# Opinion

> United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · September 13, 2011

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11356214

## Case

- **Full name:** Nivea V. Perez Mujica v. Firstbank Puerto Rico
- **Court:** United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
- **Decided:** September 13, 2011
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11356214

## Opinion text

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
2
3
IN RE: : CASE NO. 09-07655
4 :
NIVEA V. PEREZ MUJICA : CHAPTER 13
5 :
Debtor :
6 ____________________________________:
:
7 NIVEA V. PEREZ MUJICA : ADVERSARY NO. 10-00024
:
Plaintiff :
8
:
vs. :
9 :
FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO :
10 :
Defendant :
11 :
____________________________________:
12
13
14
OPINION AND ORDER
15
This adversary proceeding is before the court upon the motion for summary judgment filed
16
on November 2, 2010 by Nivea V. Pérez Mujica (hereinafter referred to as “Debtor” or “Plaintiff”)
17
(Docket No. 29). Plaintiff argues that FirstBank Puerto Rico (hereinafter referred to as “FirstBank”
18
or Defendant”) does not have a mortgage lien over its real property and thus, is not a secured creditor.
19
Debtor’s basis for her argument is that the mortgage lien over the real property in controversy, which
20
was presented to the Property Registrar prior to Debtor’s filing of the bankruptcy petition, but was
21
unrecorded at the time of the bankruptcy filing, will never be able to be recorded by the Property
22
Registrar because it fails to satisfy Article 57 of the Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico, 30 L.P.R.A.
23
§2260, given that there is a missing link in its chain of titleholders (“falta de tracto”) because a prior
24
deed of purchase related to this property was notified to the Public Notary due to errors contained in
25
said deed and the same was never corrected. Thus, the net result is that FirstBank is an unsecured
26
creditor since Debtor is not the registered title owner of the real property and is unable to encumber
27
the real property. Debtor also argues that FirstBank’s mortgage deed fails to satisfy the requirements
28
of Article 188 of the Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2607, since the same
1 was not registered at the time of Debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
2 On December 10, 2010, FirstBank filed its opposition to Debtor’s motion for summary
3 judgment and cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that; (i) Sections 362(b)(3) and
4 546(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code creates an exception to the automatic stay for “any act to
5 perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in property to the extent that the
6 trustee’s rights and powers are subject to such perfection under Section 546(b)” of the Bankruptcy
7 Code, allowing for the post-petition perfection of mortgage liens or the maintenance or continuation
8 of perfection of an interest in property that were properly presented to the Property Registrar before
9 the filing of the bankruptcy petition; and (ii) Article 53 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A.
10 §2256, is the applicable State statute which contains a relation-back mechanism which provides that
11 a mortgage lien becomes effective against third parties from the date the mortgage deed was presented
12 before the Property Registry, despite its registration at a later date (Docket No. 34).
13 Subsequently, Debtor on March 12, 2011, filed her Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment
14 and Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and to Request for Leave to Conclude
15 Perfection of Secured Claim (Docket No. 42). On March 14, 2011, FirstBank filed its Motion to
16 Strike Plaintiff’s “Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Cross-Motion for
17 Summary Judgment and to Request for Leave to Conclude Perfection of Secured Claim” (Docket No.
18 43). For the reasons set forth below Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and
19 FirstBank’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
20 Facts and Procedural Background
21 Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on September
22 12, 2009. The 341 meeting of creditors was scheduled for October 22, 2009 (Docket No. 5 in lead
23 case No. 09-07655) and was subsequently continued and finalized on December 4, 2009, (Docket
24 Nos. 17 & 25 in lead case). Debtor included in her Schedule A- Real Property, her 50% interest in
25 the real property (residence) and described the same as;
26 “½ interest over residence located at Bo. Jimenez, Road 967 Km. 7.8, Rio Grande, PR 00745.
Description: 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, living room, dining room & kitchen. Bought in 2004
27 at price of $130,000.00. Debtor has not been able to register her title. The previous owner,
who sold the property to Debtor and Debtor’s companion, were not able to register their own
28 title. Thus, Debtor’s purchase deed was not registered in the registry due to problems with the
2
1 ‘tracto’ or the sequence in title. This has affected the value of the property. Debtor has
appraised the property in $90,000. Debtor’s participation is half of this.” (Docket No. 1 in lead
2 case).
3
On September 24, 2009, FirstBank filed proof of claim No. 4-1 for a secured claim based on
4
a mortgage note and deed in the amount of $145,192.83 of which $23,473.02 was allocated to
5
arrearages and other charges. Included in proof of claim number 4-1 are the mortgage note and the
6
corresponding mortgage deed.
