Denial of annulment of registry annotation for correctable defect in mortgage deedImprocedencia de nulidad de anotación registral por defecto subsanable en escritura de hipoteca

X.ON THE MERITS. In the case at hand, the plaintiff considers there to be a defect of nullity in the entry of the mortgage deed executed before Notary Wilberth Picado Portuguez at 7:20 a.m. on July 25, 2005, filed in the Public Registry of Property at volume 555, entry 16863. The foregoing because said deed provided that the mortgage encumbrance was constituted over a portion of the property of the Partido de Limón, registration number 3745-000, whereby said provision was contrary to the provisions of Articles 465(3) of the Civil Code, 88 of the Notarial Code, and Article 51 of the Regulation of the Public Registry. It argues that according to the cited provisions, the express indication of the property number is a requirement for proceeding with the entry and registration of real estate, and in the present case, the public instrument did not indicate the property number over which the mortgage encumbrance was constituted and it was not a segregation (segregación). In the plaintiff company's opinion, despite the illegality of the provision contained in the deed, which obligated the Registry to cancel the registry entry, the Notary Public was warned to correct the omission, an action it considers illegal and which caused the plaintiff damages. The foregoing insofar as, protected by the principle of registry publicity (principio de publicidad registral), at the time of acquiring the real estate it only appeared that the mortgage was over a portion of the acquired property and subsequently, by reason of the warnings (prevenciones) issued by the Registrar (Registradora) in charge of the Procedure, it was ordered that the mortgage encumbrance was with respect to the entirety of the property, whereby the plaintiff has been unable to dispose of the asset and its situation has been aggravated, since it is not the same that by reason of the mortgage only a portion of the property would be liable and not its entirety. As will be stated, in this Court's opinion, the action of the Public Registry has been in accordance with law, and therefore the claim must be dismissed in its entirety.

XI.As provided by Article 465(3) of the Civil Code, the entry made in the Mortgage Registry must indicate, among other requirements, the citation of the number of the mortgaged property in the Property Registry and the volume and folio where its registration is located, or the nature of the mortgaged real right with the other circumstances that characterize it. In this same vein, Article 51(b) and (g) of the Regulation of the Public Registry, Decreto Ejecutivo No.26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments, provide, within the requirements for documents to be entered and registered in the Public Registry, that they comply with the formalities provided by law and always indicate the number or registration number and province of the property subject to the act or contract. For its part, Article 88 of the Notarial Code provides that if it concerns deeds relating to real estate subject to registration in the Public Registry, the province, the property number, the nature, measurement, location, and boundaries must be expressly indicated in the respective deed. Contrary to what was argued by the plaintiff, Deed No. 108 does expressly indicate the property over which the mortgage encumbrance was imposed, which corresponds to the property of the Partido de Limón, registration number 3745-000, such that the provisions contained in Articles 465(3) of the Civil Code, Article 88 of the Notarial Code, and 51 of the Regulation of the Public Registry are not violated. In this Court's opinion, the essential point to be discussed in the matter at hand is whether the fact that the deed erroneously indicated that the mortgage encumbrance was over a portion of the property and not over its entirety constitutes a defect of absolute nullity (vicio de nulidad absoluta) that prevented the Public Registry from proceeding to enter said document for contravening legal provisions, and it was unable to correct the defect by warning the Authorizing Notary (Notario Autorizante) to make the clarification by means of a notarial note (razón notarial). Therefore, an analysis of the legal and regulatory provisions relevant to the point in question is carried out. In the first place, an assessment must be made of the provisions contained in the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos del Registro Público No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, and its amendments, with the caveat that the reference made by said law to provisions of the Ley Orgánica del Notariado must be understood as referring to the Notarial Code. As provided, as pertinent, by Article 1 of the Law under commentary, the purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of registered assets or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of those assets or rights. With respect to the processing of documents, its objective is to register them, and it is of public convenience to simplify and accelerate the procedures for receiving and registering documents, without detriment to registry security (seguridad registral). For its part, Article 4 of the cited Law provides that the Registry may not object to the drafting of the documents presented to it, as long as they are not contrary to the law or regulations, in terms that could produce nullity or harm to the parties or third parties, or that do not conform to the standards established in the Ley Orgánica de Notariado. For its part, Article 6 of Ley No. 3883 provides that the registration of documents in the Registry may not be objected to by alleging defects other than those derived from non-compliance with requirements demanded by the law or the regulations of this Office, or due to a lack