Case ID: pr_6/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tibot v. the Registrar of Property.
    Appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Property of San Juan.
    No. 1.
    Decided March 20, 1904.
    Records — Transfer From the Old to the New Books of the Registry.. — Applications for the transfer of records from the old to the modern boohs of the Registry, presented by verbal mandataries, must be ratified by the interested parties within the year allowed for transfers, and said period having expired, the ratification applied for cannot be effected.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    A hearing was had of this administrative appeal taken by Attorney Cruz Castro, on behalf of José Ramón Tibot, from a decision of the registrar of property of this.city, refusing admission to record of the annotation ratifying the transfer of an entry from the old to the modern books of the Registry.
    A petition having been presented to the registrar of property of this city by José Ramón Tibot, on the 12th of January ultimo, requesting that an entry be made in the Registry, by a proper marginal note, of the petitioner’s ratification of the record of transfer from the old to the modern books of .the Registry of Property, of a mortgage for the sum of sixteen hundred escudos, which he had on an estate called “Aurora,” situated within the municipal district of Bayamón, which transfer had been effected by request of Angel Fernández, acting as petitioner’s verbal mandatary, all this having been done, it was stated, in compliance with the instructions contained upon the subject in Royal Order of June 18, 1895, the registrar refused to make the annotation requested for the reasons set forth in the note placed at the bottom of the petition, which reads as follows:
    “The notice of ratification applied for in the foregoing petition is not admitted because neither the Mortgage Law nor the Royal Order of June 18, 1895, authorizes the parties concerned to ratify records made in the Registry, said royal order being confined with respect to this particular to providing that applications for transfers presented by verbal mandataries shall be ratified by the parties interested within the year allowed for transfers; and no cautionary notice is entered because the entry applied for is not included in the Mortgage Law and Regulations, nor in the act to provide for appeals against the decisions of registrars of property. San Juan, Rorto Rico, January 23, 1904. Eduardo Acuña, Substitute Registrar.”
    Notice of the foregoing note having been served upon the petitioner, Jo,sé Ramón Tibot, he requested that the document be forwarded to this Supreme Court for proper action, as he was not satisfied with the decision of the registrar of prop-erty. This was done by said official, with the proper communication, Attorney Crnz Castro appearing afterwards with a written petition on behalf of José Ramón Tibot, the party interested, praying that said decision be reversed and the ratification applied for be sustained.
    
      Mr. Castro (Cruz), for appellant.
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

What was prescribed by the' royal order cited, with respect to the particular referred to by appellant, was that applications for transfers, presented by verbal mandataries, were to be ratified by the parties interested within the year ■allowed for transfers, and as the period within which the ratification should have been made was largely exceeded, and the transfer had been effected of the mortgage at the request of Angel Fernández, as verbal mandatary of the creditor, José Ramón Tibot, there is no means of effecting the ratification applied for by the latter.

Nor is Royal Order of November 28, 1894, which has also been cited, applicable to the case.

The decision of the registrar of this city is affirmed, and the documents presented are ordered to be returned to him, together with a copy of the present decision, for his information and that due effect may be given thereto.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.