the primacy of the seat in front of the Registry, a contribution that puts an end to a debate unnecessary.
Gunther * Gonzales Barron
BACKGROUND
A section of the doctrine that the protection afforded by registration, specifically in the field of public faith principle (art. 2014 CC), should be limited to information provided by the seat, so the void that appears in the title material (legal or business contract) does not affect the third, who should be considered protected by its exclusive reliance on the seat. It is said therefore that under the legal security of the third party verification must be reduced to check the registration or registration entry, as too expensive and complicated to require a query of the title.
For practical purposes the adoption of one or another solution can be summarized in the following example: A is the owner of a property under purchase agreements with X, this title is established that A is married, even if the registrar finds that mistakenly single. So far there is no doubt that the owner is A, marital status married. Then A sells the property to B, and in this business are a single filer to take advantage of the error logger. In this contract there is a condition resulting from insufficient power available to the seller. Subsequently B sells the property to the third C which relies solely on the seats and part purchase. If we opt for the thesis that gives absolute value to the registration, then C is protected by public confidence as the cause of invalidity is not on the registry entries, whereas the opposite view states that the defect itself appears business registration (enrolled titles), so that the third C is not worthy of protection. Good account, in contrast here is the thesis of registration entry against the title material.
I have always held the position favorable to the title material, and I think it is time to articulate in a single document the various foundations that protect this position, which I hope will contribute to put an end to a debate that really is unnecessary.
PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM To argue that the registry entries have their own life or create a new legal situation
The title contains a transmission business act or registration and may be registered. This gives rise to an administrative officer (Registrar) to extend a seat in which he makes a statement of the legal situation produced. In response, the authors argue the primacy of state registration entry that the discrepancies that exist between it and the title, or the grounds for invalidity to appear just in the subject, become irrelevant to the third, as the inscription is the only having legal effect. That is, the inscription gives rise to a "new status, other than the title and who can live independently of the latter.
The argument is easily refuted when one considers that advertising and the fact situations are inextricably linked in, even if they are in different planes, since the legal fact is that event that once happened in the world legal consequences , and is in the realm of "being" (or not), while advertising is only an instrument to provide general knowledge that very fact, and is in the realm of "known" (I know it or not .) Therefore, the advertising itself is nothing, because it simply exists to enhance the visibility of a particular fact. Within this logic, the legal fact is obviously the concept-prius (first key), which is advertising. In this vein advertising can not exist without the fact, or it may be different, because advertising is a relational concept, which is in relation to a pre-existing, which it serves. Clearly, then, that advertising can never replace or overcome the fact, as this would involve the consistent logical absurdity in admitting the publicity about the vacuum, ie, about nothing to refer. Thus, an event that happens in reality (fact) may be object of narration, as when he relates a newspaper (advertising), but never the narrative (advertising) may amend or repeal the occurrence of the event (fact), which exists by itself, and is in the world of "being" the real facts of the specific situations.
In this regard, it is true that the registration would result in a "new status", which is shown in the following example: if a corporation decides to confer a power, the legal fact is the same whether you are registered or not, if you join is still an act of empowerment, and the record does not have the effect of changing thaumaturgical nature, for this reason, there a "new status" but the record gives advertising the same event (power), which does not become another one. It is true that you can produce some special legal consequences as a result of registration, but that in no way change the legal nature of the act, which remains exactly the same (a power). Advertising can not have its own life, it always refers to a fact, without it there is no publicity. Therefore, the registration does not create a new legal situation is different, which means that advertising does not have the strength to lead a fact alone does not exist.
CRITICISM LEGAL TO THOSE WHO HOLD THE SEAT HAS OWN LIFE REGISTRATION OR CREATE A NEW STATUS
A sector of the English doctrine holds that the contents of the document and the content of the inscription are different, which dissociates the "title" (business document that evidences the act or transaction ") with respect to the" registration entry (legal status or right under the title). Therefore, only the latter affects the third, which is achieved only seat priority, and the title becomes irrelevant.
Where born this idea referred to a registration may be autonomous in relation to the instrument is its efficient cause? Well, this idea originated in German law, where the transfer of ownership operates through abstract agreement and subsequent registration. The abstract agreement is simply a statement of joint intention to transfer the one hand and purchased the other, the same which is completely unrelated business that has the causal basis (purchase, donation, exchange, etc.).. If the business causal is zero, the transfer of ownership or other real right is still valid, since the abstract agreement is detached from its cause. In any case, the injured party is entitled only to an action to recover obligational character (debt), but the real right will remain unshaken: "From the standpoint of legal policy, the attitude of Cc (German) can be justified by the desire to avoid any doubts on the validity of causal business, effective only inter partes, may harm the clarity of the real legal situation. "
In this sense, the real business added to the registration abstract, produces the effect of transfer of ownership or other real right, being detached from the business causal. Both of them have independent legal life and therefore, within the German legal system, it is permissible for the "seat" (finding that transfer of ownership in a business view abstract) to dissociate the "title mediate" (business causal). Within the German system, the causal business (sales) would be the "title mediate" completely detached from the abstract business of attribution which is published through the "seat", "The transfer of ownership, as it is shaped by legal system as a bargaining type of legal action, can not, according to our law, contain within itself its cause. There is, according to our law, an act of transfer of ownership by reason of sale or donation, but only the act of transfer of ownership 'per se', ie without regard to the cause by which transmission occurs on the property. To the extent that the law of the case abstracts the type of business act of attribution, is designated right to business, business abstract. "
For this reason, the budget for the existence of an inscription is detached from the real business title abstract. When this budget is not presented, it is illogical to separate the claim the "title" with respect to the "registration or seat." The large differences between the German and Peruvian (actually, the difference is generalized to all other European and Latin American rights) are inapplicable in our theory of the inscription "substantive." However, it views things, not even in the German system can decouple the registration entry to the title that it is based. Indeed, recall that even in this area, the registration of a title advertises: the real business abstract ("I want to convey and you want to buy"), which is detached from the required causal business (sale, exchange, donation .) That is, the seat registration can not live alone, even in Germany, and therefore has created the abstract business technical device whose purpose is that the events or conditions causal business (sale, exchange, etc..) do not affect the transfer of the right. More or less that is what happens with the thesis that detaches the title of the seat, as the void that appears on the first is not transferred to the registration. In sum, there is a law Germanic trilogy in the process of transfer of rights: first, the causal business (sale, exchange, gift) that becomes the "title mediate" transmission, which constitutes the base from supporting obligational perspective. En segundo lugar viene el negocio abstracto, basado en el anterior, por el cual se declara la voluntad de transmitir y que constituye el “título inmediato” de la transferencia. En tercer lugar tenemos la inscripción que da publicidad del negocio abstracto y cierra el proceso de transferencia. Nótese que el asiento registral contiene el título inmediato, esto es, el negocio abstracto; por lo que la inscripción siempre cumple la función publicitaria de un negocio o título transmisivo. El dato adicional es que esa inscripción sí aparece desligada del título mediato o negocio causal, pero siempre necesita del título inmediato.
En consecuencia, en el sistema alemán se ha tenido el cuidado Always set a different business (abstract) to justify the transfer, and that is a matter of record advertising. Thus, here too the fact dissociates (abstract business) advertising (registration), and at most, the separation is between another business (causal) with the transmission business (abstract). However, in our country there are the abstract business, so this is not the subject of advertising, and if there is no causal relevance to the business (title), then the question arises: what action is contained in our registration? If the seat does not publish the abstract business (which does not exist), nor the causal business (to live detached from the seat thereof, in theory), then the conclusion would be that the inscription in Peru DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY BUSINESS. It is absurd to think that there may be a right (real or otherwise) without a title that originated. Or is that the registrar to extend the seat, he created the business? How this claim obviously can not be sustained, then it is obvious that this thesis is refuted.
VALLET remember is not the same rights to publish some abstracted from its title, to publish the same rights to its title, together with him, reflecting his cause, purpose and special stipulations. The registry was not merely say that such property belongs to a specific person, but informs us that such ownership has occurred under this or the legal business, and it is this business that has access to the Land Registry. The eminent English writer gives the example of the trust, where the real effectiveness of the act translative hidden contrasts with the obligation imposed on the purchaser. Nevertheless, if the obligation is inserted into the act, that is causaliza and evidently affected. Therefore, if you publish the trust business, the failure to be generating the inefficiency of transmission to the third sub-purchaser, either for lack of standing of the transferee (who must formalize the transfer only the beneficiary of the trust), or simply by bad faith of the third. Thus it is clear that the legal business complex content influences the later life of the law passed (and published in the registry). So would a judicial declaration of nullity of a contract of sale, resulting void the property transfer with the business operated was not related to the cause of nullity of defects occur in a clause or another obligational real character.
