100% of the proposed articles repeatedly clash with the Real Estate Jurisdiction, MIVHED, Municipalities and Pro Consumer, with ramifications towards DGII, Tourism and CODIA.
SANTO DOMINGO – The bill that would create the Superintendency of Condominiums remains under scrutiny in this third installment. While the analysis of Chapters I and II revealed constitutional flaws and regulatory duplications, the examination of Chapters III and IV confirms that the problem extends to its operational aspects.
Chapters III and IV cover articles 10 to 29. The first focuses on the registration and oversight regime, while the second regulates the governance and transparency of residential communities, and the 20 articles that comprise them, as they are presented, reveal legal and institutional conflicts with at least 8 laws and institutions.
The proposed legislation aims to establish parallel registries , monitor already regulated actors, and validate internal regulations, which multiplies frictions with current laws and threatens to generate legal uncertainty in condominium life.
The sum of the 20 articles raises confrontations in the matters of registration and governance, which is equivalent to 100% shortcomings.
Comparative table of normative conflicts, chapters III and IV
| Chapter | Conflicting articles | Subjects covered | Institutions / Laws impacted | Predominant types of conflict |
| Chapter III – Registration and Auditing System (Arts. 10–19) | All | – National registries of condominiums, rental condominiums, state-owned buildings, and real estate stakeholders – Oversight of boards and internal regulations – Control of pre-sales and contracts – Supervision of construction companies and developers | • Real Estate Jurisdiction – Law 108-05 (titles, regularization, certifications, registrations) • MIVED (construction, maintenance, state infrastructure) • Municipalities – Law 176-07 (permits, coexistence, noise, inspections, sanctions) • Consumer Protection Agency – Law 358-05 (advertising, contracts, pre-sales) • DGII (short-term rentals, tax auditing) • Ministry of Tourism (tourist rentals, temporary lodging) • CODIA (technical responsibility, professional accreditation) | – Duplication of records – Overlapping of sectoral oversight (MIVED, Consumer Protection Agency, Tourism) – Invasion of municipal powers – Risk of usurpation of functions of the Real Estate Registry |
| Chapter IV – Governance and Transparency (Arts. 20–29) | All | – Transparency and digitization of minutes – Mandatory publication of financial statements – Supervision of internal elections – Validation of internal regulations – Sanctions regime – Specific regulations for rental condominiums and state projects | • Condominium Law 5038-58 (autonomy of assemblies, self-governance) • Real Estate Jurisdiction – Law 108-05 (registries, document validation) • DGII (financial statements, taxation of rentiers) • Consumer Protection Agency – Law 358-05 (transparency standards and contracts) • Municipalities – Law 176-07 (local regulations, coexistence, sanctions) • MIVED (community training, technical skills) • Ministry of Tourism (temporary rentals / rentiers) | – Interference with the autonomy of assemblies – Duplication of records and oversight – Excessive regulations that encroach upon already established powers – Impact on rights and procedures regulated by other laws |
The balance of this analysis shows that 100% of the proposed articles conflict with other institutions and current legislation, with a repeated institutional impact on the Real Estate Jurisdiction, MIVHED, municipalities and Pro Consumidor, with ramifications towards DGII, Tourism and CODIA.
The practical consequence would be the creation of parallel registries, mandatory validation of internal regulations, double auditing and duplicate sanctions, increasing bureaucracy and the risk of legal contradictions for residents and administrators.
The proponent's voice
In the public presentation of the initiative, Representative Tobías Crespo defended the creation of the Superintendency as a response to the growth of high-rise housing in the country. “To regulate, supervise, and guarantee the coexistence of families, preventing conflicts and problems,” he said when introducing the bill in October 2025.
In statements collected by El Inmobiliario on October 14, 2025, the deputy said that the new entity “will contribute to the proper administration, support the management of condominiums in all their forms, transparency and respect for the current legal framework” and, he emphasized, that the objective is “to avoid conflicts and inconveniences” that have led to regrettable events among condominium owners.
With these words, Crespo emphasized that his proposal seeks to organize life vertically, although he did not explain how overlaps with existing institutions will be avoided.
Voices from the sector
Lawyer Israel López has pointed out that the initiative “duplicates functions already established in the Real Estate Jurisdiction and in the municipalities, creating more bureaucracy without solving the real problems of coexistence.”.
For her part, lawyer Reyna Echenique warned in an interview with El Inmobiliario that “vertical living needs an updated framework that strengthens community life and management, but without duplicating institutions or creating more bureaucracy.” According to her, the solution lies in a comprehensive reform of Law 5038-58, not in the creation of parallel bodies.
These voices join the criticism: the problem is the obsolescence of the current law, but the answer cannot be a superintendency that invades powers already defined in the Real Estate Jurisdiction, the municipalities and Pro Consumidor.
Legislative context
The project was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on October 15, 2025 by legislator Tobías Crespo, under file number CD-296-2025. A week later, on October 22, the bill was referred to a study committee, where it is currently in the technical analysis phase.
This detail is key: the project has not yet been debated in plenary session, which allows for observations on duplications and institutional conflicts to be considered before it advances in the legislative process, the legislative course of which will be as explained below:
– Discussion in committee, with reception of observations and possible amendments.
– Committee report, which may be favorable, unfavorable, or with modifications.
– Knowledge in the hemicycle, where it will be debated and voted on by the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies.
– Bicameral procedure, in case of approval, with referral to the Senate.
– Possible promulgation or shelving, depending on the consensus reached.
The project in development presents constitutional shortcomings, multiplies bureaucracy and administrative conflicts in its registration and transparency regime, while the proponent himself insists that the initiative seeks to guarantee coexistence and transparency in vertical life, in the face of specialists who demand a comprehensive reform of the current law.
