← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00059-2025 Tribunal Disciplinario Notarial · Tribunal Disciplinario Notarial · 14/02/2025
OutcomeResultado
The three-month suspension per unregistered deed is upheld, with no possibility of reduction or reclassification of the sanction.Se confirma la suspensión de tres meses para el notario recurrente por cada escritura no inscrita, sin posibilidad de reducción o recalificación de la sanción.
SummaryResumen
The Notarial Disciplinary Court upholds a three-month suspension per unregistered public deed imposed on the appellant notary. The court considers whether the ineffectiveness of the instruments due to lack of registration warrants reclassification under a more severe provision (Article 145(c) of the Notarial Code), since registration became impossible after subsequent transfers to third parties. However, because no appeal was filed by the opposing party, the principle of non-reformation in peius applies, and the original sanction stands. The ruling underscores the role of registration for the full legal effect and third-party enforceability of transferable acts, citing Civil Code Article 267, the Traffic Law, and constitutional case law.La resolución del Tribunal Disciplinario Notarial confirma la sanción de tres meses de suspensión por cada escritura no inscrita, impuesta al notario recurrente. El tribunal analiza si la ineficacia de los instrumentos públicos por falta de inscripción registral justifica una recalificación jurídica hacia una sanción más grave (art. 145 inciso c del Código Notarial), al haberse vuelto imposible la inscripción debido a transmisiones posteriores a terceros. Sin embargo, al no existir recurso de la parte contraria, aplica el principio de no reforma en perjuicio, por lo que se mantiene la sanción original. Se destaca la importancia de la inscripción registral para la eficacia plena de los actos transmisibles y su oponibilidad frente a terceros, citando el artículo 267 del Código Civil, la Ley de Tránsito y jurisprudencia constitucional.
Key excerptExtracto clave
"VI.- Regarding the reduction of the imposed sanction, as sought, the lower court imposed on the appellant three months of suspension from the practice of the notarial function for each of the two public deeds at issue, based on Article 144(a) of the Notarial Code. This does not constitute double imposition, since the duty to register was breached with respect to two distinct instruments that have their own character and effects, so this argument lacks weight to alter the decision. Nor can the request to reduce the sanction to one month be granted, because the delay in the registration process rendered both instruments ineffective, considering that the full effectiveness of a transferable and registrable act is achieved upon registration in the corresponding Registry, as from that moment it becomes fully enforceable against third parties... Thus, it is not possible to impose a lesser sanction than the one decreed, nor a different one, by virtue of the principle of non-reformation in peius.""VI.- En lo tocante a la disminución de la sanción impuesta, como se pretende, el a quo impuso al recurrente, tres meses de suspensión en el ejercicio de la función notarial, por cada una de las dos escrituras objeto del proceso y lo hizo con fundamento en el artículo 144 inciso a) del Código Notarial. No se trata de una doble imposición, pues el deber de inscripción se transgredió respecto de dos escrituras distintas las cuales tienen entidad y efectos propios, de manera que su argumento sobre el punto, carece de peso para variar lo resuelto. Y tampoco puede atenderse a la petición de disminuir la sanción a un mes, pues la demora en el trámite de inscripción, generó que ambos instrumentos fueron ineficaces, considerando que la eficacia plena de un acto transmisible y registrable, se alcanza con la inscripción en el Registro respectivo, dado que con ese acto, es plenamente oponible a terceros... Así, no resulta posible imponer una sanción menor que la decretada, ni puede imponerse otra distinta, en atención al principio de no reforma en perjuicio."
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"No se trata de una doble imposición, pues el deber de inscripción se transgredió respecto de dos escrituras distintas las cuales tienen entidad y efectos propios."
"This does not constitute double imposition, since the duty to register was breached with respect to two distinct instruments that have their own character and effects."
Considerando VI
"No se trata de una doble imposición, pues el deber de inscripción se transgredió respecto de dos escrituras distintas las cuales tienen entidad y efectos propios."
Considerando VI
"La eficacia plena de un acto transmisible y registrable, se alcanza con la inscripción en el Registro respectivo, dado que con ese acto, es plenamente oponible a terceros."
"The full effectiveness of a transferable and registrable act is achieved upon registration in the corresponding Registry, as from that moment it becomes fully enforceable against third parties."
Considerando VI
"La eficacia plena de un acto transmisible y registrable, se alcanza con la inscripción en el Registro respectivo, dado que con ese acto, es plenamente oponible a terceros."
Considerando VI
"No resulta posible imponer una sanción menor que la decretada, ni puede imponerse otra distinta, en atención al principio de no reforma en perjuicio."
