Key data
| Regulation | Resolution of 11 June 2026, DGSJFP — Appeal against qualification by the Property Registrar of Alcobendas n.º 2 |
|---|---|
| Publication | 22 October 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Affected parties | Married couples in community property regime purchasing real estate, notaries and property registrars |
| Category | Real Estate |
| BOE Reference | BOE-A-2026-22009 |
| Key Civil Code article | Art. 1358 CC (right of reimbursement between spouses) |
Buying a property while married under community property and wanting it to be registered only in the name of one spouse is a common operation. But doing it incorrectly can block registration at the Property Registry for weeks or months, with the notarial and registry costs that entails.
The DGSJFP Resolution of 11 June 2026 resolves the conflict between notary and registrar in a specific case at the Alcobendas n.º 2 Registry, and establishes doctrine applicable to any similar operation in Spain.
What does this regulation establish?
The privacy pact is the agreement by which spouses decide that an asset acquired during marriage under community property is private to only one of them. The DGSJFP confirms that this pact is valid and admissible, but requires that it be correctly causalized: that is, it must be clear whether the cause is onerous or gratuitous, and each modality must meet its own requirements.
| Pact modality | Requirement for registration | Effect of art. 1358 CC |
|---|---|---|
| Onerous cause | Prove prior or simultaneous consideration to the ceding spouse | Right of reimbursement arises unless compensation is proven to have already been made |
| Gratuitous cause (donation) | Comply with formal requirements of donation between spouses | Reimbursement does not apply, but requires specific form |
| Onerous + exclusion of reimbursement without proving compensation | Insufficient: the registrar can suspend registration | Internal contradiction that invalidates the pact as drafted |
The specific problem in the Alcobendas case: the deed declared that the pact was onerous but expressly excluded reimbursement under art. 1358 CC, without proving any past or present consideration. For the registrar — and the DGSJFP agrees — this is a contradiction that prevents registration.
Economic and operational impact
The impact is not a direct economic sanction, but it does generate real costs and operational delays:
- Suspension of registration: the asset is not registered as private until the defect is remedied, which can block financing, future sales or inheritances.
- Remediation costs: a new deed or notarial act must be executed proving the cause, with corresponding notarial and registry fees.
- Tax risk: if the pact is reclassified as a donation for failing to prove onerous nature, it may generate Gift Tax settlement in the corresponding autonomous community.
- Legal uncertainty in inheritances and divorces: a poorly registered asset can generate costly future litigation over whether it belongs to the community property or is private.
Who does it affect?
- Married couples under community property regime who purchase real estate and want it to be registered as a private asset of one of them.
- Notaries who draft purchase deeds with privacy pacts: they must ensure that the cause is correctly proven in the document itself.
- Property registrars who qualify these deeds: the DGSJFP confirms their authority to require express causalization.
- Legal and tax advisors who accompany real estate operations for clients married under community property.
- Financial entities that finance purchases where one spouse wants to be the sole owner of the mortgaged asset.
Practical example
A couple married under community property buys a property in Alcobendas for €350,000. The money comes from a private account of the husband (inheritance received before marriage). They want the property to be registered only in the husband's name as a private asset.
In the deed, the notary includes a privacy pact with onerous cause, but excludes reimbursement under art. 1358 CC without proving that the wife has received any compensation. The registrar suspends registration.
How to resolve it correctly? There are two ways:
- Prove onerous nature: document that the money used was private to the husband (bank certificate of the inheritance) and that the wife waives reimbursement because she has already received equivalent compensation — or that reimbursement is maintained and reflected in the deed.
- Reconfigure as donation: if the wife cedes her share gratuitously, draft the pact as a donation between spouses with the formal requirements required by the Civil Code, assuming the tax implications of Gift Tax.
What should couples and advisors do now?
- Review any deed pending registration with a privacy pact: verify that the cause (onerous or gratuitous) is explicitly proven in the document, not just declared.
- If the cause is onerous: include in the deed the proof of prior or simultaneous consideration — for example, bank certificate of the private origin of the money — and make clear the treatment of reimbursement under art. 1358 CC.
- If the cause is gratuitous: comply with the formal requirements of donation between spouses and assess the tax impact on Gift Tax in the autonomous community.
- Avoid the contradiction detected in the Alcobendas case: do not declare onerous nature and exclude reimbursement at the same time without justification — this is the defect that the DGSJFP confirms as a valid cause for suspension.
- If there is already a suspended registration: contact the notary to execute a remediation deed or complementary act that properly proves the cause of the pact before the presentation entry expires.
Frequently asked questions
Can the registrar reject a privacy pact between spouses?
Yes. The DGSJFP confirms in this resolution that the registrar can suspend registration if the privacy pact is not properly causalized. It is not enough to declare that the pact is onerous: the prior or simultaneous consideration must be proven. If onerous nature is declared but reimbursement under art. 1358 CC is excluded without justification, the registrar can — and must — suspend registration.
What is article 1358 of the Civil Code and why does it matter in these operations?
Art. 1358 CC regulates the right of reimbursement between spouses when private funds are used to acquire a community property asset, or vice versa. If the privacy pact is onerous, the community property has the right to be reimbursed by the spouse who retains the asset. Excluding that reimbursement without proving that equivalent compensation has already occurred generates the contradiction that motivated the suspension in the Alcobendas case.
What is the difference between an onerous privacy pact and a gratuitous one?
In the onerous pact, the ceding spouse receives economic compensation in exchange; that consideration must be proven in the deed. In the gratuitous pact (donation), the spouse cedes their share without receiving anything in return; they must comply with the formal requirements of donation between spouses and may generate Gift Tax settlement. Each modality has different requirements and they are not interchangeable.
What happens if registration is suspended? Is there a deadline to remedy it?
When the registrar suspends registration, they make a presentation entry that maintains registration priority for a determined period (generally 60 business days). During that period, the notary can execute a remediation deed or complementary act that properly proves the cause of the pact. If not remedied within the deadline, the entry expires and the deed must be presented again, losing registration priority.
Is this doctrine new or did it already exist before this resolution?
The DGSJFP does not create new doctrine: it recalls and confirms existing doctrine on causalization of the privacy pact. What is relevant about this resolution is that it sides with the registrar against the notary in a specific case, reinforcing the registry's qualifying authority and making clear that mere declaration of onerous nature without proof of consideration is not sufficient for registration.
Official source
Consult complete regulation at official source
Notice: This article is for informational purposes only 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-2026-22009