7
On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant adversary proceeding challenging the secured
8
nature of FirstBank’s claim by alleging the following: (i) “[t]he deed of purchase in which the
9
previous owners, Miguel Antonio Santiago Soto and Yadel Marie Aquino Santiago, purchased this
10
property, was not registered and the ‘asiento de presentación’ lapsed. Consequently, debtor is not the
11
registered title owner of the property and the mortgage deed between debtor and Pan
12
American/FirstBank cannot gain access to the registry because of lack of ‘tract’ for this property. See
13
Article 57 of Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2260;” and (ii) “[a]t the time of the filing of
14
the petition by debtor, the property was not encumbered by the mortgage deed in favor of FirstBank.
15
The mortgage deed had not been registered and accordingly, under applicable Puerto Rico Mortgage
16
Law, FirstBank does not hold a secured lien. 30 L.P.R.A. §2607.” (Docket No. 1, pg. 5). On June 18,
17
2010, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint (Docket No. 18). On November 1, 2010, Debtor
18
filed a motion for summary judgment based on the two (2) arguments summarized above. On
19
November 2, 2010 a status conference was held in which the court granted FirstBank thirty (30) days
20
to oppose the motion for summary judgment and twenty (20) days for replies. The pre-trial hearing
21
was continued without a date and per the Chapter 13 Trustee request, FirstBank must address issue
22
of state court judgment entered in its favor and against Debtor and whether the same affects in any
23
way the motion for summary judgment and FirstBank’s secured status (Docket Nos. 30 & 33). On
24
November 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion submitting documents including a title study of parcel
25
#1714, which is the original parcel from which lot #13 (Debtor’s real property) was to be segregated,
26
dated October 29, 2010 (Docket No. 31). Subsequently, FirstBank filed its opposition to the motion
27
for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment and request for leave to conclude
28
3
1 perfection of secured claim, by which it presented the following arguments: (i) Sections 362(b)(3) and
2 546(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code creates an exception to the automatic stay for “any act to
3 perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in property to the extent that the
4 trustee’s rights and powers are subject to such perfection under Section 546(b)” of the Bankruptcy
5 Code, thus allowing for the post-petition perfection of mortgage liens or the maintenance or
6 continuation of perfection of an interest in property that were properly presented to the Property
7 Registrar before the filing of the bankruptcy petition; (ii) FirstBank’s mortgage deed was timely and
8 properly presented to the Property Registrar before the filing of Debtor’s bankruptcy petition,
9 guaranteeing its secured status, thus it must be allowed to conclude efforts to complete perfection of
10 its security interests over the real property; (iii) Article 53 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30
11 L.P.R.A. §2256, is the applicable State statute which contains a relation-back mechanism which
12 provides that a mortgage lien becomes effective against third parties from the date the mortgage deed
13 was presented before the Property Registry, despite its registration at a later date; (iv) the United
14 States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in Soto Rios v. Banco Popular, Civil No. 10-
15 1023(JAG) Docket No. 6, analyzed Section 546(b)(1)(A) and held that, (a) “a creditor who files its
16 mortgage deed prior to the filing date of the bankruptcy petition (such as FirstBank) has a valid
17 property interest which may be perfected during the bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore not subject
18 to debtor’s avoidance efforts;” and (b) “Section 546(b) was enacted with the intent to protect, in spite
19 of the surprise intervention of a bankruptcy petition, those whom state law protects by allowing them
20 to perfect their liens or interests as of an effective date that is earlier than the date of perfection;” (v)
21 “[n]otwithstanding Debtor’s arguments with respect to existing defects in prior documents presented,
22 Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) allow FirstBank to take all corrective measures required in order
23 to ensure the maintenance and continuation of perfection of its mortgage lien during the present
24 bankruptcy proceedings. The Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico, in turn, provides all of the necessary
25 mechanisms that enable FirstBank to achieve said task;” and (vi) “FirstBank obtained a judgment
26 against Debtor, among other parties, on May 13, 2009, entered by the Court of First Instance, Rio
27 Grande Part. Said Court, however, reserved its right to pronounce itself with respect to FirstBank’s
28 right to foreclose upon the property, until it submits evidence that the mortgage lien is duly recorded
4
1 before the Registry. Given that FirstBank’s claim must be deemed secured as argued above, the
