Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución Nº1417-2024 SUNARP-TR (NSIR-T): la reserva de techo con posibilidad de futura vivienda y el derecho de sobreelevación en el régimen de la propiedad horizontal
Cargando...
Fecha
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Resumen
La presente resolución del Tribunal Registral tiene como problema principal la
inscripción de aires sobre aires de edificación futura de un departamento tipo
dúplex en una edificación de Surco de 4 pisos bajo un régimen de Propiedad
Horizontal con una reserva de techo inscrita en el reglamento interno de la
edificación. El Tribunal Registral brinda la posibilidad de independizar los aires
sobre aires con la sola presentación de un plano que designe el porcentaje de
áreas comunes otorgada y la determinación de un acceso directo independiente.
Con la finalidad de analizar la viabilidad de la excepción dada por el Tribunal
Registral se analizarán los siguientes instrumentos normativos, la Ley 27157, la
Ley 29090, la Ley 27972, el Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones, el Pleno
CXLIX, reglamento de la Ley 27157, jurisprudencia relevante, doctrina
comparada y el Pleno XCIII.
En base al análisis normativo se verificará que no es posible la independización
de aires sobre aires sin contar con una edificación previa, declaratoria de fábrica
dada exclusivamente por la Municipalidad para verificar parámetros urbanísticos
y edificatorios del proyecto de edificación. Asimismo, se planteará como solución
la prehorizontalidad para anotar de manera preventiva la proyección de
edificación cumpliendo con la validación de la autoridad competente y asegurar
su viabilidad en la edificación futura. Por último, se comprobará que hay una
distinción de significado en la reserva de techo/ azotea con la reserva de aires y
es necesario que el Tribunal Registral pueda manifestar esta diferenciación para
evitar imprecisiones en los Reglamentos Internos.
The present decision of the Registry Court has as its main issue the registration of air rights over air rights for a future duplex-type apartment in a four-story building located in Surco, under a Horizontal Property regime, with a roof reservation registered in the building's internal regulations. The Registry Court provides the possibility of subdividing the air rights over air rights with only the submission of a plan designating the percentage of common areas granted and the determination of an independent direct access. In order to analyze the viability of the exception granted by the Registry Court, the following regulatory instruments will be analyzed: Law 27157, Law 29090, Law 27972, the National Building Regulations, Plenary CXLIX, the regulation of Law 27157, relevant case law, comparative doctrine, and Plenary XCIII. Based on the regulatory analysis, it will be verified that the subdivision of air rights over air rights is not possible without a prior construction, and a building declaration issued exclusively by the Municipality to verify the urban and construction parameters of the building project. Likewise, pre-horizontal property will be proposed as a solution in order to register preventively the projected building, complying with the validation of the competent authority and ensuring its viability in future construction. Finally, it will be confirmed that there is a distinction in meaning between roof/terrace reservation and air rights reservation, and it is necessary for the Registry Court to express this differentiation in order to avoid inaccuracies in Internal Regulations.
The present decision of the Registry Court has as its main issue the registration of air rights over air rights for a future duplex-type apartment in a four-story building located in Surco, under a Horizontal Property regime, with a roof reservation registered in the building's internal regulations. The Registry Court provides the possibility of subdividing the air rights over air rights with only the submission of a plan designating the percentage of common areas granted and the determination of an independent direct access. In order to analyze the viability of the exception granted by the Registry Court, the following regulatory instruments will be analyzed: Law 27157, Law 29090, Law 27972, the National Building Regulations, Plenary CXLIX, the regulation of Law 27157, relevant case law, comparative doctrine, and Plenary XCIII. Based on the regulatory analysis, it will be verified that the subdivision of air rights over air rights is not possible without a prior construction, and a building declaration issued exclusively by the Municipality to verify the urban and construction parameters of the building project. Likewise, pre-horizontal property will be proposed as a solution in order to register preventively the projected building, complying with the validation of the competent authority and ensuring its viability in future construction. Finally, it will be confirmed that there is a distinction in meaning between roof/terrace reservation and air rights reservation, and it is necessary for the Registry Court to express this differentiation in order to avoid inaccuracies in Internal Regulations.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Propiedad horizontal--Legislación--Perú, Propiedad horizontal--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho registral--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derechos reales--Legislación--Perú
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

