Key data
| Regulation | Resolution of March 19, 2026, DGSJFP — Appeal against qualification note of the property registrar of Adeje |
|---|---|
| Publication | July 1, 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Affected parties | Tenants exercising right of redemption, property registrars and real estate legal operators |
| Category | Real Estate |
| Reference regulation | Art. 25 LAU (tenant right of redemption), Art. 42 LH (preventive annotations) |
| Appellant company | Avia Car SL |
| Registrar involved | Property Registry of Adeje |
If you are a tenant of a property or dwelling and the property has been sold to you without respecting your right of first refusal or redemption, the first temptation is to ask the judge to order a preventive annotation in the Registry while you gather documentation. The Resolution of March 19, 2026 from the DGSJFP closes that avenue: preliminary proceedings are not a claim with immediate legal-real significance and, therefore, the registrar is not obliged to make that annotation.
The specific case involves Avia Car SL, which requested the Adeje registrar to preventively annotate certain registered properties within preliminary proceedings for the exhibition of a purchase deed. The objective was to prepare the ground for exercising the tenant right of redemption. The registrar suspended the annotation. The company appealed to the DGSJFP, which confirms the registrar's qualification.
What does this regulation establish?
The resolution analyzes two legal issues with direct practical consequences:
- Scope of art. 42 of the Mortgage Law (LH): This provision regulates which judicial proceedings can generate a preventive annotation in the Registry. The DGSJFP concludes that the interpretation must be restrictive: only claims that directly pursue a legal-real mutation or the rectification of registry entries are annotable.
- Nature of preliminary proceedings: Preliminary proceedings for exhibition of documents (in this case, the purchase deed) have the sole purpose of obtaining information to, if applicable, exercise a future action. They do not in themselves constitute an action with immediate registry significance.
The appellant, Avia Car SL, argued that art. 42 LH should be interpreted broadly, allowing the annotation of proceedings whose ultimate purpose is to enable an action with clear registry significance —such as the tenant right of redemption—. The DGSJFP rejects this argument: the mediate purpose does not convert preliminary proceedings into an annotable claim.
| Position | Argument | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Avia Car SL (appellant) | Art. 42 LH should be interpreted broadly; preliminary proceedings enable a future registry action | Dismissed |
| Adeje Registrar | Preliminary proceedings do not constitute a claim with immediate legal-real significance | Confirmed by DGSJFP |
| DGSJFP | Only proceedings with direct purpose of registry mutation or rectification of entries are annotable | Final resolution |
Economic and operational impact
The practical consequence is clear: the tenant who wishes to exercise the right of redemption under art. 25 LAU is left without registry protection during the preparatory phase. This has concrete economic implications:
- If during preliminary proceedings the buyer (or a third party) registers new rights over the property —mortgage, attachment, second transfer—, the redeeming tenant could see their right frustrated or be forced to litigate against third parties in good faith protected by the Registry.
- The absence of preventive annotation does not prevent exercising the right of redemption, but eliminates the "rank reservation" that would protect the tenant against subsequent transfers or charges.
- The cost of this situation can be very high in markets with high rotation of real estate assets, where the time between the purchase and the exercise of the right of redemption is critical.
From an operational perspective, law firms and legal advisors managing tenant rights of redemption must review their action protocol: the strategy of "annotate first, sue later" is no longer viable in the preliminary proceedings phase.
Who does it affect?
- Tenants of commercial properties and dwellings who have been deprived of their right of first refusal or redemption in a purchase and are in the preparatory phase of the procedure.
- Tenant companies (such as Avia Car SL in this case) that use properties under lease and have an interest in acquiring them when they are transferred.
- Property registrars, who obtain express support from the DGSJFP to suspend this type of annotations.
- Real estate lawyers and legal advisors who design procedural strategies for the exercise of the tenant right of redemption.
- Investors and real estate funds that acquire leased properties and must understand the actual scope of the registry protection of the redeeming tenant.
Practical example
A company —let's call it the same as the appellant, Avia Car SL— leases a commercial property in Adeje (Tenerife). The owner sells the property to a third party without previously notifying the tenant company, violating its right of first refusal under art. 25 LAU. Avia Car SL goes to court to obtain, through preliminary proceedings, the exhibition of the purchase deed and to learn the price and conditions of the transfer —essential information to exercise the right of redemption—.
During this process, Avia Car SL requests that the judge order the Adeje registrar to preventively annotate the properties, to prevent the new owner from mortgaging them or selling them again before it can exercise the right of redemption. The registrar suspends the annotation. The DGSJFP confirms that suspension: preliminary proceedings are not an annotable claim. Avia Car SL will have to file the redemption claim directly to then request the preventive annotation, assuming the risk that charges may be registered on the property in the meantime.
What should companies do now?
- Review current lease agreements and identify whether they include notification clauses for the right of first refusal in accordance with art. 25 LAU. Prior notification is the tenant's first line of defense.
- Act with maximum speed if a transfer without notification is detected: the deadline to exercise the right of redemption is 30 calendar days from when the tenant has reliable knowledge of the transfer and its essential conditions.
- File the redemption claim directly —without waiting to complete preliminary proceedings— if sufficient information about the transfer is available, to be able to request the preventive annotation from the start of the main procedure.
- Consult with a lawyer specialized in real estate law before initiating preliminary proceedings, to assess whether the chosen procedural strategy allows protecting the tenant's registry position.
- If you are an investor or buyer of leased properties: this resolution strengthens your position against the redeeming tenant during the preliminary proceedings phase, but does not eliminate the risk of redemption once the main claim is filed.
Frequently asked questions
What is the tenant right of redemption under art. 25 LAU and when can it be exercised?
Art. 25 of the Urban Lease Law (LAU) grants the tenant the right to acquire the leased property under the same conditions agreed with the buyer, when the owner transfers it to a third party without having previously notified them of their intention to sell (right of first refusal). The deadline to exercise the right of redemption is 30 calendar days from when the tenant has reliable knowledge of the transfer and its essential conditions.
Can the judge order a preventive annotation during preliminary redemption proceedings?
According to the Resolution of March 19, 2026 from the DGSJFP, no. Even if the judge orders the annotation, the registrar can —and must— suspend it if the current proceeding is preliminary proceedings for exhibition of documents. These do not constitute a claim with immediate legal-real significance under art. 42 of the Mortgage Law, so they are not annotable in the Property Registry.
What risk does the tenant run if they cannot preventively annotate during preliminary proceedings?
The main risk is that, during the time preliminary proceedings last, the new owner registers charges on the property (mortgages, attachments) or transfers it to a third party in good faith. In that case, the redeeming tenant could see their right frustrated or be forced to litigate against third parties protected by the principle of registry public faith. The practical solution is to file the redemption claim as soon as possible, without waiting to complete preliminary proceedings.
What is the difference between preliminary proceedings and the redemption claim for registry purposes?
Preliminary proceedings have the sole purpose of obtaining information (in this case, exhibition of the purchase deed) to prepare a future action. The redemption claim, on the other hand, directly pursues a legal-real mutation: that the tenant replaces the buyer in the acquisition. Only this second action has immediate legal-real significance and, therefore, only the redemption claim generates the right to preventive annotation under art. 42 LH.
Does this resolution affect all leases or only those regulated by the LAU?
The resolution expressly refers to the tenant right of redemption under art. 25 of the LAU, which applies to residential leases and leases for purposes other than residence (commercial properties). The DGSJFP's criterion on the non-annotability of preliminary proceedings is of a general nature and applicable to any redemption proceeding that begins with preliminary proceedings for exhibition of documents, regardless of the type of lease.
Official source
Consult complete regulation in 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-2026-14307