2 Judgment has no effect upon FirstBank’s secured status (Docket No. 34).
3 On February 21, 2011, FirstBank filed a motion for adjudication of pending motions for
4 summary judgment requesting this court to adjudicate the pending motions and to deny any further
5 requests for extensions of time or replies to be filed by Debtor (Docket No. 39). On February 22,
6 2011, Debtor filed an opposition to FirstBank’s motion requesting entry of order for adjudication of
7 pending motions for summary judgment and requesting a second extension of time by which Debtor
8 explains that she failed to file her reply to FirstBank’s opposition nor timely requested an additional
9 extension of time because she believed that she had 45 days from the date of entry of the court order
10 (January 26, 2011, Docket No. 37) to file said reply (until March 12, 2011) rather than 45 days from
11 the date of the motion requesting said extension of time (December 30, 2011, Docket No. 35). Debtor
12 requests a second extension of time to file her reply based on the “excusable neglect” standard
13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) because her failure to file a reply was not premised upon bad
14 faith and the same did not prejudice the opposing party (Docket No. 40). On February 22, 2011,
15 Firstbank filed its reply to Debtor’s Opposition to Motion Requesting Entry of Order for Adjudication
16 of Pending Motions for Summary Judgment and Requesting Second Extension of Time, by which it
17 argues that Plaintiff’s erroneous belief regarding the due date of her reply is unwarranted and
18 unsupported by applicable rules, namely P.R. LBR 1001-1(b) and L.Cv.R. 6 (D.P.R. 2009) (Docket
19 No. 41). On March 12, 2011, Debtor filed her Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
20 and Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and to Request Leave to Conclude
21 Perfection of Secured Claim (Docket No. 42). On March 14, 2011, FirstBank filed a motion to strike
22 Plaintiff’s “Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Cross-Motion
23 for Summary Judgment and to Request for Leave to Conclude Perfection of Secured Claim” because
24 the same was filed almost one month after Plaintiff’s request for time extension had lapsed (Docket
25 No. 43).
26 Plaintiff’s objection to the secured status of FirstBank’s mortgage claim hinges on whether
27 FirstBank’s unrecorded mortgage lien meets the necessary requirements under the exception to the
28 automatic stay provided under Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code which
5
1 allows the post-petition registration of the mortgage lien subject to satisfying certain requirements
2 which will be discussed herein.
3
4 Uncontested Material Facts
5 1. Plaintiff is the co-owner of a residential real property built in a lot of 1.0265 “cuerdas,”
6 located in Barrio Zarzal, in the Municipality of Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
7 2. On June 14, 1993, deed #21, was executed before Notary Public Salvador Pérez Mayol and
8 presented before the Property Registry, Section III of Carolina on April 10, 1996. The purpose of the
9 same was (a) to adjudicate property interest originating from a division of estate property amongst
10 various heirs; (b) to segregate various lots from parcel #1714, including lot #13 which corresponds
11 to Debtor’s real property; and (c) for the rectification of size of real properties. This deed was notified
12 as defective on November 30, 2005 by the Property Registrar and the same expired uncorrected on
13 January 31, 2006 (Docket No. 34, Exhibit I, Copy of Title Study dated October 29, 2010 and Docket
14 No. 29, Exhibit Title Study dated February 13, 2008).
15 3. On March 20, 1999 deed #9 was executed before Notary Public Sonia Ríos Rosario and
16 presented before the Property Registry on March 25, 1999. Through this particular deed four (4) heirs
17 (Milagros Feliciano Pinto, Mildred Feliciano Pinto, Eliezer Feliciano Pinto and Edwin Feliciano
18 Pinto) sold each their 25% pro indiviso property interest in lot #13 to Miguel Antonio Santiago Soto
19 and Yadel Marie Aquino Santiago. This deed was notified on November 30, 2005 (Docket No. 34,
20 Exhibit I, Copy of Title Study dated October 29, 2010 and Docket No. 29, Exhibit Title Study dated
21 February 13, 2008).
22 4. On November 24, 2004 deed # 196 was executed before Public Notary Pedro Rivera Pérez,
23 by which Miguel Santiago Soto and Yadel Marie Aquino Santiago sold lot #13 to Debtor Nivea V.
24 Pérez Mujica and Francisco Núñez Muñoz. This particular deed was presented before the Property
25 Registry on August 23, 2006. Said deed has not been notified by the Property Registry.
26 5. On November 24, 2004, Debtor and Francisco Núñez Muñoz executed a mortgage note in
27 the amount of $126,100.00 in favor of Pan American Financial Corporation (Docket No. 34, Exhibit
28 II).
6
1 6. On November 24, 2004, mortgage deed #197 was executed between Debtor Nivea V. Pérez
2 Mujica and Francisco Núñez Muñoz and Pan American Financial Corporation before Notary Public
3 Pedro Rivera Pérez to guarantee payment of the mortgage note. Said mortgage deed was presented
4 before the Property Registry on August 23, 2006 and it has not been notified by the Property Registry
5 (Docket No. 34, Exhibit I, Copy of Title Study dated October 29, 2010 and Docket No. 29, Exhibit
6 Title Study dated February 13, 2008).
7 7. FirstBank acquired the $126,100.00 mortgage note executed in favor of Pan American
8 Financial Corporation and is currently Debtor’s creditor as evidenced by the above-referenced
9 mortgage note with endorsement (Docket No. 34, Exhibit 4).
10 8. FirstBank filed a complaint against Debtor at the Court of First Instance, Río Grande Part,
11 and obtained judgment against Debtor on May 13, 2009 (Docket No. 34, Exhibit 5-Copy of
12 Judgment).
13 9. The referenced mortgage deed had not been recorded at the time of the filing of Debtor’s
14 bankruptcy petition.
