A recent ruling by the Constitutional Court, based on jurisprudence from Colombia and Peru, establishes the requirements that a delinquency notice in a residential building must meet in order not to violate fundamental rights
SANTO DOMINGO. – The Constitutional Court (TC) ruled that the dissemination of maintenance debts through social networks, audios, videos and photographs of delinquent owners violates the right to privacy, honor and good name, when that information transcends the sphere of the condominium owners themselves and reaches third parties outside the residential complex.
The decision, identified as TC/0684/26 and issued on July 27, 2026, resolves the case file TC-05-2026-0032, originating from a conflict between a group of owners and the Neighborhood Council of the Estrella Marina Residential Complex, in La Romana.
Applied to the Estrella Marina case, the Constitutional Court concluded that the fault lay not in reporting the delinquency, but in the means and scope chosen by the board. The publication of audio, video, and photographs on social media, the court noted, exceeded the scope of the board's legitimate authority, which is limited to informing only the other owners about the status of common obligations.
Consequently, he ordered the Estrella Marina Residential Neighborhood Association to cease those practices and refrain from repeating them.
In practice, the criterion provides a roadmap for the condominium and residential : a physical notice on the bulletin board or in common areas, addressed to owners with a certain and non-litigious debt, is admissible; its publication on social networks or its dissemination to people outside the co-ownership, is not.
According to data from the National Council of Condominium Administration (CONACO), cited by El Inmobiliario in May 2025, 47% of condominiums in the National District have significant delays in collecting maintenance fees, a delinquency that can lead to deterioration of the facilities and the interruption of services such as garbage collection and security.
And it is this type of financial pressure that has led some boards to resort to publicly exposing debtors, and what distinguishes this ruling from a simple prohibition is that the Constitutional Court did not close the door to all notices of default.
The court clarified, reiterating the criteria established in its Judgment TC/0198/23, that placing notices of debt for maintenance in the building's facilities does not violate the debtor's right to privacy, provided that it is a certain and enforceable debt, and that it is not in judicial litigation.
The reason, according to the professional association, is that the maintenance fees constitute a fund for common expenses, a matter of interest to the other co-owners.
Comparative law
To support this distinction, the Constitutional Court relied on comparative jurisprudence, citing the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which in its Judgment T-106/02 established that the publication of lists of debtors does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights to a good name and privacy, because the only thing that is made known is a certain fact, the default in the payment of administration fees.
That criterion was reiterated by the same court in Judgment C-328 of 2019, based on a decision from 2002.
The Dominican court also appealed to the Constitutional Court of Peru, which in its Judgment STC 05903-2014-PA/TC conditioned the validity of these lists on the debt being enforceable, without any doubt about its existence, since it is not subject to judicial litigation.
In that same ruling, the Peruvian court established three additional criteria, also adopted by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in its Judgment T-630 of 1997, which serve as a practical guide for residential administrators: that the information involves all residents of the unit, that it does not describe strictly personal or family aspects, and that it has economic relevance for the entire complex.
Recommended readings:
