Community Voting Methods in Spain in 2026: Secret Ballot, Proxy Votes and How LPH Article 15 Governs Owner Representation

How votes are cast in a Spanish comunidad de propietarios is governed by a framework most owners never read in full. The Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (LPH) does not prescribe a single voting method, but its double majority rule, combined with Tribunal Supremo jurisprudence, effectively prohibits secret ballots, requires that every voter be identified with their cuota de participacion, and allows proxy delegation by nothing more than a signed letter. Non-resident owners who neither attend nor delegate are deemed to vote in favour by silence under Article 17.8. On 26 May 2026 the Congreso took the first concrete step toward legalising videoconference juntas, admitting a reform proposal with 306 votes in favour that would modify Articles 9.1.h, 15.1 and 19.1 of the LPH.

Why does the LPH double majority prohibit secret ballots?

The LPH requires two simultaneous majorities for most community decisions: a majority of owners (headcount) and a majority of cuotas de participacion (participation coefficients by floor area and value). Article 17.7 sets this for ordinary agreements, Article 17.3 requires three-fifths for concierge services and structural works, and Article 17.6 requires unanimity for statute modifications. Every threshold counts both bodies and cuotas, which means the acta (minutes) must record who voted, how they voted, and what cuota each voter represents.

This double count is why secret ballots fail. The Tribunal Supremo addressed this directly in ruling 1192/2001 of 17 December, declaring that “el voto secreto, es decir, aquel acuerdo obtenido por el acuerdo formado por asistentes que no se identifican, no puede considerarse valido. No basta con la emision del voto, ha de conocerse la cuota de participacion del votante” (secret voting, where the agreement is formed by attendees who are not identified, cannot be considered valid. It is not enough to cast a vote; the participation coefficient of the voter must be known). The court annulled agreements adopted by secret ballot because the double majority could not be verified.

The same principle was reinforced in Tribunal Supremo ruling 221/2005 of 17 March, which annulled an agreement that obtained a majority of attendees but not a majority of cuotas. The statutory framework leaves no room for anonymity: each vote must be attributable to a named owner and their registered coefficient.

A narrow exception exists. The Audiencia Provincial de Madrid admitted secret voting in rulings 15/2008 and 453/2004 when all owners in the community hold identical cuotas, so the headcount majority and the cuota majority are mathematically the same. This situation is exceptional in practice, because most buildings assign coefficients by floor area and orientation. Even in that scenario, the risk persists that an owner who voted secretly cannot later prove they voted against an agreement, which LPH Article 18.2 requires for impugnation standing.

How does a non-resident owner delegate their vote?

Article 15.1 of the LPH establishes that attendance at the junta is “personal o por representacion legal o voluntaria, bastando para acreditar esta un escrito firmado por el propietario” (personal or by legal or voluntary representation, a signed document by the owner being sufficient to accredit this). The statute deliberately sets a low formality threshold: no notarial deed, no official form, no specific format. A handwritten letter naming the representative and signed by the owner is enough.

The Tribunal Supremo confirmed this simplicity in its ruling of 25 February 1988, declaring that a signed document suffices and does not need to be incorporated into or transcribed in the acta. However, ruling 483/2003 of 23 May annulled agreements where the representation document was entirely omitted, so the written delegation must exist even if it need not be formal.

For non-resident owners, the practical steps are:

1. Obtain the agenda in advance (the president must send it at least six days before the ordinary annual junta under Article 16.3).
2. Prepare a signed letter naming a representative (any person, owner or not, may serve as proxy).
3. Send the letter to the secretary or administrator before the meeting.
4. Include written voting instructions if the owner wants the proxy to vote a specific way, because under Civil Code Article 1727 the principal is bound by the representative’s acts within the mandate’s scope.

The Audiencia Provincial de Madrid accepted email delegation in ruling 418/2012 of 25 July, holding that email satisfies the written requirement analogously to a signed document. Some Audiencias Provinciales (Cádiz 75/2009, Valencia 93/2009, Baleares 43/2005) have even admitted verbal representation in exceptional circumstances, though others (Ourense 175/2025, Jaén 302/2003) insist on written form. The safest approach for a non-resident is always a signed written delegation sent by email with a scanned PDF attachment.

A proxy delegation is valid for one junta only. The Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas established in ruling 180/2002 that representation granted for a specific meeting does not extend to subsequent juntas. The owner must issue a new delegation each time.

Can a community deprive a moroso owner of their vote?

Yes, under Article 15.2 of the LPH. Owners who at the start of the junta are not current on all debts owed to the community, and have not judicially challenged those debts or consigned the owed amount judicially or notarially, may participate in deliberations but have no right to vote. The acta must record the owners deprived of the vote, and their person and cuota are not counted toward the majorities required by the LPH.

This deprivation is not optional. The Audiencia Provincial de Málaga confirmed in ruling 416/2021 that Article 15.2 is an imperative rule the community must apply whenever a comunero is in a moroso situation, not a prerogative the junta may choose to enforce or not. However, two cumulative conditions must be met for the deprivation to be valid.