of concordance in the data contained therein, except as provided in Article 73 of the Ley Orgánica del Notariado. If, in the study of the document, material defects, errors, or omissions arise, such as those related to volume, folio, entry, location, and any other data that do not alter the will of the parties nor modify in its essence the act or contract, the document shall be registered—if there are no other defects that prevent it—and the registrar shall note those defects, so that the notary, upon receiving the registered document, may make the corresponding correction in the margin of the original deed. Likewise, the notary may, leaving the corresponding note in the margin of the original deed, correct that class of defects, errors, and omissions, without prejudice to the powers also granted by Articles 62 and 62 bis a) of the Ley Orgánica del Notariado, and may also correct other errors that the parties have authorized to be amended or include data that they authorize to be recorded. Once the defects noted at the outset are corrected, new defects may not be pointed out and the registration of the respective document must proceed. (As amended by Article 18 of Ley Nº 6575 of April 27, 1981). On the other hand, the qualifying function (función calificadora) of the Public Registry is regulated, in what is of interest for the present proceeding, in the Regulation of the Public Registry, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments. Article 34 of the cited Regulation provides that the Qualifying function consists of carrying out a prior examination and verification of the titles presented for registration, with the purpose of registering only valid and perfect titles, because the entries must be exact and concordant with the legal reality that derives from them. The qualification of titles consists of the examination, review, or verification that the Registrar must carry out regarding the legality of the titles presented before proceeding to registration, with the power to suspend or reject those that do not conform to the provisions of our legal system. At the time of qualification, the official assigned for this purpose shall adhere solely to what results from the title and in general to all the information contained in the Registry, and their resolutions shall not impede or prejudge the validity thereof, or of the obligation it contains. For its part, Article 35 provides that once the documents are received by the Registrars, they shall proceed to their examination and verify whether the required legal requirements, general or special, are met and whether these requirements coincide with the information contained in the Registry, beginning with that of their filing and entry, and whether they contain the necessary data for the execution of their respective registration, if no substantial defect preventing it is found. In this same sense, Article 37 provides that of the documents subjected to examination, the Registrar shall suspend the registration of those that record acts or contracts that are absolutely null or that lack any of the extrinsic formalities that the laws require, or any of the requirements that their registration must contain. The Registrar shall order the registration of those documents subjected to their examination that did not present defects. As stated, although Articles 34, 35, and 37 of the Regulation of the Public Registry, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments, and Articles 4 and 6 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, and its amendments, prevent the Registrar from entering and registering documents that are contrary to legal provisions, the truth is that in this Court's opinion the defect contained in Deed No. 198 was correctable and the Registrar acted correctly in warning the authorizing Notary to correct the defect. Indeed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of Ley No. 3883, if in the study of the document material defects, errors, or omissions arise, such as those related to volume, folio, entry, location, and any other data that do not alter the will of the parties, nor modify in essence the act or contract, the document shall be registered—if there are no other defects that prevent it—and the registrar shall note those defects, so that the notary, upon receiving the registered document, may make the corresponding correction in the margin of the original deed. Likewise, according to the cited provision, the notary may, leaving the corresponding note in the margin of the original deed, correct that class of defects, errors, or omissions, without prejudice to the powers granted by Articles 62 and 62 bis of the Ley Orgánica del Notariado, and furthermore, may correct errors that the parties have authorized to be amended or include data that they authorize to be recorded. In the case at hand, although the public instrument provided that the mortgage encumbrance was constituted over a portion of the property—which was inappropriate because by its nature the mortgage is indivisible—the truth is that in attention to the principle of conservation of registry acts (principio de conservación de los actos registrales), this defect was correctable as it did not alter the will of the parties, nor modify the essence of the act or contract, and the deed contained the essential elements of the legal transaction. The plaintiff company could not validly allege that because it was provided in the deed that constituted the encumbrance that it was over a portion of the property, this condition could not be modified. The foregoing because, by reason of the nature of the mortgage, it weighed upon the entirety of the property, and the new acquirer could not claim ignorance of this circumstance, and furthermore, the mortgage constitution document was filed with the Registry only on July 27, 2006, so it could undergo modifications at the time of its filing and qualification in the Public Registry […].