"It is not possible to impose a lesser sanction than the one decreed, nor a different one, by virtue of the principle of non-reformation in peius."
Considerando VI
"No resulta posible imponer una sanción menor que la decretada, ni puede imponerse otra distinta, en atención al principio de no reforma en perjuicio."
Considerando VI
Full documentDocumento completo
VI.- Regarding the reduction of the imposed sanction, as sought, the a quo imposed upon the appellant three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function for each of the two public instruments (escrituras) subject to the proceeding, and did so based on Article 144, subsection a) of the Notarial Code (Código Notarial). This is not a double imposition, since the duty of registration was breached with respect to two distinct public instruments which have their own entity and effects, such that his argument on this point lacks weight to alter what was decided. Nor can the request to reduce the sanction to one month be entertained, because the delay in the registration process caused both instruments to be ineffective, considering that the full effectiveness of a transferable and registrable act is achieved upon registration in the respective Registry, given that by that act, it is fully enforceable against third parties, as provided in Article 267 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), whose text reads: “For ownership of real property to produce all legal effects, it must be duly registered in the General Property Registry,” while Articles 7 and 12 of the Traffic Law (Ley de Tránsito) state: “Vehicle ownership is verified through its registration in the National Registry. The Registry shall grant the owner the corresponding title of ownership, license plates, and identification device at the time of its registration or replacement…” (Article 7) and “Registration does not validate registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to law. However, the eventual annulment of such registration shall not affect the rights of good faith third parties acting in reliance on the National Registry, nor the validity of contracts or acts issued based on the public faith of the registry” (Article 12), and in this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Voto number 1597-01, of fourteen hours thirty-eight minutes on the twenty-seventh of February two thousand one, emphasized: “II.- In the Chamber's opinion, registry registration, insofar as it has informative effects towards third parties, must be considered in a State of Law as part of the attributes of ownership; since a registry registration is required to carry out acts of transfer with third parties…” Thus, the disciplinary infraction should have been framed within the scenario of Article 145 of the Notarial Code, according to which: “Notaries shall be subject to suspensions of six months up to three years: c) If the ineffectiveness or nullity of a public instrument is due to a lack of skill, carelessness, or negligence attributable to them” and not under Article 144, subsection a) ibid, because registration, as noted by the a quo, is no longer possible due to the unjustified delay, an aspect that even occurred before the deadline provided for in the cited Article 144, subsection a) was given (Note that the property already had a registration to third parties, dated ten July two thousand eighteen, and the judicial sale (remate) was registered on twenty-three February two thousand seventeen, whereas the deadline was given on five December two thousand nineteen, and regarding the vehicle, the sale and loss of the vehicle by the acquirer to a third party had already occurred before the complaint, as it is mentioned in the grievance, which would imply a different solution, which cannot be varied due to the opposing party's failure to appeal). Thus, it is not possible to impose a lesser sanction than the one decreed, nor can a different one be imposed, in light of the principle of non-reformation in pejus.
**VI.**- Regarding the reduction of the imposed penalty, as requested, the lower court imposed on the appellant three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function, for each of the two deeds subject to the proceeding, and did so based on Article 144 subsection a) of the Código Notarial. This is not a double imposition, as the duty of registration was transgressed with respect to two distinct deeds which have their own entity and effects, so his argument on this point lacks weight to vary what was decided. Nor can the petition to reduce the penalty to one month be heeded, since the delay in the registration process caused both instruments to be ineffective, considering that the full effectiveness of a transmissible and registrable act is achieved upon registration in the respective Registry, given that with that act, it is fully enforceable against third parties, pursuant to Article 267 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), the text of which states: *“In order for property over real estate to produce all legal effects, it is necessary that it be duly registered in the General Property Registry (Registro General de la Propiedad)”*, while Articles 7 and 12 of the Ley de Tránsito, indicate: *“The ownership of vehicles is proven through their registration in the National Registry (Registro Nacional). The Registry shall provide the owner with the corresponding certificate of title, the license plates and the identification device, at the time of its registration or its replacement…”* (Article 7) and *“Registration does not validate acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to the law. However, the eventual annulment of said registration shall not affect the rights of third parties in good faith who acted in reliance on the National Registry nor the validity of contracts or acts issued based on the public faith of the registry”* (Article 12) and in this sense, the Sala Constitucional, in Voto número 1597-01, of fourteen hours and thirty-eight minutes of February twenty-seventh, two thousand one, emphasized: *“II.- In the opinion of this Chamber, Registry Registration, insofar as it has informative effects toward third parties, must be considered in a State of Law as part of the attributes of ownership; since registry registration is required to perform acts of transfer with third parties…”*. Thus, the disciplinary offense should have been framed within the provision of Article 145 of the Código Notarial, according to which: *“Notaries shall be imposed suspensions from six months up to three years: c) If the ineffectiveness or nullity of a public instrument is due to lack of skill, carelessness or negligence attributable to them”* and not in Article 144 subsection a) ibid, because the registration, as indicated by the lower court, is no longer possible, due to the unjustified delay, an aspect that even occurred before the deadline provided in the cited Article 144 subsection a) was given (Note that the property already had a registration to a third party, dated July tenth, two thousand eighteen, and the auction was registered on February twenty-third, two thousand seventeen, while the deadline was given on December fifth, two thousand nineteen, and regarding the vehicle, the sale and the loss of the vehicle by the purchaser to a third party, had already occurred before the complaint, as stated in the grievance, which would imply a different solution, which cannot be varied due to the counterparty's lack of appeal).
Thus, it is not possible to impose a lesser penalty than the one decreed, nor can a different one be imposed, in consideration of the principle of non reformation in peius."
"VI.- En lo tocante a la disminución de la sanción impuesta, como se pretende, el a quo impuso al recurrente, tres meses de suspensión en el ejercicio de la función notarial, por cada una de las dos escrituras objeto del proceso y lo hizo con fundamento en el artículo 144 inciso a) del Código Notarial. No se trata de una doble imposición,pues el deber de inscripción se transgredió respecto de dos escrituras distintas las cuales tienen entidad y efectos propios, de manera que su argumento sobre el punto, carece de peso para variar lo resuelto. Y tampoco puede atenderse a la petición de disminuir la sanción a un mes, pues la demora en el trámite de inscripción, generó que ambos instrumentos fueron ineficaces, considerando que la eficacia plena de un acto transmisible y registrable, se alcanza con la inscripción en el Registro respectivo, dado que con ese acto, es plenamente oponible a terceros, conforme dispone el artículos 267 del Código Civil, cuya letra, dice: “Para que la propiedad sobre inmuebles surta todos los efectos legales, es necesario que se halle debidamente inscrita en el Registro General de la Propiedad”, en tanto que los artículos 7 y 12 de la Ley de Tránsito, señalan: “La propiedad de los vehículos se comprueba mediante su inscripción en el Registro Nacional. El Registro otorgará al propietario el correspondiente título de propiedad, las placas de matrícula y el dispositivo de identificación, en el momento de su inscripción o su reposición…” (artículo 7) y “La inscripción no convalida los actos o los contratos inscritos que sean nulos o anulables conforme a la ley. Sin embargo, la eventual anulación de dicha inscripción no afectará los derechos de terceros de buena fe que actúen con vista del Registro Nacional ni la validez de los contratos o actos dictados con base en la fe pública registral” (artículo 12) y en este sentido, la Sala Constitucional, en el Voto número 1597-01, de las catorce horas con treinta y ocho minutos del veintisiete de febrero del dos mil uno, enfatizó: “II.- En criterio de la Sala, la inscripción Registral en tanto tiene efectos informativos hacia terceros debe considerarse en un Estado de Derecho parte de lo atributos de dominio; ya que se requiere de una inscripción registral para practicar actos de transmisión con terceros…”. Así, la falta disciplinaria debería haberse enmarcado dentro del supuesto del artículo 145 del Código Notarial, según el cual: “A los notarios se les impondrán suspensiones desde seis meses y hasta por tres años: c) Si la ineficacia o nulidad de un instrumento público se debe a impericia, descuido o negligencia atribuible a ellos” y no en el artículo 144 inciso a) ibid, pues la inscripción, según lo señalado por el a quo, ya no es posible, por causa de la demora injustificada, aspecto que incluso aconteció antes de que fuera dado el plazo previsto en el artículo 144 inciso a) citado (Nótese que la finca ya tenía una inscripción a terceros, de diez de julio del dos mil dieciocho y el remate, fue inscrito el veintitrés de febrero del dos mil diecisiete, en tanto el plazo se dio el cinco de diciembre del dos mil diecinueve y respecto del vehículo, la venta y pérdida del vehículo de parte de la adquiriente a un tercero, ya había acontecido antes de la denuncia, pues así se refiere en la queja, lo que implicaría una solución distinta, que no puede variarse en razón de la falta de recurso de la contraparte). Así, no resulta posible imponer una sanción menor que la decretada, ni puede imponerse otra distinta, en atención al principio de no reforma en perjuicio."
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.