15 Standard for Summary Judgment
16 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is applicable to this proceeding by Rule 7056
17 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, provides that summary judgment should be entered
18 “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
19 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
20 is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056; see also, In re Colarusso, 382
21 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2004), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91
22 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
23 “The summary-judgment procedure authorized by Rule 56 is a method for promptly disposing
24 of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or in which only a question of law
25 is involved.” 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 3d§ 2712 at 198. “Rule
26 56 provides the means by which a party may pierce the allegations in the pleadings and obtain relief
27 by introducing outside evidence showing that there are no fact issues that need to be tried.” Id at 202-
28 203. Summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial of disputed facts; the court may only determine
7
1 ||whether there are issues to be tried, and it is improper if the existence of a material fact is uncertain.
2 at 205-206.
3 Summary judgment is warranted where, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
4 party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case
5 jjand upon which it carries the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
6 (1986). The moving party must "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
7 ||the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
8 For there to be a "genuine" issue, facts which are supported by substantial evidence must be
9 dispute thereby requiring deference to the finder of fact. Furthermore, the disputed facts must be
10 "material" or determinative of the outcome of the litigation. Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 464 (1st
11 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904 (1976). When considering a petition for summary judgment,
12 court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Poller v.
13 ||Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1962); Daury v. Smith, 842 F.2d 9, 11 (1st
14 1988).
15 The moving party invariably bears both the initial as well as the ultimate burden in
16 |\demonstrating its legal entitlement to summary judgment. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157
17 (1970). See also Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1516 (1st Cir.
18 Itis essential that the moving party explain its reasons for concluding that the record does not
19 ||contain any genuine issue of material fact in addition to making a showing of support for those claims
20 |\for which it bears the burden of trial. Bias v. Advantage International, Inc., 905 F.2d 1558, 1560-61
21 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 958 (1990).
22 The moving party cannot prevail if any essential element of its claim or defense requires trial.
23 Lopez, 938 F.2d at 1516. In addition, the moving party is required to demonstrate that there is an
24 |labsence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. See also,
25 |/Prokey v. Watkins, 942 F.2d 67, 72 (1st Cir. 1991); Daury, 842 F.2d at 11. In its opposition, the
26 |Inonmoving party must show genuine issues of material facts precluding summary judgment; the
27 |lexistence of some factual dispute does not defeat summary judgment. Kennedy v. Josepthal & Co.,
28 814 F.2d 798, 804 (1st Cir. 1987). See also Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 841 F.2d

1 1172 (1st Cir. 1988); Hahn, 523 F.2d at 464. A party may not rely upon bare allegations to
2 a factual dispute but is required to point to specific facts contained in affidavits, depositions
3 other supporting documents which, if established at trial, could lead to a finding for the
4 |Inonmoving party. Over the Road Drivers, Inc. v. Transport Insurance Co., 637 F.2d 816, 818 (1st Cir.
5
6 The moving party has the burden to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment; no
7 |\defense is required where an insufficient showing is made. Lopez, 938 F.2d at 1517. The nonmoving
8 |lparty need only oppose a summary judgment motion once the moving party has met its burden.
9 ||Adickes, 398 U.S. at 159.
10 Applicable Law and Analysis
11 ||Automatic Stay under II U.S.C. $362(a)
12 The automatic stay provision is one of the fundamental debtor protections in the Bankruptcy
13 It gives the debtor a “breathing spell” from creditors and it stops all collection efforts, all
14 harassment, and all foreclosure actions. H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, 95" Cong. 1“ Sess. 340-342 (1977);
15 |S. Rep. No. 989, 95" Cong., 2d Sess. 54-55 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5840,
16 6296-97. “It allows the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan or simply be relieved
17 |jof the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy.” Id. The automatic stay prohibits “any act
18 create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate.” 11 U. S.C. §362(a)(4). Despite
19 |the fundamental importance of the automatic stay, Congress has allowed certain exceptions to the
20 |lautomatic stay, such as those included under Section 362(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See 229 Main
21 Ltd. Pshp. v. Mass. EPA (In re 229 Main St.), 262 F. 3d 1, 3-4 (1* Cir. 2001).
22 |\Exception to Automatic Stay under II U.S.C. §362(b)(3)
23 Section 362(b)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an exception to the automatic stay, under
24 |\subsection (a) of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code by allowing, “any act to perfect, or to maintain
25 lor continue the perfection of, an interest in property to the extent that the trustee’s rights and powers
26 subject to such perfection under Section 546(b) of this title.” 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(3). “Section
27 |362(b)(3) does not authorize the creation of new rights or interests for the creditor. Instead, it merely
28 |Ipermits perfection, or maintenance or continuation of perfection, free of the automatic stay that would

1 otherwise be applicable, under circumstances in which the creditor’s action would be effective against
2 trustee.” Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 5 Collier on Bankruptcy §362.05[4] (16 ed. 2011).
