Publication: Inviabilidad del retracto arrendaticio urbano en caso de venta de vivienda hipotecada, cuando el acreedor hipotecario no consiente la subrogación del retrayente en la deuda. Comentario a la STS de 15 de enero de 2020 (RJ 2020, 652)
Authors
Díez Soto, Carlos Manuel
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Civitas - Aranzadi
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
Conforme a la STS de 15 de enero de 2020, si la vivienda arrendada estaba previamente hipotecada, y su propietario la vende mediante subrogación del comprador en el crédito hipotecario, el arrendatario no puede ejercitar su derecho legal de retracto subrogándose a su vez en el crédito, a menos que el acreedor hipotecario preste su consentimiento. Se trata de una doctrina discutible, que, con base en criterios puramente dogmáticos, subordina la eficacia propia del retracto legal, no ya al cumplimiento de los presupuestos y requisitos establecidos al efecto por la ley en atención a fines superiores de política legislativa, sino a la voluntad libre y soberana de un tercero, el acreedor hipotecario, sin consideración al hecho de que los intereses de este deben considerarse suficientemente garantizados mediante la subsistencia de la hipoteca.
According to the Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 15, 2020, if the rented house was previously mortgaged, and its owner sells it through subrogation of the buyer in the mortgage loan, the lessee cannot exercise his legal right of redemption by subrogating himself in the credit, unless the creditor gives his consent. It is a questionable doctrine, which, on the basis of purely dogmatic criteria, subordinates the effectiveness of the legal right of redemption, not only to the fulfillment of the conditions and requirements established by law in consideration of higher purposes of legislative policy, but to the free and sovereign will of a third party, the creditor, regardless of the fact that the interest of this party is sufficiently secured by the subsistence of the mortgage.
According to the Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 15, 2020, if the rented house was previously mortgaged, and its owner sells it through subrogation of the buyer in the mortgage loan, the lessee cannot exercise his legal right of redemption by subrogating himself in the credit, unless the creditor gives his consent. It is a questionable doctrine, which, on the basis of purely dogmatic criteria, subordinates the effectiveness of the legal right of redemption, not only to the fulfillment of the conditions and requirements established by law in consideration of higher purposes of legislative policy, but to the free and sovereign will of a third party, the creditor, regardless of the fact that the interest of this party is sufficiently secured by the subsistence of the mortgage.
Citation
Cuadernos Civitas de Jurisprudencia Civil, 2020, N. 114, pp. 251-274
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/