Los procesos de reversión de las inmatriculaciones, o la defensa de intereses particulares, suponen una serie de trámites judiciales en los que corresponde al demandante probar su derecho, la carga de la prueba u onus probandi pues, el inmatriculante, en este caso la Iglesia Católica, se fundamenta en «certificado expedido por el Secretario General del Obispo» que puede «tener el mismo valor que los certificados expedidos por funcionarios públicos con prerrogativas de poder público».[12]​.

Estos procesos, como señala el propio TEDH (ver Un caso), suponen que «para que dicha declaración de nulidad y la inscripción posterior de la finca en el Registro de la Propiedad puedan darse, la demandante debería entablar un nuevo procedimiento ante las jurisdicciones internas», reconociendo que «el TEDH no puede obligar a la interesada a iniciar, ya sea un nuevo procedimiento para conseguir que la inscripción registral sea declarada nula y, en caso de ver atendida su petición, a iniciar aun otras acciones reivindicatorias de la propiedad», una sentencia de 2016 sobre «un asunto que se remonta a 1994».[18]​.

Otras instancias proponen que el Gobierno de España impugne en bloque todas las inmatriculaciones.[1]​[19]​.

a case

In the case appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, referring to the Monastery of Santa Cruz de Ribas, also called Santa Cruz de la Zarza,[note 2]​ this court recognizes that «the plaintiff had been “a victim of the exercise of the right of registration recognized to the Catholic Church by domestic legislation without apparent justification.”[23]​ Likewise, it points out «in these circumstances, only the declaration of nullity of the registration in favor of the Bishopric of Palencia It would put the interested party, as far as possible, in a situation equivalent to that which it found itself in if the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been ignored.

On the other hand, and after several claims to the Bishopric of Palencia made by the plaintiff, the Bishopric responds in the following terms:

In this regard, the ECtHR, after an extensive exposition in i. Regarding the existence of an interference in the property right of the plaintiff, it states:

The (Spanish) Government argues that restitutio in integrum is "possible through various means provided for in Spanish legislation",[27]​ to which, among other reasons, it is stated: "in the present case, the ECtHR considers that the impossibility of annulling the registration of the Cistercian church in question, carried out more than sixteen years after the plaintiff proceeded to the registration of the same property", has caused "considerable inconveniences and prolonged uncertainty».[28]​.

And it concludes that "in these circumstances, the ECtHR considers that the best form of reparation consists of the granting by the State of compensation for the material damage and moral damage that the interested party has suffered due to the interference with her property right."[29]​.

Finally, monetary compensation is stipulated, "which the defendant State must pay."[21]​.

In the information table corresponding to the municipality of Ribas de Campos, registry of Astudillo, only two unregistered records are indicated, 33 and 34, whose owner is the Diocese of Palencia,[30]​ and record 33, EXCLUDED SECANO, Rústica, may be the litigated case, since it is alleged that "the plaintiff acquired irrigated land in Ribas de Campos. The acquisition of the land was registered in the Property Registry of Astudillo (Palencia). In addition to the boundaries of the land and its total surface area, the registration entry made in 1979 stated that "a Church, a house, some water wheels, a corral and a mill" were located on the property",[25] given that the other record, 34, corresponds to a parish church, with a church existing in the population center, in the central square, which is supposed to be the parish church, which can be consulted in cartography. Iberpix.[31]​.

In any case, and according to this cartography, there is «Mtro. Santa Cruz de la Zarza» in the area of ​​El Pilón, without indicating a church.[31]​.

Los procesos de reversión de las inmatriculaciones, o la defensa de intereses particulares, suponen una serie de trámites judiciales en los que corresponde al demandante probar su derecho, la carga de la prueba u onus probandi pues, el inmatriculante, en este caso la Iglesia Católica, se fundamenta en «certificado expedido por el Secretario General del Obispo» que puede «tener el mismo valor que los certificados expedidos por funcionarios públicos con prerrogativas de poder público».[12]​.

Estos procesos, como señala el propio TEDH (ver Un caso), suponen que «para que dicha declaración de nulidad y la inscripción posterior de la finca en el Registro de la Propiedad puedan darse, la demandante debería entablar un nuevo procedimiento ante las jurisdicciones internas», reconociendo que «el TEDH no puede obligar a la interesada a iniciar, ya sea un nuevo procedimiento para conseguir que la inscripción registral sea declarada nula y, en caso de ver atendida su petición, a iniciar aun otras acciones reivindicatorias de la propiedad», una sentencia de 2016 sobre «un asunto que se remonta a 1994».[18]​.

Otras instancias proponen que el Gobierno de España impugne en bloque todas las inmatriculaciones.[1]​[19]​.

a case

In the case appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, referring to the Monastery of Santa Cruz de Ribas, also called Santa Cruz de la Zarza,[note 2]​ this court recognizes that «the plaintiff had been “a victim of the exercise of the right of registration recognized to the Catholic Church by domestic legislation without apparent justification.”[23]​ Likewise, it points out «in these circumstances, only the declaration of nullity of the registration in favor of the Bishopric of Palencia It would put the interested party, as far as possible, in a situation equivalent to that which it found itself in if the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been ignored.

On the other hand, and after several claims to the Bishopric of Palencia made by the plaintiff, the Bishopric responds in the following terms:

In this regard, the ECtHR, after an extensive exposition in i. Regarding the existence of an interference in the property right of the plaintiff, it states:

The (Spanish) Government argues that restitutio in integrum is "possible through various means provided for in Spanish legislation",[27]​ to which, among other reasons, it is stated: "in the present case, the ECtHR considers that the impossibility of annulling the registration of the Cistercian church in question, carried out more than sixteen years after the plaintiff proceeded to the registration of the same property", has caused "considerable inconveniences and prolonged uncertainty».[28]​.

And it concludes that "in these circumstances, the ECtHR considers that the best form of reparation consists of the granting by the State of compensation for the material damage and moral damage that the interested party has suffered due to the interference with her property right."[29]​.

Finally, monetary compensation is stipulated, "which the defendant State must pay."[21]​.

In the information table corresponding to the municipality of Ribas de Campos, registry of Astudillo, only two unregistered records are indicated, 33 and 34, whose owner is the Diocese of Palencia,[30]​ and record 33, EXCLUDED SECANO, Rústica, may be the litigated case, since it is alleged that "the plaintiff acquired irrigated land in Ribas de Campos. The acquisition of the land was registered in the Property Registry of Astudillo (Palencia). In addition to the boundaries of the land and its total surface area, the registration entry made in 1979 stated that "a Church, a house, some water wheels, a corral and a mill" were located on the property",[25] given that the other record, 34, corresponds to a parish church, with a church existing in the population center, in the central square, which is supposed to be the parish church, which can be consulted in cartography. Iberpix.[31]​.

In any case, and according to this cartography, there is «Mtro. Santa Cruz de la Zarza» in the area of ​​El Pilón, without indicating a church.[31]​.