3 |/To qualify for this particular exception to the automatic stay, a creditor must satisfy the following
4 |three (3) requirements: (i) an act to perfect; (ii) an interest in property; and (3) under the
5 ||circumstances in which the perfection-authorizing statute fits within the parameters of Section 546(b)
6 |jof the Bankruptcy Code. In re 229 Main St., 262 F. 3d at 5. Thus, Section 362(b)(3) depends on the
7 |limitations imposed on the trustee’s avoiding powers pursuant to Section 546(b) of the Bankruptcy
8 ||Code. The purpose behind Section 546(b)(1) is to “protect, in spite of the surprise intervention of a
9 |/bankruptcy petition, those whom State law protects by allowing them to perfect their liens as of an
10 |leffective date that is earlier than the date of perfection.” Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 5
11 Collier on Bankruptcy 9546.03[1] (16 ed. 2011) quoting S. Rep. No. 989, 95"" Cong., 2d Sess. 86-87
12 (1978), reprinted in App. Pt. 4(e)(I) infra; H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95" Cong., 1“ Sess. 371-371 (1977)
13 |jreprinted in App. Pt. 4(d)() infra.
14 Section 546(b)(1) exempts from the trustee’s avoiding powers under Sections 544, 545 and
15 of the Bankruptcy Code “any generally applicable law that permits the perfection of an interest
16 property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of
17 ||perfection; or provides for the maintenance or continuation of perfection of an interest in property to
18 effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date on which action is
19 |Itaken to effect such maintenance or continuation.” 11 U.S.C. §§546(b)(1)(A) & 546(b)(1)(B). “Thus,
20 |jsimply stated, if a creditor possesses a prepetition interest in property, and state law establishes a time
21 for perfection of a lien based upon that interest, the ‘lien does not lose its preferred standing
22 |Iby reason of the fact that it [is] not perfected until after the commencement of a bankruptcy’ so long
23 |las it is perfected within the time period established by state law.” Lincoln Sav. Bank, FSB v. Suffolk
24 |i\County Treasurer (In re Parr Meadows Racing Ass’n), 880 F. 2d 1540, 1546 (2d Cir. 1989), cert.
25 |idenied, 493 U.S. 1058, 110 S. Ct. 869, 107 L. Ed. 2d 953 (1990) (quoting Poly Industries, Inc. v.
26 ||Mozley, 362 F. 2d 453, 457 (9" Cir. 1966)). A creditor must satisfy the following requirements for
27
28
10

1 Section 546(b)(1) to be applicable: (i) it must act pursuant to the law of general applicability1; (ii) the
2 law must permit the creditor to perfect an interest in property; and (iii) such perfection must be
3 effective against previously acquired rights in the property. In re 229 Main St., 262 F. 3d at 9.
4 Moreover, the “gist of section 546(b)(1)(A) is that ‘the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not prevent
5 the holder of an interest in property from perfecting its interest if, absent the bankruptcy filing, the
6 interest holder could have perfected its interest against an entity acquiring rights in the property before
7 the date of perfection.’” In re 229 Main St., 262 F. 3d at 12 (quoting 5 Collier on Bankruptcy
8 ¶546.03[2][a]).
9 One of the requirements that must be satisfied under both Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)
10 is whether FirstBank had a prepetition property interest in the above referenced real property.
11 FistBank argues that it acquired a pre-petition property interest in Debtor’s real property when it
12 acquired the loan from Pan American Financial Corporation, which is evidenced by Debtor’s
13 execution of a mortgage note and a mortgage deed approximately seven (7) years prior to Debtor’s
14 filing her bankruptcy petition. Debtor recognizes these facts and does not object to the allegation that
15 FirstBank complies with the requirement of a pre-petition property interest pursuant to Section
16 362(b)(3) (Docket No. 42, pg. 8). This court in Soto Rios v. Banco Popular de P.R. (In re Soto Rios),
17 420 B.R. 57 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2009) aff’d, No. 10-01023 (D. P.R. 2010) analyzed a mortgage creditor’s
18 pre-petition property interest in three (3) real estate properties for which mortgage deeds had been
19 presented to the Property Registrar prior to Debtor’s bankruptcy filing and held that, “[c]reditor’s pre-
20 petition property interest in the real properties is based on taking all possible administrative steps
21 (presenting the mortgage deeds to the corresponding Registrar of properties well over two and a half
22 years prior to Debtors’ filing of their bankruptcy petition) in order for its property interest to be duly
23 recorded by the Property Registrar so that their mortgage liens could become effective from the date