**X. ON THE MERITS.** In the case at hand, the plaintiff considers there to be a defect causing the absolute nullity (vicio de nulidad) of the annotation of the mortgage deed granted before Notary Wilberth Picado Portuguez at 7:20 a.m. on July 25, 2005, filed with the Public Registry of Property at volume 555, entry 16863. The foregoing because said deed provided that the mortgage encumbrance was constituted over a portion of the farm in the Partido de Limón, title number 3745-000, for which reason said provision was contrary to the provisions of articles 465 subsection 3) of the Civil Code, 88 of the Notarial Code, and article 51 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. It argues that according to the cited provisions, the express indication of the farm number constitutes a requirement for proceeding with the annotation and registration of real property, and in the present case, the public instrument did not indicate the farm number over which the mortgage encumbrance was constituted and it was not a segregation. In the opinion of the plaintiff company, despite the illegality of the provision contained in the deed, which obligated the Registry to cancel the registry entry, the Notary Public was warned to correct his omission, an action it considers illegal and which generated damages and losses to the plaintiff. The foregoing insofar as, protected by the principle of registry publicity (principio de publicidad registral), at the time of acquiring the property it was only recorded that the mortgage was over a portion of the acquired property, and subsequently, on the occasion of the warnings made by the Registrar in charge of the Proceeding, it was ordered that the mortgage encumbrance was with respect to the entirety of the property, for which reason the plaintiff has been unable to dispose of the asset, and its situation has been aggravated, since it is not the same that only a portion of the property, and not its entirety, was liable by reason of the mortgage. As will be stated, in the opinion of this Court, the actions of the Public Registry have been in accordance with law, for which reason the claim must be rejected in all its aspects.

**XI.** As provided in article 465 subsection 3) of the Civil Code, the entry made in the Mortgage Registry must indicate, among other requirements, the citation of the number of the mortgaged farm in the Property Registry and the volume and folio where its registration is found, or the nature of the mortgaged real right with the other circumstances that characterize it. In this same sense, article 51 subsections b) and g) of the Regulations of the Public Registry, Executive Decree No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments, provide, within the requirements for documents to be annotated and registered in the Public Registry, compliance with the formalities established by the laws and always indicating the number or title number and province of the farm subject to the act or contract. For its part, article 88 of the Notarial Code provides that in the case of deeds relating to real property subject to registration in the Public Registry, the province, the farm number, the nature, measurement, situation, and boundaries must be expressly indicated in the respective deed. Contrary to what was argued by the plaintiff, deed No. 108 does expressly indicate the farm over which the mortgage encumbrance was imposed, corresponding to the farm in the Partido de Limón, title number 3745-000, so the provisions contained in articles 465 subsection 3) of the Civil Code, article 88 of the Notarial Code, and 51 of the Regulations of the Public Registry are not breached. In the opinion of this Court, the essential point to be discussed in the matter at hand is whether the fact that the deed erroneously indicated that the mortgage encumbrance was over a portion of the property and not over its entirety constitutes a defect of absolute nullity (vicio de nulidad absoluta) that prevented the Public Registry from proceeding to annotate said document for contravening legal provisions, finding it unable to correct the defect by warning the Authorizing Notary to make the clarification via a notarial note (razón notarial). Therefore, an analysis of the legal and regulatory provisions pertinent to the point in question is undertaken. First, an assessment must be made of the provisions contained in the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, and its amendments, with the caveat that the allusion said norm makes to provisions of the Organic Law of Notaries must be understood as referring to the Notarial Code. As provided in the pertinent part of article 1 of the Law under comment, the purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of the registered assets or rights with respect to third parties, through the publicity of those assets or rights. As regards the processing of documents, its objective is to register them, it being of public convenience to simplify and expedite the processes for receiving and registering documents, without detriment to registry security. For its part, article 4 of the cited Law provides that the Registry may not object to the wording of the documents presented to it, as long as they are not contrary to the law or regulations, in terms that could produce nullity or prejudice for the parties or third parties, or that they do not conform to the rules established in the Organic Law of Notaries. For its part, article 6 of Law No. 3883 provides that the registration of documents in the Registry may not be objected on grounds of defects other than those derived from non-compliance with requirements demanded by the law or the regulation of this Office, or for lack of concordance in the data contained therein, except as provided in article 73 of the Organic Law of Notaries. If, upon examination of the document, material defects, errors, or omissions are found, such as those relating to volume, folio, entry, situation, and any other data that do not alter the will of the parties, nor modify the essence of the act or contract, the document shall be registered—if no other defects impede it—and the registrar will note them, so that the notary, upon receiving the registered document, makes the corresponding correction in the margin of the original deed. Likewise, the notary may, leaving the corresponding note (razón) in the margin of the original deed, correct such class of defects, errors, and omissions, without prejudice to the powers also granted by articles 62 and 62 bis a) of the Organic Law of Notaries, and may also correct other errors that the parties had authorized him to amend or include data that they authorize him to enter. Once the defects noted at the beginning are corrected, no new defects may be pointed out and the respective document must be registered. (As amended by article 18 of Law No. 6575 of April 27, 1981). On the other hand, the qualifying function of the Public Registry is regulated, in what is of interest for the present proceeding, in the Regulations of the Public Registry, Executive Decree No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments. Article 34 of the cited Regulations provides that the Qualifying Function consists of carrying out a prior examination and verification of the titles (títulos) that are presented for registration, with the aim that only valid and perfect titles are registered, because the entries must be exact and concordant with the legal reality that derives from them. The qualification of titles consists of the examination, scrutiny, or verification of the legality of the titles presented that the Registrar must perform before proceeding to registration, with the power to suspend or deny those that do not conform to the provisions of our legal system. At the time of qualifying, the official assigned for this purpose shall adhere solely to what results from the title and in general to all the information recorded in the Registry, and their decisions shall not impede nor prejudge the validity thereof, or of the obligation it contains. For its part, Article 35 provides that upon receiving the documents, the Registrars shall proceed to their examination and verify whether the required legal requirements, general or special, are met and whether these requirements coincide with the information recorded in the Registry, beginning with that of its filing and annotation and whether they contain the necessary data for the execution of their respective registration, if no substantial defect that impedes it is found. In this same sense, article 37 provides that from the documents subjected to examination, the Registrar shall suspend the registration of those that record acts or contracts that are absolutely null or that lack any of the extrinsic formalities that the laws require, or any of the requirements that their registration must contain. The Registrar shall order the registration of those documents subjected to his examination that did not present defects. As stated, although articles 34, 35, and 37 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, Executive Decree No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, and its amendments, and articles 4 and 6 of the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, and its amendments, prevent the Registrar from annotating and registering documents that are contrary to legal provisions, it is true that in this Court's opinion, the defect contained in deed No. 198 was correctable (subsanable) and the Registrar acted correctly in warning the authorizing Notary to correct the defect. Indeed, in accordance with the provisions of article 6 of Law No. 3883, if, upon examination of the document, material defects, errors, or omissions are found, such as those relating to volume, folio, entry, situation, and any other data that *do not alter the will of the parties, nor modify the essence of the act or contract*, the document shall be registered—if no other defects impede it—and the registrar will note them, so that the notary, upon receiving the registered document, makes the corresponding correction in the margin of the original deed. Likewise, according to the cited provision, the notary may, leaving the corresponding note (razón) in the margin of the original deed, correct such class of defects, errors, or omissions, without prejudice to the powers granted by articles 62 and 62 bis of the Organic Law of Notaries, and may also correct errors that the parties had authorized him to amend or include data that they authorize him to enter. In the case at hand, although the public instrument provided that the mortgage encumbrance was constituted over a portion of the property—which was improper because, by its nature, a mortgage is indivisible—it is true that in consideration of the principle of preservation of registry acts (principio de conservación de los actos registrales), this defect was correctable as it did not alter the will of the parties, nor modify the essence of the act or contract, given that the deed contained the essential elements of the legal transaction. The plaintiff company could not validly allege that, as it was provided in the deed in which the encumbrance was constituted that it was over a portion of the farm, this condition could not be modified. The foregoing, because by reason of the nature of the mortgage, it weighed upon the entirety of the property, and the new acquirer could not claim ignorance of this circumstance, and furthermore, the document constituting the mortgage was presented to the Registry until July 27, 2006, so it could undergo modifications at the time of its presentation and qualification in the Public Registry […].”