Similarly expressed LACRUZ and Sancho, to whom the registration is not a legal transaction, and only hosts the event registration (title), in the philosophical sense is the efficient cause of registration. With its rich natural concepts LAGOS NUÑEZ said: "The Registry of rights, as it were in chemistry by body simply is the result of isolation, independence and abstraction of one element: the individual right of real nature. Has occurred only in the German BGB ... in a word, in Spain, as in Latin laws, the real law is born and lives in dependence on mixing or obligations. "
Therefore, the seat has no life of its own because it is connected causally with the title that gave it birth. In our system causalist economic powers does not fit the seat post registration something other than the title. Abstract systems, such as German, can not justify a law of this type, but not ours it is causal, and yet it must be remembered that the Germanic inscription is always connected to a business (abstract), that is, to a degree . It follows that a comparison is not enough legislation between different countries' legal systems, it is necessary to know the basics of each institution to avoid the error of benefit to a foreign doctrine different legal bases and unenforceable. The legal transplant can not be automated.
CRITICISM ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOLDING ECONOMIC SEAT FOR REGISTRATION
The philosophical and legal arguments set out in the previous two paragraphs, about the nature of advertising, are already sufficient grounds for the critical position. However, holders of registration entry own life did not remain with folded arms and turned to the familiar economic arguments, as he referred to the need to reduce transaction costs. Indeed, if the operation of a market economy means that trade should be encouraged in order that the goods pass naturally into the hands of those who value them more so, and that is how wealth is used in the most efficient , thus increasing the overall utility and benefit of society, then it seems logical to be provided to the commission of acts of voluntary exchange, thus it is necessary to "reduce transaction costs."
course nobody is against simplification, elimination of unnecessary formalities and facilitate trade within a context of legal certainty. However, there does not appear that the "reduction of transaction costs" will become a general principle of canon law or a quasi-sacred, unyielding material justice. If so then all transcendent values on which our civilization is built should be rolled back in this purely formal criterion of dubious justice when it comes to relationships between powerful and weak. Not acceptable that the values \u200b\u200band principles which underlie our Constitution, such as human dignity, equality, freedom, etc., Must be subjected to any formal economic approach.
Perhaps this theoretical analysis may be sufficient to eliminate the overvaluation that is intended to give the cost reduction approach. However, we will also make a practical analysis in the light of the conflict of interests to be solved under the primacy positions seat or title.
The principle of public faith in Art. CC 2014, seeks to answer the following question: what happens if a transmission chain prior act is null? Indeed, the natural consequence of the invalidity bargaining passes render ineffective the transmission business, and if it is the subject of a new legal provision for third, then it does not buy anything because his act alienating a non domino . If A sells to B and then B sells to C, then the invalidity of the first business that B does not own, so the second business would be a sale of property of others that do not produce the effect of turning the owner to C . However, the principle public trust, whose motivation is to provide legal certainty with justice in the area of \u200b\u200bmovement of goods, is based on the honest belief of the third in the Registry in such a way that C can be protected from the invalidity of the prior act provided that acquires who appears as such in the register, and it has no cause of conflict and enters his own act. Note that public trust is a mechanism in extremis, for which the system is in the ethical conflict of preferring the interest of a subject in front of another ("A or C?), As one of the two will be stripped of their right . Here comes into dispute the reasons for the original owner, who is affected by a void that often is not caused because the victim of forgery, fraud, deceit, etc., while on the other side is the reason for the trusted third party that acquires the log. Both positions deserve legal protection, and the mere fact of choosing one of them and it seems unfair. Given such a perspective is necessary for the preferred subject is simply "clean hands" (clean hands in English or Italian Puliti mani) to deserve this special and extraordinary care. For this reason, it is not permissible for a third party who has incurred serious doubts or ambiguities in the acquisition, it was rewarded by the laws against an owner affected by nullity. Note that often the two subjects (the original owner and third) are innocent because they act in disregard of the facts behind the inaccuracy, but the third was able to meet this situation with a simple title refers to the transferring material, how can receive protection? "Under what principle of law can give priority to the fault versus no-fault? Public faith must be regarded as an exceptional mechanism for repealing the legal, ie eliminates the drag effect of the revocation, and imposes a fiction. This being so, it can only be reached when the end benefited from the protection has acted diligently and had no rational way of knowing the cause of invalidity. Thus, we have a concept of social morality and legal justice can act on the case, and without narrow dogmatic molds.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted and with a striking uniformity in a hundred years, there is a clear primacy of the material on the registration entry, since the latter is considered a mere "summary" of that no proper nouns. Among the many enforceable spoken on this issue, and the collection of which well deserves a thesis, we have marked with numbers: 2356-98-Lima (Official Gazette: 12 November 1999), 415-99-Lima (Official Gazette: September 1, 1999), 158-2000-San Martín (Official Gazette: October 30, 2000), 1322-2001, Lima (Official Gazette: October 01 2002), 2580-2001, Lima (Official Gazette: May 2, 2002). Therefore, it must be concluded that there is a current consolidated case law that supports the position here maintained, for which the registration records can only be understood in accordance with the title of which they come, and never take precedence over him.