24
25
26
27
1 Usually the law of general applicability is state law but federal law may also apply. Alan
28 N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶546.03[2][c](15th ed. 2009).
11
1 the mortgage deeds were presented to the Property Registry pursuant to Article 532 of the Mortgage
2 Law of Puerto Rico, 30 L.P.R.A. §2256” In re Soto Rios at 69. In the instant case the mortgage
3 creditor, presented the mortgage deed to the Property Registry on August 23, 20063. However,
4 according to a title study dated February 13, 2008 submitted by Debtor, prior to the date of
5 presentation of the above referenced mortgage deed; namely, August 23, 2006, the Property Registrar
6 on November 30, 2005 notified errors regarding public deed #21 (further described in Uncontested
7 Material Fact #2) which had been presented to the Property Registrar on April 10, 1996. This
8 particular entry (“asiento”) lapsed on January 31, 2006, because the same was not corrected (Docket
9 No. 29, Exhibit Title Study and Certification by Property Registry). Article 52 of the Mortgage Law
10 provides;
11 “[t]he documents shall be registered within sixty (60) days following their presentation, or
after correcting any errors that may have been indicated, or after filing the requalification writ,
12 except for just cause that is duly justified and admitted by the Director. Within the same term
the errors shall be notified and action shall be taken regarding the defective titles pursuant to
13 §2272 of this title.
The term of the entry of presentation shall expire sixty (60) days from the indicated defect of
14 the document presented. Nevertheless, said term shall be interrupted when any of the
following situations occur within said term:
15 1st. The notified defect is corrected as provided in §22724 of this title;
16
17
2 Article 53 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law provides, “[r]egistered titles become effective
18 for third parties from the date of their registration. For all intents and purposes, the registration date,
including the determination of the term needed for cancellation of entries must appear in the
19 registration itself. In order to determine preference between two or more registrations of the same
property, attention shall be given to the date, hour and presentation number of the respective titles in
20
the Registry.” 30 L.P.R.A. §2256.
21
3The court notes that it does not appear from FirstBank’s uncontested material facts the date
22 when FirstBank bought from Pan American Financial Corporation the mortgage note with
endorsement (Docket No. 34, Exhibit 4), thus it is unable to ascertain whether it was Pan American
23
Financial Corporation or FirstBank who presented the mortgage deed to the Property Registry.
24
4Article 69 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law provides in pertinent part, “[i]f the Registrar
25 finds a defect in the document, exclusively in accordance with §2271 of this title, he/she shall notify
the presenters and the authorizing notary, in writing, of his/her judgment, if it is so requested in the
26
entry, within sixty (60) days of the date of said entry, either by hand delivery or by mail, or
27 electronically, so that they may correct the defect within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of
the notice. If more than one notice were made, the term shall start counting after the last one made
28 to the notary.
12
1 2nd. The reconsideration petition provided in §2273 of this title is filed with the
Registrar;
2 3rd. A sixty (60) day cautionary notice is made, as provided in §2274 of this title;
4th. There is an administrative appeal, as provided in §2279 of this title.
3 The Registrar shall enter an interruption of term, as well as its expiration date, with a dated
note in the margin of the presentation entry in the Day Book or the electronic system of
4 presentation.” 30 L.P.R.A. §2255.
5 The court concludes that the mortgage creditor had a pre-petition property interest, but had
6 knowledge of the expiration of the registry entry for deed #21( described in Uncontested Material
7 Fact #2) due to the public nature of the information in the Property Registry. See 30 L.P.R.A. §§2101
8 & 2051.
9 The second requirement for the exception of the automatic stay under Section 362(b)(3) is
10 “any act to perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection, of an interest in property.” The United
11 States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit In re 229 Main St. held that, “section 362(b)(3) says that
12 the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not automatically stay an act to perfect, the simultaneous
13 postpetition creation and perfection of a lien may come within the pertinent exception to the
14 automatic stay so long as the creditor holds a valid prepetition interest in the property.” In re 229
15 Main St, 262 F. 3d at 9.
16 Under the laws of Puerto Rico, mortgages are constitutive in nature, meaning that for the same
17 to be validly constituted, the instrument in which it is created must be duly entered in the Property
18 Registry. See Article 1774 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code , 31 L.P.R.A. §5042; Article 188 of the
19 Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2607. “It is a well known fact that, except for a mortgage
20 title, art. 1774 of the Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §5042, or a title subject to the provisions of the
21 Horizontal Property Act, 31 L.P.R.A. §1291, the recording with the Registrar of Property is merely
22 declarative and it is not a source of rights.” Marin v. Montijo, 109 D.P.R. 268 (1979), 9 P.R. Offic.
23 Trans. 351, (1979). Thus, for mortgages, “recordation is a constitutive act through which the security
24
25 The notice must contain all the legal grounds on which the judgment is based. The notice
shall be recorded with a dated notation in the presentation entry and at the bottom of the document
26
being notified with the signature of the Registrar and, when this is done, it shall be valid.
