Draft bill encroaches on the powers of the Real Estate Jurisdiction, DGII and municipalities

The most contentious articles of the Condominium Superintendence Bill concentrate their greatest risks in six articles that duplicate registrations and sanctions.

SANTO DOMINGO. – In the comparative analysis of the ten chapters and 63 articles that propose the creation of a new regulatory, supervisory and normative entity, El Inmobiliario identified that between chapters I and VI there are six articles that constitute the red flag of the project , with the highest degree of risk of legal and regulatory conflict .

In Chapter II, Article 5 grants the Superintendent “super-regulatory power ,” as explained in the previous installment. In Chapter V, Articles 16, 17, and 18 propose the creation of a parallel registry and powers related to land titling . In Chapter VI, Articles 22 and 27 establish sanctions and registries that duplicate the functions of the DGII (General Directorate of Internal Revenue), the Ministry of Tourism, and the municipalities.

These six sections are, without a doubt, the core of the legal conflict of the project , the most problematic of the entire text, because they generate an invasion of constitutional powers, duplication of exclusive powers of the Real Estate Registry, DGII and councils, in addition to creating parallel registries and expansive regulatory powers.

Clashes with Real Estate Jurisdiction

The draft bill creates a “National Registry of State Condominiums” (art. 16) and grants the Superintendency powers to regularize titles, coordinate boundary demarcations, land regularization and transfers (arts. 17 and 18).

These powers directly conflict with Law 108-05 on Real Estate Registration, which grants the Real Estate Jurisdiction exclusive competence over real property rights, surveys, and registration publicity. The risk is clear: regulatory duplication , legal uncertainty, and jurisdictional disputes.

Regulatory and sanctioning power

Regarding short-term rental condominiums (Chapter VI), the project assigns to the Superintendency the mandatory registration, the issuance of unique codes, the supervision of operators and the authority to issue sanctions, suspensions or cancellations of registration (Articles 22, 24 and 27).

These powers interfere with the powers of the DGII in tax matters, the Ministry of Tourism in tourism matters, and the municipalities under Law 176-07 in public order, health, and coexistence.

The result would be a duplication of sanctions: fines, suspensions and closures that could coincide with municipal or sectoral regulations.

State Housing Administration

The project also blends public and private functions by allowing the Superintendency to oversee common areas of state projects, declare "provisional co-owners" and manage collective regularizations.

This creates tensions with the MIVHED, the Real Estate Jurisdiction and National Assets, especially in expropriation processes, outstanding payments and transfers.

More risk areas

The text incorporates multiple regulations on rental condominiums: requirements for short-term rentals, insurance, internal regulations, access controls, supervision of rentals through digital platforms, and a ban on "disguised hotels." Although these regulations address real problems of coexistence, they also imply:

• New regulatory burden for owners and managers.
• Conflicts with already approved internal regulations.
• Ambiguities about which rules apply (law, municipal regulations, internal regulations or new rules of the Superintendency).
• Risk of discretion in sanctions if clear procedures and guarantees of defense are not established.

The only article with low risk, Article 15, acknowledges the need to preserve property rights and avoid arbitrary limitations. However, it does not eliminate regulatory compatibility issues when granting powers to sanction, suspend, or cancel registrations.

Project motivations

Representative Tobías Crespo justifies the initiative by citing vertical urban growth and the proliferation of residential models that have exposed practical gaps in Law 5038 and the Property Registry. His argument emphasizes the urgency of regularizing property titles and protecting thousands of beneficiaries of state housing without definitive titles, as well as regulating coexistence in the face of short-term rentals and "disguised hotels.".

This diagnosis is shared by stakeholders in the real estate sector, who acknowledge the obsolescence of Law 5038 in the face of contemporary challenges. However, the way the bill assigns powers and responsibilities for registration, regularization, and sanctions conflicts with existing laws, particularly Law 108-05 and Law 176-07.

Although the initiative is conceived with the legitimate purpose of ordering and protecting collective life in condominiums, if approved without corrections, the result would be legal uncertainty, regulatory duplication and institutional contradictions , which put beneficiary families, owners and the real estate market in general at risk.

This fourth report from El Inmobiliario demonstrates that, behind a well-intentioned proposal, lie serious regulatory challenges : a wake-up call for those who develop, review and support the legislative process.

Conflicts and overlaps chapters V and VI