However, recently formed a Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued a careless sentence which holds that verification of archived titles only necessary when the registration entry is insufficient information, because otherwise "raises the cost of legal acts." On the particular notice what it means despicable DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO A LEGITIMATE OWNER for the simple fact that the third party did not want to spend four new soles on a title to read archived. Perhaps that is a rise in transaction costs?, And if you strip out "that allows anyone? Can you eliminate rights for a third party acting with guilt? How long the reduction of transaction costs is a general principle of law? Can not be placed on one level the proposed cost reduction with the principles of material justice, such as human dignity, freedom, autonomy and effective protection of private rights acquired.
Public faith is a radical solution that gives the status of truth to what is not, it repeals the absolute effects of nullity, thus leaving in question the values, even foundational to human dignity itself, which support the management decision to disqualify a particular act or transaction. For this reason, legal systems that host the registration principle they do it in the media, the imposition of different requirements (good faith, onerous, that the record is not showing the causes of invalidity, etc..), Or other cases simply is not received by respect for the legal reality and the values \u200b\u200bit embodies. Therefore, the statement referred to the primacy of the seat hypothetical "cost reduction" is nothing more than a theoretical siren without any support in the General Principles of Law. Fortunately
recently a Board of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court has returned to good teaching by issuing a copy statement in which he analyzes with great depth and detail the requirements for implementing the principle of public faith. Not the case to analyze the entire decision, which certainly is very interesting, but limited to the relevant definition makes the registry entry as simple summary or abstract of title material, so it can never be independent or substantive. Thus be regarded as the isolated execution quoted above has been superseded by a most recent decision, especially if there is a test case virtually repeated in a century.
To finish this point I note that not a single American author who you can think that the wording of a document made by an administrative official can overcome the title of acquisition or transfer contract. In the United States law, which some see as an ideal, however, no comes to this bold conclusion. Why we want to impose on our country? Without doubt, the third world not only arises from the claim back legal models, but mainly by extreme want the copy to the point where the branch intends to be even more radical than the parent. That certainly does not only occur in the field of Law & Economics, but also in Constitutionalism sacrosanct. Therefore, if you want to copy, then at least copy well.
CRITICISM ABOUT THE CASE OF RELEVANCE HOLD FOR REGISTRATION SEAT
also presents practical arguments a efectos a dar primacía al asiento registral. En tal sentido se dice: “Las partes, y para ser mas preciso, el Notario, son responsables por los títulos que ingresan al registro. Cuando el título accede al registro la responsabilidad se traslada al registrador, quien debe calificarlo y, de encontrarlo conforme, proceder a la inscripción. Cualquier error en la inscripción, por tanto, debe ser responsabilidad del registrador (o del registro). Exigirle a los interesados que revisen los títulos archivados equivale casi a que las partes realicen la función calificadora del registrador. Esto es inadmisible” . Lo mismo puede decirse respecto a otros argumentos análogos, tales como la “seguridad jurídica del purchaser "or" the faster movement of goods, etc. Unfortunately
such utilitarian arguments, analogous to the Economists, can not prevail over the fundamental values \u200b\u200bof the legal and general principles. In fact, you can not consecrate the activity of the registrar to the extent that its wrong or criminal action may have the serious consequence of MODIFY OR REPEAL THE ACT OR BUSINESS HELD BY INDIVIDUALS, for the simple fact that there is inconsistency between the title and seat. Such a system involves giving preference to the simple way by the mere fact of being such, or because the government decreed it that way through a official. This is only achieved a formalistic system irrational, and is even at odds with liberal principles underlying the utilitarian argument, because the arbitrariness of the state prevails on the lawful acts of individuals. Indeed, advertising is preferred here empty, without the legal fact which must necessarily refer.
