatory nature of contracts, the subject matter will be the transfer of possession itself. No obligations are assumed and no rights are granted other than the transfer itself.

It is worth mentioning that this thesis is compatible with the economic reality of the country, where most of the land is not registered and there is no certainty as to its true owners. Possession is perhaps the economic reality that can be observed and proven to the greatest extent, so the parties have no choice but to contract on that basis.

It is important to note that there are exceptions to this rule. It is important to rule out the possibility that the land is registered in the name of third parties or that there are circumstances that reveal that the possessor has no rights and that their occupation contravenes the applicable rules. The various civil cassation plenary sessions that have modulated the scope of the concept must also be taken into account. If these scenarios are verified, the contracts could be challenged, not because they lack a valid object, since possession can be the object of contracts, but because of an unlawful purpose or lack of legitimacy, which renders the agreements invalid and/or ineffective, depending on the case.