Key data
| Regulation | Resolution of April 24, 2026, DGSJFP — appeal against qualification of the Land Registry of Lloret de Mar no. 2 |
|---|---|
| Publication | July 24, 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Affected parties | Property owners, buyers and sellers of real estate with disputes over validity of property sales or insolvency proceedings |
| Category | Real estate |
| Applicable legal framework | Art. 103 bis Mortgage Law; Art. 3 LO 1/2025 |
| Resolving body | General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Faith (DGSJFP) |
If you are thinking of using registry conciliation to challenge a property sale suspected of fraud or linked to a foreign insolvency proceeding, this resolution directly affects you. The General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Faith (DGSJFP) has confirmed, through a resolution of April 24, 2026, that the Land Registry has the power to reject this type of requests without processing them.
The specific case: the Land Registry of Lloret de Mar no. 2 dismissed a registry conciliation request filed under art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law. The controversy revolved around a property sale allegedly fraudulent carried out by a company whose sole shareholder was subject to a Russian insolvency proceeding with a prohibition on disposal. The registrar dismissed the request invoking art. 3 of LO 1/2025, which excludes unavailable matters from conciliation. The appeal was dismissed.
What does this regulation establish?
The resolution clearly establishes the limits of registry conciliation as an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution. It is not a universal avenue for any real estate dispute: it has a strictly delimited scope of application.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Avenue used | Registry conciliation — art. 103 bis Mortgage Law |
| Reason for dismissal | Unavailable matter according to art. 3 LO 1/2025 |
| Type of controversy rejected | Allegedly fraudulent property sale + foreign insolvency proceeding with prohibition on disposal |
| DGSJFP criterion | Registry conciliation only applies to strictly real estate controversies or inscribable acts |
| Confirmed excluded matters | Capacity of the parties and insolvency matters |
| Resolution of the appeal | Dismissed — the registrar's qualification is confirmed |
In practical terms: registry conciliation is not the appropriate channel when the substance of the matter involves determining whether someone had the capacity to transfer a property (for example, by being subject to an insolvency proceeding) or when the validity of the transfer depends on an insolvency proceeding, whether national or foreign.
Economic and operational impact
The impact is not a fine or a fee: it is opportunity cost and procedural risk. Using the wrong avenue in a real estate dispute has direct consequences:
- Time wasted: A dismissed registry conciliation request means having initiated a procedure that reaches no result, delaying the actual resolution of the conflict.
- Duplicated advisory costs: If you first go to the Registry and then have to redirect the case to ordinary judicial or insolvency proceedings, professional fees multiply.
- Risk of prescription or expiration: The time spent on an inadequate avenue can compromise the deadlines for exercising judicial actions.
- Insecurity in real estate operations: Buyers of real estate in complex corporate situations (sole shareholders with foreign insolvency proceedings) should know that registry conciliation does not protect them if the transfer is challenged.
For companies or investors acquiring real estate from companies with shareholders in international insolvency situations, this resolution is a clear warning signal: registry due diligence is not sufficient if there are signs of prohibition on disposal in foreign jurisdictions.
Who does it affect?
- Real estate buyers acquiring properties from companies with shareholders in insolvency situations (especially foreign proceedings).
- Sellers or transferring companies whose capacity to dispose may be limited by an insolvency proceeding.
- Creditors who intend to challenge real estate transfers made in fraud of their rights through the registry avenue.
- Lawyers and legal advisors who plan procedural strategy in real estate disputes with an insolvency component.
- Real estate investors operating in markets with sellers of international origin or complex corporate structures.
- Land registrars, who see their power of dismissal confirmed in these cases.
Practical example
Suppose a Spanish company acquires a property on the Costa Brava from a limited company whose sole shareholder is a Russian citizen subject to an insolvency proceeding in Russia that includes a prohibition on disposal of his assets.
A third party harmed (for example, a creditor of that shareholder) decides to challenge the property sale and, to save costs and time, files a registry conciliation request with the Land Registry of the locality, under art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law.
The registrar dismisses the request: the controversy is not strictly real estate nor does it concern an inscribable act — it involves determining the capacity of the sole shareholder to authorize the transfer and the effects of a foreign insolvency proceeding. Both matters fall outside the scope of registry conciliation according to art. 3 of LO 1/2025.
The creditor appeals to the DGSJFP. The resolution of April 24, 2026 confirms the dismissal. The creditor must now resort to ordinary judicial or insolvency proceedings, having wasted time and resources on the registry avenue.
Practical lesson: before filing a registry conciliation, verify that the controversy is strictly about an inscribable act and does not involve capacity issues or insolvency matters.
What should companies do now?
- Review the nature of your real estate dispute before choosing the resolution avenue: if there are insolvency implications or doubts about the capacity of the parties, registry conciliation is not the appropriate avenue.
- Conduct international insolvency due diligence in any real estate acquisition where the seller is a company with foreign shareholders: verify if there are insolvency proceedings or prohibitions on disposal in other jurisdictions.
- Consult with a lawyer specializing in insolvency and real estate law before initiating any proceeding, to avoid the cost of using inadequate avenues that are later dismissed.
- Properly document property sale transactions when the seller is a company with shareholders in complex corporate or personal situations, especially if there are links with foreign jurisdictions.
- If you are a creditor and want to challenge a fraudulent transfer, go directly to ordinary judicial or insolvency proceedings — not registry — when the controversy involves capacity or insolvency matters.
Frequently asked questions
When can the Land Registry reject a registry conciliation?
The Registry can dismiss a registry conciliation request when the matter is unavailable according to art. 3 of LO 1/2025. Specifically, controversies involving the capacity of the parties or that have an insolvency matter component are excluded. Registry conciliation is only valid for strictly real estate disputes or inscribable acts.
What happens if I file a registry conciliation and it is rejected?
The dismissal does not resolve the substance of the matter: you will have to resort to ordinary judicial or insolvency proceedings to resolve the conflict. The time and costs invested in the registry avenue are not recovered, and there is a risk that the deadlines for exercising judicial actions have been compromised during that period.
Does this resolution affect property sales with foreign insolvency proceedings?
Yes, directly. The case resolved by the DGSJFP in its resolution of April 24, 2026 involves precisely a Russian insolvency proceeding with a prohibition on disposal on the sole shareholder of the selling company. The resolution confirms that this type of situation falls outside the scope of registry conciliation.
What avenue should I use to challenge a fraudulent real estate sale linked to an insolvency proceeding?
According to the DGSJFP doctrine established in this resolution, you should resort to ordinary judicial or insolvency proceedings, not registry conciliation. The registry avenue is only appropriate when the controversy concerns exclusively inscribable acts and does not involve capacity issues or insolvency matters.
What is art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law and what is it really for?
Art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law regulates registry conciliation, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism before the land registrar. It serves for strictly real estate controversies or inscribable acts. It is not valid for disputes involving capacity of the parties, insolvency matters or other unavailable matters according to art. 3 of LO 1/2025.
Official source
Consult complete regulation in official source
Notice: This article is merely informative in nature and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-16139