Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución No. 709-2009-SUNARP-TR-L
No Thumbnail Available
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
La empresa y la sociedad unipersonal son instituciones jurídicas que han sido
omitidas por la norma peruana y la doctrina nacional, ello se puede evidenciar
en la ausencia de una conceptualización normativa de dichas instituciones así
como la falta de desarrollo dogmático respecto a las características e
implicancias de las figuras. En consecuencia, no es difícil encontrar
pronunciamientos registrales donde, por la ausencia de desarrollo antes
mencionada, se recurren a ejercicios interpretativos y argumentativos que
pueden, como no, ser teórica y jurídicamente acertados, dependiendo del caso
en particular que se trate.
En ese sentido, el objeto del presente informe es realizar un análisis de las
figuras jurídicas tratadas en la Resolución No. 709-2009-SUNARP-TR-L, con la
finalidad de esclarecer el tratamiento jurídico que debe tener una empresa
unipersonal como un aporte dentro de una operación de aporte de capital social
y, en consecuencia, analizar si la resolución administrativa cumplió con los
conceptos e instituciones jurídicas.
Luego del análisis, se concluyó que la empresa unipersonal puede ser aportada
a una sociedad dentro de una operación de aumento de capital social. Por
consiguiente, el Tribunal Registral erró no en la decisión final tomada, sino en el
ejercicio argumentativo realizado, pues la empresa unipersonal no puede ser
equiparada con el concepto de bloque patrimonial.
The sole proprietorship and shareholder company are legal institutions that have been ignored by Peruvian legislation and national doctrine, as can be seen in the absence of a normative conceptualization of these institutions as well as the lack of dogmatic development with regard to the characteristics and implications of these figures. As a result, it is not difficult to find registry pronouncements where, due to the aforementioned lack of development, interpretative and argumentative exercises are resorted to, which may or may not be legally correct depending on the particular case in question. In that sense, the main objective of the present report is to carry out an analysis of the legal figures dealt with in Resolution No. 709-2009-SUNARP- SUNARPTR-L, with the purpose of clarifying the legal treatment that a sole proprietorship should have as a contribution within a share capital contribution operation and, consequently, to analyze whether the administrative resolution complied with the legal concepts and institutions. After the analysis, it was concluded that the sole proprietorship can be contributed to a company as part of a share capital increase transaction. Therefore, the Registry Court erred not in the final decision taken, but in the argumentative exercise carried out, as the sole proprietorship cannot be equated with the concept of a patrimonial block.
The sole proprietorship and shareholder company are legal institutions that have been ignored by Peruvian legislation and national doctrine, as can be seen in the absence of a normative conceptualization of these institutions as well as the lack of dogmatic development with regard to the characteristics and implications of these figures. As a result, it is not difficult to find registry pronouncements where, due to the aforementioned lack of development, interpretative and argumentative exercises are resorted to, which may or may not be legally correct depending on the particular case in question. In that sense, the main objective of the present report is to carry out an analysis of the legal figures dealt with in Resolution No. 709-2009-SUNARP- SUNARPTR-L, with the purpose of clarifying the legal treatment that a sole proprietorship should have as a contribution within a share capital contribution operation and, consequently, to analyze whether the administrative resolution complied with the legal concepts and institutions. After the analysis, it was concluded that the sole proprietorship can be contributed to a company as part of a share capital increase transaction. Therefore, the Registry Court erred not in the final decision taken, but in the argumentative exercise carried out, as the sole proprietorship cannot be equated with the concept of a patrimonial block.
Description
Keywords
Derecho registral--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho societario--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Sociedades comerciales--Perú
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess