Susana Lastarria-Cornhiel, Grenville Barnes (1995):
Assessment of the Praedial Property Registration System in Peru

X. Conclusions

This section will attempt to summarize our findings with regard to the Registro Predial as it is functioning in Peru and its replicability in other countries.

A. Summary Assessment of the Registro Predial

There is no doubt that the Registro Predial is a more efficient system than the traditional registration system. It processes more registration transactions within a week (once all the documents are in order) and, since the basic data are computerized, it makes record retrieval easier.

In addition, the registration process itself is less onerous for the users in that fewer bureaucratic procedures are required and simple, standardized forms have replaced the wordy notarized deed. New registration legislation had to be enacted to permit these procedural changes. While the fees charged to users are significantly less than those charged by the traditional registry, the real cost of maintaining the system has not been determined since the state subsidizes the Registro Predial, allowing it to charge relatively low fees.

On the positive side, therefore, the Registro Predial has radically reformed registration procedures and recording. It cannot be concluded, however, that the Registro Predial is a revolutionary new registration system: a legal title document is still necessary to register a property and property transactions, title searches must still be undertaken, there is no supporting cadastre, and the registration of transactions is not obligatory.

The principal objectives of a registration program are to provide property owners with greater tenure security and to allow them to access credit based on property collateral. Certainly, registration of property in a state institution that validates the system and secures the rights of owners registered in the system gives property owners greater tenure security. However, as this assessment suggests (and other studies [FN 29] have demonstrated), a legally registered and titled property does not in and by itself give the property owner access to credit. Whether owners can obtain credit or not will depend on many other factors: the economic climate, in general, and factor markets, in particular. In Peru, low-income urban families and small farmers still have great difficulty acquiring credit. This is not because of the registration system, since even a fully functioning and efficient registration system does not necessarily change other market factors or increase the supply of credit for low-income families.

The Registro Predial is currently supported by a set of cadastral plans that have not yet been integrated into a comprehensive spatial record of land rights or cadastre. The Registro Predial database is not directly linked to the those cadastral records that have been computerized, but includes a summarized written description of the property. While personnel in the Registro Predial support the concept of a cadastre and are moving in that direction, there is apparently no conceptual or strategic plan for creating this. There is also a question about the quality of the existing paper plans which are being computerized. Cadastral plans do not have to be extremely precise, but they should not be so approximate that they create uncertainties and insecurity among the registered landholders. The practice of using visual inspections to verify cadastral plans in the field should not be seen as an alternative to a cadastral survey. This method may suffice in urban areas, but it is questionable whether boundaries can be verified without at least some measurement. There are new surveying methodologies (e.g., medium accuracy GPS) which can be used to provide a rapid and reliable spatial record, but these have not been tried for cadastral purposes in Peru.

Given the inability of the Registro Predial to expand beyond the Department of Lima and the dependence on outside funding, the jury is still out on the sustainability of the system. Clearly, larger economic and political factors play into the performance of a new system such as the Registro Predial. The inability to expand the system should not, therefore, be viewed purely as a design problem; rather, it should be evaluated against the broader economic and political context.

A significant contribution to come out of the efforts to reform the property registration system in Peru is highlighting the need to formalize property rights and to pressure government agencies to facilitate and promote the titling of property. The titling process is a joint endeavor undertaken by property owners and the appropriate state agency—the Registro Predial is not, nor should it be, involved.

Perhaps the most notable achievement of the Registro Predial initiative is the way in which credit, registration, and building institutions have combined to deliver their respective services. This provides a direct tie between registration and the benefits associated with registration (credit, building resources). In other titling and registration projects this connection has been less tangible and, in some instances, a hollow promise.