“X. SOBRE EL FONDO. En el caso tratado en autos, la parte actora considera la existencia de un vicio de nulidad de la anotación de la escritura de hipoteca otorgada ante el Notario Wilberth Picado Portuguez a las 7:20 horas del 25 de julio del 2005, presentada en el Registro Público de la Propiedad al tomo 555, asiento 16863. Lo anterior toda vez que dicha escritura disponía que el gravamen hipotecario fue constituido sobre una porción de la finca del Partido de Limón, matrícula 3745-000, por lo cual dicha disposición resultaba contraria a lo dispuesto en los artículos 465 inciso 3) del Código Civil, 88 del Código Notarial y el artículo 51 del Reglamento del Registro Público. Arguye que conforme a las citadas disposiciones, constituye un requisito para que se proceda a la anotación e inscripción registral de inmuebles, la indicación de manera expresa del número de finca y en el presente caso, el instrumento público, no indicaba el número de finca sobre la cual se constituía el gravamen hipotecario y no se trataba de una segregación. En criterio de la sociedad actora, a pesar de la ilegalidad de la disposición contenida en la escritura, que obligaba al Registro a la cancelación del asiento registral, se previno al Notario Público a que subsanara su omisión, actuación que considera ilegal y que le generó daños y perjuicios a la actora. Lo anterior en tanto amparada al principio de publicidad registral, al momento de adquirir el inmueble solo constaba que la hipoteca lo era sobre una porción del inmueble adquirido y posteriormente, con ocasión de las prevenciones que formuló la Registradora a cargo del Trámite, se dispuso que el gravamen hipotecario lo era con respecto a la totalidad del inmueble, por lo que la actora se ha visto imposibilitada de disponer del bien y agravado su situación, ya que no es lo mismo que en razón de la hipoteca respondiera solo una porción del inmueble y no su totalidad. Conforme se dirá, en criterio de éste Tribunal, la actuación del Registro Público ha sido conforme a derecho, por lo que la demanda deberá ser rechazada en todos sus extremos.