To refute this thesis, we must also remember that the drafting of an official referred to the legal business data can never have the effect CHANGE YOUR OWN BUSINESS. When a person acquires a right does so by virtue of the sale, exchange or donation, ie conferring a business recognized by law, and never in recognition of the simple writing of an administrative document by an official. What would be the mode of acquisition in such a case? Who were the parties to the purchasing act, the registrar perhaps? Is it a consideration or free? All these questions come before a thesis can not be sustained, because in itself lead to the acquisitions of property, regulated by the Civil Code, must include a hypothesis as follows: "The decision of the registrar to put on a seat ". In no world system that the registration is accepted fact replace the purchasing, in the best cases becomes the final stage of transmission, but can never ignore the fact conferring legal, because otherwise it would result in an advertisement aimed at herself, and published the fact that it does not matter.
ON REGULATORY STANDARDS
is true that the new General Regulation of Public Registries (RGRP) tried to give relative autonomy to the registration entry, separating it from the title that gave it birth. While that may have been the intention of the drafters of the rule, however, be considered as a regulation can not alter the causal system adopted by the substantive Civil Code. For this reason, they are to reject the views that seek to give independent substantive value to the registration entry. For its part, the Regulations of the Registrar of Companies (RRS) also tried to point out that the grounds of inaccuracy or disability must be included only in the registration records, which aims to give privilege to the registration on the title. However, all these reforms should be considered failed because a modest registration regulations or procedure can not alter the substantive rules of the legal business formation, causes of acquisition of rights, nullity of business and its effects, nor can they enter a radical change would business support Germanic stamp abstract, against all norms and principles now firmly implanted in the Civil Code.
Moreover, comprehensive reading of those same regulations are cautioned not possible to give independent life to an inscription (advertising) to the act which gave rise to (legal fact). Thus, for example, provides for acts registrable (causes) in the art. 3 RRS, in addition, the registration must include the title (event causal) which is the subject of advertising (art. 13-d RRS), and so does the RGRP where corrections are made under the act causal and the invalidity of this determines the cancellation registration, in addition, the absence of the act implies that it can be administratively cancel the registration, etc. Therefore, the same rules it follows that there is a necessary link between the act and the seat, and this is because advertising always refers to a legal fact.
WHAT IS THE REGISTRY ENTRY?
is said that the Peruvian system is a proper registration of "extraction", ie, the registrar would be obliged to remove the title only relevant law for others, and this law is published in the seat . In this regard, it is argued that if the Register has done an extraction complex, then it is logical that the third party is to be sent back to the title filed. Actually, that statement can not be sustained because advertising does not exist by itself, ie without a real object to which it relates. Again we reiterate that there are two different levels: one, advertising the fact that imperative need for this is its object, and another is the fact that he lives alone, either in advertising or otherwise, for obvious and logical questions is the concept-prius.
If there is an extraction system with substantive effects, namely that the registration, without the title would be sufficient to support an acquisition, then it should be stated in explicit legal standards that recognize the unprecedented economic system functions, and for this purpose not just the careless drafting of a regulation, but a whole set of civil institutions that meet this criterion. For example, if the registration repealing the title and all that matters is that, then there should be a procedural mechanism that allows the purchaser of a right to take prior knowledge of the drafting of the seat for you can challenge it. The reason is obvious: if a public official, by deceit, guilt or ignorance, has the power to repeal a legal business just because purchasing to write an entry, what remedies gives the order to challenge that decision? Mandatory should be given the chance to "appeal the inscription" to protect property rights recognized in the Constitution or any other rights based on private autonomy. Needless to say, none of this exists, since registration is only a summary of the title, a mere formal statement simplifying purposes and is not governed by the substantive laws, but registration regulations. Therefore, if you want to argue that the "extraction" radical effect that purchasing occurs (which does not exist in Comparative Law) then you first have to prove that this system actually exists, and since we can not prove the absence of standards and background, then the whole argument falls apart by itself.
