The applicant argued that not the decision to suspend the foreclosure consisted him the Registrar so it should emit the certification and the content of the resolution of November 21, 2000 (previous to the current bankruptcy law) that was sufficient notice to the Trustees in bankruptcy of the issuance of the certification. Against the background of the resolution of November 28, 2007, the DRGN gives the following treatment to direct execution on mortgaged property, when the debtor has been declared in competition of creditors, making a strict cases of paralysis interpretation: (Es posible la ejecucion hipotecaria ael margen deel juez deel concurso cuando concurran dos requisitos: a) already published ads for auction. (b) that no registralmente record the condition of the goods to the professional activity of the bankrupt. For even more opinions, read materials from gymnast. That a good this affection or not this professional activity is the exclusive appreciation of the judge, without making this multi-table qualifier by the Registrar. As stated in the Declaration of bankruptcy this condition to the professional activity and the necessary character for their continuity in the case studied, they have to suspend the activities initiated prior to the date of the bankruptcy Declaration in the exercise of the actions of creditors with security right in saying well. As a corollary, not being possible the continuation of foreclosure to the margin of the judge of the competition, there is no issue the certification and practice derived marginal note. Finally note that this current criterion is different from sitting by the above-mentioned resolution of 21 November 2000, perhaps propitiated by the more specific text in article 56 and by the fact that the registry already can be deduced which are not facing one of the few cases of exception that allow you to continue with the process aside from the judge of the competition.
Also striking that therein refers to the certification of article 656 of the code of Civil Procedure (which is in the section 6th, dedicated to the auction of property, of Chapter 4, relating to the procedure of urgency), but really there is an error or inaccuracy, so it must rather seek certification and note of article 688 (which is 5th in the chapterdedicated to the peculiarities of execution on mortgaged property). The problem is that their wording and content is not identical, being able to observe, among others, the following differences: art. 688 certification has to express that the mortgage in favor of the performer is subsisting and without canceling or, where appropriate, the cancellation or modifications that 40.3 in the registry.No cabe cancellation of mortgage for reasons other than the execution if it is not previously cancelled note marginal of the 688 per warrant. In of the 688, if the current registered owner of the domain has not been required payment, must be notified.