XI.Según lo dispone el artículo 465 inciso 3) del Código Civil, el asiento que se haga en el Registro de Hipotecas, deberá indicar entre otros requisitos, la cita del número que tenga la finca hipotecada en el Registro de la Propiedad y el tomo y folio en que se halle su inscripción, o la naturaleza del derecho real hipotecado con las demás circunstancias que lo caractericen. En este mismo sentido, el artículo 51 incisos b) y g) del Reglamento del Registro Público, Decreto Ejecutivo No.26771-J del 18 de febrero de 1998 y sus reformas, disponen dentro de los requisitos para que los documentos puedan ser anotados e inscritos en el Registro Público, el cumplir con las formalidades que dispongan las leyes y el de indicar siempre el número o matrícula y provincia de la finca objeto del acto o contrato. Por su parte el artículo 88 del Código Notarial dispone que si se tratare de escrituras relativas a inmuebles sujetos a inscripción en el Registro Público, deberán indicarse de manera expresa en la escritura respectiva, la provincia, el número de finca, la naturaleza, medida, situación y linderos. Contrario a lo argumentado por el actor, la escritura No.108, sí indica de manera expresa la finca sobre la cual se imponía el gravamen hipotecario que corresponde a la finca del Partido de Limón, matrícula 3745-000, de forma que no se incumplen las disposiciones contenidas en los artículos 465 inciso 3) del Código Civil, artículo 88 del Código Notarial y 51 del Reglamento del Registro Público. En criterio de éste Tribunal, el punto esencial a discutir en el asunto tratado en autos, lo es si el hecho de que la escritura señalara de manera errónea que el gravamen hipotecario lo era sobre una porción del inmueble y no sobre su totalidad, constituye un vicio de nulidad absoluta que impedía al Registro Público proceder a anotar dicho documento por contravenir disposiciones legales, encontrándose imposibilitado a subsanar el defecto previniendo al Notario Autorizante a realizar la aclaración por la vía de razón notarial. Por ello se procede a realizar un análisis de las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias atinentes al punto en cuestión. En primer lugar se debe realizar una valoración de las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos del Registro Público No.3883 del 30 de mayo de 1967 y sus reformas, haciendo la salvedad de que la alusión que dicha norma hace de disposiciones de la Ley Orgánica del Notariado, se deberán entender referidas al Código Notarial. Según lo dispone en lo conducente el artículo 1 de la Ley de comentario, el propósito del Registro Nacional es garantizar la seguridad de los bienes o derechos inscritos con respecto a terceros, mediante la publicidad de esos bienes o derechos. En lo que respecta al trámite de documentos, su objetivo es inscribirlos, resultando de conveniencia pública simplificar y acelerar los trámites de recepción e inscripción de documentos, sin menoscabo de la seguridad registral. Por su parte el artículo 4 de la Ley de cita dispone que el Registro no podrá objetar la redacción de los documentos que se le presenten, mientras no sean contrarios a la ley o a los reglamentos, en términos que pueda producirse nulidad o perjuicio para las partes o terceros, o que no se ajusten a las normas establecidas en la Ley Orgánica de Notariado. Por su parte, el artículo 6 de la Ley No.3883 dispone que no podrá objetarse la inscripción de documentos en el Registro, alegando otros defectos que no sean los derivados del incumplimiento de requisitos que exija la ley o el reglamento de esta Oficina, o por falta de concordancia en los datos constantes en aquel, salvo lo dispuesto en el artículo 73 de la Ley Orgánica del Notariado. Si en el estudio del documento resultaren defectos, errores u omisiones de orden material, tales como los relativos a tomo, folio, asiento, situación y cualesquiera otros datos que no alteren la voluntad de las partes ni modifiquen en su esencia el acto o contrato, se procederá a inscribir el documento -si no existieren otros defectos que lo impidan- y el registrador anotará aquellos, a fin de que el notario, al recibir inscrito el documento, haga al margen de la escritura original la corrección del caso. Igualmente podrá el notario, dejando la razón correspondiente al margen de la escritura original, corregir esa clase de defectos, errores y omisiones, sin perjuicio de las facultades que también le conceden los artículos 62 y 62 bis a) de la Ley Orgánica del Notariado, además podrá corregir otros errores que le hubiesen autorizado enmendar las partes o incluir datos que éstas le autoricen consignar. Corregidos los defectos apuntados al inicio, no podrán señalarse nuevos defectos y deberá procederse a la inscripción del documento respectivo. (Así reformado por el artículo 18 de la Ley Nº 6575 de 27 de abril de 