
    Vallejo v. The Registrar of Property.
    Appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Property of Guayama.
    No. 6.
    Decided June 18, 1903.
    Alienation or Encumbrance oe Mortgaged Property. — Real property or property rights which are entered in the registry of property may be conveyed or encumbered, but without prejudice to the rights of the person in whose favor entry was made. . ■
    Cancellation oe Records and Cautionary Notices. — The records or cautionary notices made by virtue of a public document cannot be cancelled except by a final decree from which there is no appeal pending, or by any other authenticated instrument or document in which the person in whose favor the record or entry has been made, or his legal representative or attorney, signifies his consent to the cancellation.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    Juan Benet Rivera, a municipal employee, of age, in the presence and with the consent of his wife, Gloria Colón y Colón, a housewife and likewise ’ of legal age, by deed executed May 16, 1903, in the town of Cayey before the Notary Luis Muñoz Morales, sold to Manuel Vallejo Ramirez a house belonging to him, situated on Comercio Street of said town, and recorded in his favor in the Registry of Property of Guayama, on the reverse side of folio 146, volume VI of Cayey, property No. -299, entry sixth, for the sum of two hundred dollars which the vendor acknowledged to have previously received;' and said deed having been presented for entry at the Registry, the same was refused by the Registrar, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum placed at the foot thereof, which literally reads:
    “The admission of this document to record is refused because there appears a cautionary notice of refusal to record a deed of purchase and sale of the same property having the same boundaries as those, described in the preceding document executed on behalf of José Vallejo, by the municipal judge of Cayey, in favor of Braulio Vázquez, on folio 219, volume XIX of Cayey, owing to the defect that said property did not appear recorded in the name of Vallejo, nor was his ownership established by any authenticated document and from tlie record it appears that Vallejo (José) declared that the property was not his; cautionary notice of the present refusal being also entered in conformity with section 7 of “An act to provide for appeals from the decisions of Registrars of Property”, on folio 147, volume VI of Cayey, property No. 229, annotation letter A. — Guayama, May 29, 1903. The Registrar, Miguel Planellas.”
    From this decision an appeal was in due time taken to this Supreme Court by Antonio Sarmiento Esq., on behalf of the vendee Manuel Vallejo, who prayed that the Registrar’s decision refusing to enter the deed be reversed, and that the Registrar be ordered to record the same, and to cancel the cautionary notice entered in favor of Braulia Vázquez, referred to in the Registrar’s decision.
    
      Mr. Sarmiento, for apellant.
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,

after making the above statement of facts, rendered the following opinion of the Court:

According to article 71 of the Mortgage Law in force in this Island, the real property or property rights which are entered may be conveyed or encumbered, but without prejudice to the rights of the person in whose favor the entry was made, and, therefore, the reason given by the Registrar for refusing to enter the deed is not sufficient to prevent said entry without prejudice to the right of Braulio Vázquez, in whose favor the previous cautionary notice was entered.

As to the cancellation of the latter, likewise requested by apellant, this cannot be granted under the provisions of article 80 of aforesaid Law, pursuant to which the “records or cautionary notices made by virtue of a public document cannot be canceled except by a final decree, from which there is no appeal in cassation pending (which should now be understood as appeal), or by any other authenticated instrument or document, in which the person in whose favor the record or entry has been made, or his legal representative or attorney, signifies his consent to the cancellation”-, in none of which cases the cautionary: notice in question is included.

In view of the legal provisions cited, we reverse the above decision of the Registrar of Property which has given rise to the present appeal, and declare that, unless prevented by reasons other than those alleged by the Registrar, the record of the aforesaid deed of sale should he made, without prejudice to the rights of Braulio Vázquez in whose favor the previous cautionary notice appears; the cancellation of the latter, as requested by appellant, being refused, without special imposition of costs.

Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary, concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not take part in the discussion of this case.  