Real Estate Investment Newsletter - September 2025

Rodrigo's real estate team shares its seventh newsletter, featuring the most noteworthy real estate regulations and opinions from September.

Law Promoting the Productive, Competitive, and Sustainable Transformation of the Agricultural Sector with Social Protection for Modern Agriculture is Approved

On September 10, 2025, Law No. 32434 was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, establishing a legal framework to promote the transformation of the agricultural sector, with an emphasis on formalization, associativity, and social protection for small producers. To this end, the law provides for tax exemptions and benefits, as well as various rules related to agricultural property.

In addition to tax exemptions and benefits, the regulation removes the limitations and restrictions related to property extension and change of ownership, which were provided for in Legislative Decree No. 653 and its regulatory provisions. This puts an end to any discussion about the validity of these restrictions, considering the new constitutional framework.

The law also reiterates that holders of state-owned rustic land can regularize their legal status with regional governments, provided that possession began no later than December 31, 2020, and that current possession is public, peaceful, and continuous.

Similarly, owners of state-owned uncultivated land that is used exclusively for agricultural activities may regularize their legal status through a direct award procedure, provided that they took possession of the land before December 31, 2020. Depending on the status of the owner (small agricultural producer, association, cooperative, or agricultural company), they may pay one-third of the land's assessed value or the full amount.

New Binding Precedents from the SUNARP Registration Tribunal on Registration and Procedural Matters Published

On September 12, 2025, various binding precedents relating to Public Registries were published in the Official Gazette El Peruano. In this regard, requirements for registering the subdivision of urban properties are specified. Likewise, matters related to the transfer of ownership by intestate succession, the rectification of entries, and the submission of documents through the intermediation system are also addressed.

In order to register the subdivision of urban properties, prior registration of urban development has been established as a requirement, even if the change of use from rural to urban has already been registered. The precedent specifies that this requirement will not apply if the separation is carried out within the framework of the legal physical reorganization of informal urban property.

On the other hand, it is established that the transfer of ownership by intestate succession constitutes a single and unvalued act, and therefore does not generate additional registration fees for each heir. The same rule applies in the case of corrections to entries.

Similarly, it is established that the registration of a correction of entries will be prevented if it harms a third party, regardless of whether their right is gratuitous or onerous, excluding rights acquired by succession. For this purpose, it is specified that the concept of third party registration in Article 2014 of the Civil Code does not apply.

Finally, it is specified that when two or more transfers of public deeds are attached to a title, one of which must be submitted through SID-SUNARP and the other on paper, the submission of both on paper is admissible if they are inseparable acts. This establishes an exception to the mandatory submission through SID-SUNARP.

On this occasion, we will deal with possession and its protection mechanisms. The topic is interesting and also of some practical importance, considering that it is the first line of defense that possessors have to ensure their continued occupation of the property they occupy.

Possession is the most basic concept in legal relations concerning property. Acts of disposal and other legal transactions that generate sophisticated effects, such as ownership, leasing, trusts, surface rights, and mortgages, are complex. Possession, on the other hand, is the simplest category in the market. It basically consists of the factual and exclusive enjoyment of a thing. Except for co-possession or possessory intermediation, the possessor uses the property without the cooperation or intervention of third parties. It is therefore an autonomous power, without interference.

There is much debate in legal doctrine about the legal nature of possession. Some authors consider it a legal fact; others consider it a subjective right; and still others say it is both a fact and a right. We do not seek to settle the debate, but simply point out that possession is a de facto power, albeit one capable of generating various legal consequences. Among these is the occupant's ability to assert extrajudicial possessory defense and interdictal protection. We will delve into each of these in turn.

The first form of protection allows the possessor to directly repel any illegal force that seeks to dispossess them or disturb their permanence in the property. The possessor defends themselves against the invader or disturber, either to recover the thing that has been taken from them or to stop the acts that disturb them. In both cases, they defend themselves without resorting to legal action.

Defense against acts of dispossession that have not been consummated and acts of disturbance is appropriate. Recovery, also known as the right of equivalent reaction, is appropriate against acts of dispossession that have already been consummated.

Article 920 of the Civil Code regulates the conditions for extrajudicial defense of possession, establishing that the possessor may repel the force used against him or the property if he is dispossessed. The action must be taken within fifteen days of becoming aware of the dispossession, and it is prohibited to take unjustified actions to recover the property. It is true that civil law provides for extrajudicial defense to recover the property without saying anything about retention. Despite this silence, we believe that this action is equally applicable in the context of the legitimate defense available to every person.

It is important to consider the time limit established in the law for using this remedy. It is noted that the action must be taken within fifteen calendar days of becoming aware of the dispossession, meaning that the time limit is counted from the moment of awareness and not from the moment the dispossession itself occurred, which allows clandestine invasions to be repelled through extrajudicial defense.

The second remedy, called an injunction, consists of legal action to defend or recover possession of property. When seeking to defend the occupation, the injunction to retain is used, and when seeking to recover, the injunction to recover is used. In these cases, the possessor seeks judicial assistance, either because the deadline for extrajudicial defense has expired or because they cannot resist the dispossession on their own.

As can be seen, possession is protected by the legal system. It can be said that protection is the most important effect of this concept. Although this protection is provisional, since third parties who use the correct legal channels and invoke better rights can secure definitive ownership of the property, it is nonetheless relevant and, in many cases, is the most important means of protection in the legal system.