Registry Conciliation for Boundary Disputes: The Registrar Cannot Deny It for Subsanable Defects

Key data

If you have a boundary dispute with a neighbor or adjacent property owner and the registrar has rejected your conciliation request, this resolution supports your position. The General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Faith (DGSJFP) has upheld the appeal against the decision by the property registrar of Eivissa no. 2, which refused to process a conciliation procedure under art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law for a boundary dispute between properties.

The resolution, published on 22 October 2026, establishes a clear criterion affecting all registrars in Spain: subsanable defects do not justify a direct denial of initiating the file.

What does this regulation establish?

Art. 103 bis of the Mortgage Law grants the registrar competence to process conciliation procedures in any real estate dispute, regardless of whether the final agreement is or is not registrable in the Property Registry.

In the case resolved, the registrar of Eivissa no. 2 refused to initiate the file citing two defects:

• Failure to notify the owners of the adjacent property affected by the boundary dispute.
• Lack of precision in the object of the requested conciliation.

The DGSJFP establishes that both defects are subsanable and therefore cannot justify a direct denial. The resolution sets the following key distinction:

Additionally, the resolution reinforces the practical importance of registry conciliation by noting that it can act as a mandatory Adequate Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR) under Law 1/2025 on procedural efficiency. This means that in certain real estate disputes, attempting conciliation with the registrar may be a mandatory prerequisite before filing a lawsuit.

Economic and operational impact

This resolution has direct consequences on time and money for any property owner with a boundary dispute:

• Prevents unjustified rejection of the file: the registrar cannot close the door citing minor formal defects. They must provide the opportunity to remedy them.
• Reduces litigation: if registry conciliation functions as mandatory ADR under Law 1/2025, an agreement reached before the registrar can avoid a court proceeding, with consequent savings in costs, attorney fees, and time.
• Expands the scope of registry conciliation: art. 103 bis covers any real estate dispute, not just those generating a registrable agreement. This opens the registry route to conflicts that were previously referred directly to courts.
• Impact for registrars: they must review their qualification criteria. A direct denial for subsanable defects is appealable and, according to this resolution, will be overturned.

Who does it affect?

• Property owners with active or latent disputes over boundaries, areas, or delimitations with adjacent properties.
• Real estate developers and construction companies managing plots or parcels with limits not clearly defined in the Registry.
• Property associations with conflicts over common elements or bordering areas.
• Property registrars throughout Spain, who must adapt their qualification criteria for art. 103 bis LH requests.
• Lawyers and real estate advisors processing registry conciliation files or advising on boundary conflicts.
• Any party in a real estate dispute that must prove having attempted an ADR before filing a lawsuit, under Law 1/2025.

Practical example

A development company in Ibiza requests the property registrar of Eivissa no. 2 to open a conciliation file under art. 103 bis LH to resolve a dispute over the northern boundary of a plot with the adjacent property. The registrar denies processing because the request does not precisely identify the disputed boundary section and does not prove notification to the registered owner of the neighboring property.

According to this DGSJFP resolution, that denial is improper: both defects are subsanable. The registrar must require the developer to correct them within a reasonable period, and only if they are not remedied can they deny processing. If the developer appeals the direct denial, the DGSJFP will overturn it, as it has done in this case. Furthermore, if Law 1/2025 requires having attempted an ADR before trial, the attempt at registry conciliation—even if no agreement is reached—fulfills that requirement.

What should companies do now?

1. Review pending boundary disputes: if you have an active conflict over property limits that has not progressed because the registrar rejected conciliation, analyze whether the rejection was for subsanable defects. If so, you can appeal or submit a new remedied request.
2. Consider registry conciliation as a first step before going to court in any real estate dispute, especially since Law 1/2025 came into force, which may require it as mandatory ADR.
3. Ensure that the art. 103 bis LH request is well documented: precisely identify the object of the dispute and prove notification to all affected registered owners to avoid subsanation requests that delay the process.
4. If you are a registrar: adapt your qualification criteria for these requests. When faced with subsanable defects, issue a subsanation requirement, not a direct denial. A direct denial is appealable and will be overturned according to this resolution.
5. Consult with a lawyer specialized in registry and real estate law if you have doubts about whether your dispute falls under art. 103 bis LH or whether registry conciliation is mandatory as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in your specific case.

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-2026-22010