1981). Por otra parte, la función calificadora del Registro Público se encuentra regulada en lo que resulta de interés para el presente proceso en el Reglamento del Registro Público, Decreto Ejecutivo No.26771-J del 18 de febrero de 1998 y sus reformas. El artículo 34 del citado Reglamento dispone que la función Calificadora consiste en realizar un examen previo y la verificación de los títulos que se presentan para su registración, con el objeto de que se registren únicamente los títulos válidos y perfectos, porque los asientos deben ser exactos y concordantes con la realidad jurídica que de ellos se desprende. La calificación de los títulos consiste en el examen, censura, o comprobación que de la legalidad de los títulos presentados debe hacer el Registrador antes de proceder a la inscripción, con la facultad de suspender o denegar los que no se ajustan a las disposiciones de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Al momento de calificar, el funcionario asignado al efecto se atendrá tan solo a lo que resulte del título y en general a toda la información que conste en el Registro y sus resoluciones no impedirán ni prejuzgarán sobre la validez de éste, o de la obligación que contenga. Por su parte el Artículo 35 dispone que recibidos los documentos por los Registradores, procederán a su examen y comprobarán si se cumplen los requisitos legales, generales o especiales requeridos y si estos requisitos coinciden con la información que consta en el Registro, comenzando con el de su presentación y anotación y si contienen los datos necesarios para la práctica de su inscripción respectiva, si no se encontrare ningún defecto sustancial que la impida. En este mismo sentido, el artículo 37 dispone que de los documentos sometidos a examen, el Registrador suspenderá la inscripción de aquellos que registren actos o contratos absolutamente nulos o que carezcan de alguna de las formalidades extrínsecas que las leyes exigen, o de alguno de los requisitos que debe contener su inscripción. El Registrador ordenará la inscripción de aquellos documentos sometidos a su examen que no presentaron defectos. Conforme lo dicho, si bien los artículo 34, 35 y 37 del Reglamento del Registro Público, Decreto Ejecutivo No.26771-J del 18 de febrero de 1998 y sus reformas y los artículos 4 y 6 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público No.3883 del 30 de mayo de 1967 y sus reformas, impiden al Registrador anotar e inscribir documentos que resulten contrarios a disposiciones legales, es lo cierto que en criterio de éste Tribunal el defecto contenido en la escritura No.198, era subsanable y bien hizo la Registradora en prevenir al Notario autorizante subsanar el defecto. En efecto, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 6 de la Ley No.3883, si en el estudio del documento resultaren defectos, errores u omisiones de orden material, tales como los relativos a tomo, folio, asiento, situación, y cualesquiera otros datos que no alteren la voluntad de las partes, ni modifiquen en esencia el acto o contrato, se procederá a inscribir el documento - si no existieran otros defectos que lo impidan- y el registrador anotará aquellos, a fin de que el notario, al recibir inscrito el documento, haga al margen de la escritura original la corrección del caso. Igualmente, según la citada disposición, podrá el notario dejando la razón correspondiente al margen de la escritura original, corregir esa clase defectos, errores u omisiones, sin perjuicio de las facultades que le conceden los artículos 62 y 62 bis de la Ley Orgánica del Notariado, y además, podrá corregir errores que le hubiesen autorizado enmendar las partes o incluir datos que éstas le autoricen consignar. En el caso tratado en autos, si bien el instrumento público disponía que el gravamen hipotecario se constituía sobre una porción del inmueble -lo cual resultaba improcedente en razón de que por su naturaleza la hipoteca resulta indivisible-, es lo cierto que en atención al principio de conservación de los actos registrales, este defecto resultaba subsanable al no alterar la voluntad de las partes, ni modificar la esencia del acto o contrato, siendo que la escritura contenía los elementos esenciales del negocio jurídico. No podría la sociedad actora alegar válidamente que al disponerse en la escritura en que se constituyó el gravamen que éste era sobre una porción de la finca, esta condición no podía ser modificada. Lo anterior toda vez que en razón de la naturaleza de la hipoteca, ésta pesaba sobre la totalidad del inmueble, siendo que la nueva adquirente no podía aducir desconocimiento de ésta circunstancia y además el documento de constitución de hipoteca fue presentado al Registro hasta el 27 de julio del 2006, por lo que podía sufrir modificaciones al momento de su presentación y calificación en el Registro Público […].”