27 If the defect is not corrected before the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, the Registrar
shall make a note of the expiration in the presentation entry and at the bottom of the document.” 30
28 L.P.R.A. §2272.
13
1 produces real effects and becomes operative erga omnes in the sphere of real rights.”Rosario Perez
2 v. Registrar, 115 D.P.R. 491 (1984), 15 P.R. Offic. Trans. 644, 648 (1984). In the instant case, unlike
3 the case of In re Soto Rios, 420 B.R. 57, the title study shows that the registry entry for deed #21,
4 which was presented before the Property Registry for inscription, was notified as defective on
5 November 30, 2005 and the same expired on January 31, 2006. Deed #21 was executed (a) to
6 adjudicate property interest originating from a division of estate property amongst various heirs; (b)
7 to segregate various lots from parcel #1714, including lot #13 which corresponds to Debtor’s real
8 property; and (c) for the rectification of size of real properties. The expiration of this entry under
9 Article 57 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2260, creates a missing link in the
10 successive tract or chain of title holders for this particular lot #13, which was segregated from parcel
11 #1714 through deed #21.
12 Article 57 of the Mortgage Law provides;
13 “[i]n order to record documents that declare, convey, encumber, modify or extinguish
dominion and other real rights on real property, the right of the person who grants them or in
14 whose name the referred transaction or contracts are granted must appear previously recorded.
Registration shall be refused if the right is recorded in the name of a person other than the one
15 who is granting the conveyance or lien. However, resolutions and judgments referred to in
§§2761-2777 of this title may be recorded without the previous registration requirement.” 30
16 L.P.R.A. §2260.
17 The Puerto Rico Mortgage Law mandates that our real estate registry system be “predicated on the
18 certainty and correction of its entries. Registry entries must be complete and clear as possible. This
19 prevents confusion and errors.” Rosado Collazo v. Registrador, 118 D.P.R. 577, 584, (1987) 18 P.R.
20 Offic. Trans. 670, 676 (1987). The concept of prior registration pursuant to Puerto Rico Mortgage
21 Law requires that the right of the person executing the conveyance or lien be previously recorded. See
22 Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Registrador, 136 D.P.R. 650, 660-661 (1994); Aponte v. Registrador,
23 115 D.P.R. 699 (1984), 15 P.R. Offic. Trans. 920, 922 (1984). “Prior recordation must refer to the
24 right of the person who is the record owner according to the recordable title. This circumstance
25 demands a perfect objective identity between that which results from the title and the recordation, in
26 the same manner that, in the subjective aspect, successive performance requires a perfect identity
27 between the recorded titleholder and the person who must be so according to the title. The objective
28 identity refers to the recorded right and to the farm–or right–on which it falls. With regard to the
14
1 right, it must be the same one involved in the recordable title and its essential circumstances must be
2 the same, especially those which may affect its extent, duration–in its case–and very specially, the
3 titleholder’s dispositive powers.” Aponte v. Registrador, 115 D.P.R. 699 (1984) citing II A. Sanz
4 Fernández, Instituciones de derecho hipotecario 99, Madrid, Ed. Reus (1953), 15 P.R. Offic. Trans.
5 920, 922 (1984).
6 In the instant case, it is an uncontested fact that deed #21 was notified due to errors and the
7 entry lapsed. Moreover, the title study dated October 29, 2010 (Docket Nos. 31 & 34, Exhibit I)
8 clearly indicated that the document (deed #21 which was presented to the Property Registry on April
9 10, 1996) which provided the chain of title for a prior deed, that is deed #9, which was presented to
10 the Registry on March 25, 1999, expired. According to the title study, it is through deed #9, that four
11 (4) heirs (Milagros Feliciano Pinto, Mildred Feliciano Pinto, Eliezer Feliciano Pinto and Edwin
12 Feliciano Pinto) sold each their 25% pro indiviso property interest in lot #13 (Debtor’s real estate
13 property in the instant case) to Miguel Antonio Santiago Soto and Yadel Marie Aquino Santiago.
14 Moroever, Article 105 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2355, provides in pertinent
15 part that; “...the Registry shall be understood to be all standing entries relating to a property or right,
16 that have not been extinguished as provided in §2451 of this title, which refer to the liens or rights
17 that do not convey or encumber, in addition to the entry that gives notice to the right of the conveyor.”
18 30 L.P.R.A. §2355. Thus, this court finds that at this point in time, parcel #1714 has an interrupted
19 tract history which will prevent the Property Registrar from recording FirstBank’s real estate
20 mortgage on lot #13, thus impeding the simultaneous constitution and perfection of this mortgage,
21 and relating the same back to the date it was presented for recordation (registration) to the Property
22 Registrar pursuant to Article 53 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2256. Furthermore,
23 at this point in time, Debtor’s real property, has not been segregated from parcel #1714 nor has the
24 property interest which originated from a division of estate property been adjudicated amongst the
25 various heirs due to the fact that deed #21 expired and does not form part of the Registry for parcel
26 #1714.