In this sense, the technique of extracting a summary of the title, transcribe or are simply facilitators of formal advertising from different perspectives. By removing it gives the audience a quick summary and the legal position, notwithstanding that it actually occurs under the business attributes, including transcript, however, given the public a full content of the information without pick up. Choose one or the other is a simple matter of organization registration office, but there may be advanced to the point of creating magical effects or caster to register, and get to the point of ignoring the reality that in this case is the legal fact purchasing. Something else: the subjects have the fundamental right to self-regulate their private interests through contracts or legal transactions, including use of their property, but the proposed system a government official would have the power, through an error you or a misinterpretation, to CHANGE THE CONTRACT OR MODIFY AN ACQUISITION OR CHANGE THE CONTENT OF A COURT JUDGEMENT, and just for the sake of writing in bad shape a registration entry. This system does not exist or can exist because it is against the fundamentals of the legal system governing private individuals, and violates the role of the state itself. In short, the work of the registrar to "extract" (or short) the legal fact relevant circumstances through a registration does not mean at all that "what matters" is the only reality, including repeal of purchasing legal fact. A system of this kind, to the extent arbitrary because the private relations would be at the mercy of a powerful state, THERE IN COMPARATIVE LAW.
other hand, we can also outline practical reasons to close the case for our position. The first is to recognize that the registrar can not enjoy much power that allows you to declare your deposit only the acquisition of rights, even when the facts of the public to express something different. In other words, it is unacceptable to provide a public official the power to repeal legal transactions between private parties, for the simple fact of having made an erroneous entry. Such a system is repugnant to the fundamental values \u200b\u200bof our legal system, and can not be admitted even in speculative way.
A second practical reason: If the registration entry contains all relevant information, then wondered why the title is filed if no function may be invoked? It has sometimes been criticized this position by noting that no substantive advertising is related to the formal advertising, and the reality is that it does, and there can only be invoked against (advertising material) when the information is knowable effectively (formal advertising), otherwise it would result in an intolerable fiction. Moreover, the best doctrine states that one of the three fundamental principles of the register (in this case refers to the business, but the conclusion may well generalize) is that of OPPOSABILITY RATIO AND knowability: "the protection of third parties requires that they can be opposed only those facts which they themselves can obtain knowledge through consultation with the advertising tool, that is the record."
For this reason, the Peruvian system, and I firmly believe that in all others, the registration entry is simply a formal statement of the title. That is, when the Registrar considers that a title is suitable for access to land registration, proceed to issue a summary of the act or contract in the registration sheet. But that summary is made in a purely formal, without giving any substantive or material efficiency to content seat, since there is no separation between them. In fact, what is sought is to give things to the users through the extension of information extracted seats to allow a quicker understanding of the registration sheet, but this summary of information is formal as it does not repeal or abrogate the only reality legal material contained in the title. Good account, it is only a measure of formal advertising to simplify access to the users of the information contained in the registry, but nothing more.
CONCLUSIONS
transmissions or acquisition of rights performed under legal acts recognized by the law, among others, the legal acts or business of file. The registration of the title of attribution change or mutate its own nature, because the registry is to feature advertising of certain legal facts, but not invent or denature. Advertising, therefore, can not exist without the fact published, which follows the natural primacy (prius concept) of title on registration.
Within this context, the registration entry is not going to be a formal summary of the title, no proper nouns, which means for practical purposes the third material should check the title to rule out any causal notorious invalidity or unenforceability, and in order to achieve protection of the public faith registration contained in art. CC 2014.
The principle of public faith attempts to resolve a human drama involving the two men dispute the ownership of an asset. This will always be a disadvantage, as the original owner or the third party purchaser. In certain circumstances, opt for the latter, but this requires imposing acting with clean hands, which applied to this case involves the verification of title. Otherwise, there is no moral or legal reason to do prevail its position on the owner affected by the invalidity. __________________
* Professor of Civil Law at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Universidad de San Martín de Porres and Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal COFOPRI Property.