27 FirstBank’s argument regarding the lack of successive tract or chain of titleholders is that,
28 “[n]otwithstanding Debtor’s arguments with respect to existing defects in prior documents presented,
15
1 Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) allow FirstBank to take all corrective measures required in order
2 to ensure the maintenance and continuation of perfection of its mortgage lien during the present
3 bankruptcy proceedings. The Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico, in turn, provides all of the necessary
4 mechanisms that enable FirstBank to achieve said task” (Docket No. 34, pg. 14).
5 Propery Registrars must act in conformity with Article 64 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law
6 which provides;
7 “[r]egistrars shall have the responsibility of passing judgment on the legality of all kinds of
documents by virtue of which an entry is requested. Said judgment shall include the extrinsic
8 forms of the documents presented, the competence of the grantors and the validity of the
transactions and contracts contained in these documents. Registrars shall base their judgments
9 on the transactions and contracts to be recorded, on the documents presented, the existing
registry entries and the statutes. When judging documents subject to registration, Registrars
10 are not empowered to evaluate the legality of the judgments or entries made by themselves
or by their predecessors. These entries, as well as the transactions recorded, must be deemed
11 valid until the courts declare them null and void.
With respect to documents issued by Judicial Authority, said judgment shall be limited to:
12 (1) The jurisdiction and competence of the court; the nature and effects of the decision
handed down if it was rendered in the corresponding trial; and if the procedures and
13 precepts essential to its validity were observed;
(2) the extrinsic reliability of the documents presented, and
14 (3) the Registry data.” 30 L.P.R.A. §2267.
15
This court finds that in this particular case, the Property Registrar, in accordance with Article 69 of
16
the Property Registry, 30 L.P.R.A. §2271, will have to deny registration of FirstBank’s mortgage due
17
to the lack of successive tract history and in conformity with Article 57 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage
18
Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2260, thus preventing the mortgage in controversy to relate back to the date it was
19
presented for registration. This court finds that the mechanism which FirstBank will have to employ
20
to correct the lack of successive tract for parcel #1714, is to correct the errors notified by the Property
21
Registrar for deed #21 and to present to the Property Registry an amended or new deed pursuant to
22
Article 72 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §22755. Once this amended or new deed
23
24
5Article 72 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law provides; “[i]n cases such as those outlined in
25 the preceding sections, if the defects are corrected after the presentation entry has expired, a new
entry shall be made which shall become effective from the date of the new entry.
26
When the defects which are grounds for the provisional notation are corrected within the
27 time allotted, a new presentation shall be made to change the cautionary notice into a final
registration which shall become effective on the date of the first presentation. In this case, entries of
28 contradictory deeds made after the notation will be automatically cancelled.
16
1 has been presented to the Property Registry, the principle of prior tempore potior iure will apply,
2 meaning first in time is preferred in right, thus this amended or new deed will be registered at a
3 subsequent date than the mortgage deed since the same was presented to the Property Registry at a
4 later time in conformity with Article 53 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2256. Thus,
5 it follows that, FirstBank will also have to present its mortgage deed subsequent to the amended deed,
6 given that a mortgage must be based on real estate which can be recorded and has been registered
7 prior to the mortgage. See Article 1576 of the Puerto Rico Mortgage Law, 30 L.P.R.A. §2553. In the
8 instant case, the deed which lapsed (deed #21) is essential because it was through this deed that lot
9 #13 (Debtor’s real estate property) was segregated from parcel #1714. Consequently, lot #13 will not
10 be registered as a different parcel until an amended or new deed has been presented to the Property
11 Registry.
12 In view of the above, the court finds that FirstBank has failed to satisfy the specific
13 requirement of “any act to perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection, of an interest in property”
14 pursuant to Section 362(b)(3). Thus, the court does not have to delve into the issue of whether
15 FirstBank satisfies the requirements under Section 546(b)(1).
16 Conclusion
17 For the reasons stated above, this court finds that the requirements of Section 362(b)(3) are
18 not met, thus the exception to the automatic stay and the exception to the trustee’s avoiding powers
19 under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are not applicable. Furthermore, the court concludes
20 that FirstBank does not have a validly perfected lien subject to the relation back provisions because
21 there is a missing link in the chain of titleholders (“falta de tracto”) which appears from the
22 information in the Property Registry regarding Debtor’s real estate property.
23
24 Should the defects be corrected after the expiration of the cautionary notice, a new
presentation shall be made which shall become effective on the date of the new entry.” 30 L.P.R.A.
25 §2275.
26 6Article 157 provides; “[t]he following may be mortgaged:
27 1st. Real estate which can be recorded.
2nd. Rights which may lawfully be recorded and conveyed that are imposed on the
28 property itself.” 30 L.P.R.A. §2553.
17
1 In view of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED
2 |jregarding the unsecured status of FirstBank’s mortgage claim and Defendant’s cross motion for
3 ||summary judgment is hereby DENIED with respect to the exception to the automatic stay provided
4 under Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.
5 Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
6 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8" day of September 2011.
7

9 vnitdd states Bankruptey Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11356214. Public record. Not legal advice.