First, the convocation must include the list of moroso owners and a warning that they will be deprived of their vote if they do not regularise their situation before the junta. Without this formal requirement, the deprivation is illegal, as confirmed by the Audiencia Provincial de Vizcaya in ruling 384/2013, the Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba in ruling 305/2012, and the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid in ruling 544/2009. The purpose is practical: to give the moroso the opportunity to pay before the junta and recover their vote.

Second, the moroso status is checked at the start of the junta, not at the time of convocation. The Tribunal Supremo established in ruling 466/2009 of 2 July that if a moroso owner pays before the junta begins, they recover their right to vote. Conversely, if they were moroso at convocation and remain so at the start of the junta, the deprivation stands. Last-minute transfers that the community cannot verify at the junta’s opening create a grey area: the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid in ruling 587/2010 accepted the deprivation where a same-day transfer could not be confirmed, while ruling 440/2020 of the same court held that an owner who produced transfer receipts should not have been deprived.

An owner who acquires a property with pending community debts inherits the moroso status under the afeccion real of Article 9.1.e, provided those debts appear in the convocation of the first junta they attend. The new owner must settle the debts before the junta starts to vote.

What is constructive consent and why does it matter for absent owners?

Article 17.8 of the LPH creates what Spanish legal doctrine calls “voto presunto” (presumed vote). Owners who were properly summoned to the junta but did not attend are deemed to vote in favour of the agreements adopted by those present, unless they express their disagreement to the secretary within 30 natural days by any means that provides proof of receipt.

This is the single most important voting mechanic for non-resident owners to understand. If you own a property in Spain and do not attend the junta or send a proxy, your silence counts as a yes vote. You do not need to be asked again. The notification of the agreement triggers the 30-day clock, and the burden is on you to dissent.

The practical implication is clear: a non-resident owner who disagrees with a community decision must either delegate their vote in writing before the meeting or formally express opposition within 30 days of receiving notice. Failing to do both converts silence into consent, binding the owner to the agreement under Article 17.9.

This differs from abstention. An owner present at the junta who abstains does not trigger Article 17.8 (that provision applies only to absentees). But abstention carries its own risks: under Article 18.2, an owner who did not vote against an agreement (salvado el voto) cannot impugn it, except where the agreement violates the law or is gravely harmful to the community.

How do proindiviso and usufruct owners vote?

When a property belongs to multiple owners proindiviso (undivided shares, common in inheritances or joint purchases), Article 15.1 requires them to name a single representative to attend and vote. The community sends the convocation to the address designated under Article 9.1.h, not to each co-owner separately. If the co-owners fail to agree on a representative and multiple co-owners attend without a designated proxy, the jurisprudence is divided: the Audiencia Provincial de Jaén in ruling 927/2022 of 14 September presumed the attending co-owner represents the others, while the Audiencia Provincial de Ourense in ruling 175/2025 of 6 March required written representation even in proindiviso situations.

For usufruct (a life interest common in Spanish family estate planning), Article 15.1 assigns the vote to the nudo propietario (bare owner), who is presumed to be represented by the usufructuario (life tenant) unless the bare owner states otherwise. This presumption works for ordinary administration agreements. For agreements requiring unanimity under Article 17.6, extraordinary works under Article 17.4, or concierge service decisions under Article 17.3, the usufructuario needs express written delegation from the nudo propietario. Without it, agreements adopted with the usufructuario’s vote on those matters can be annulled, as the Audiencia Provincial de Asturias confirmed in ruling 110/2002.

How are multiple units by the same owner counted?

An owner who holds several apartments or commercial units in the same community does not get multiple personal votes. The Tribunal Supremo established in its rulings of 13 October 1982 and 10 February 1995 that the owner has one personal vote, though the cuotas of all their units are summed for the cuota majority calculation. Miscounting an owner of three units as three voters is grounds for nullity, as the Audiencia Provincial de Vizcaya confirmed in ruling 198/2011.

What about telematic or videoconference juntas in 2026?

The current LPH does not expressly contemplate juntas held by videoconference or in mixed in-person and remote format. Article 15 refers to personal attendance without providing controls or guarantees for remote participation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Real Decreto-ley 8/2021 temporarily permitted telematic juntas, but that framework was extraordinary and expired on 31 December 2021.

The most significant 2026 development is the congressional reform. On 26 May 2026, the Pleno del Congreso de los Diputados voted to admit a proposicion de ley (reform bill) proposed by the Grupo Popular with 306 votes in favour, 33 against and 10 abstentions. The bill, previously approved unanimously by the Senate on 12 February 2025, modifies three articles of the LPH:

Article modified	Change	Practical effect
Art 9.1.h	Email recognised as valid notification method	Ends paper-only or notice-board notifications
Art 15.1	Videoconference attendance permitted	Owners may participate remotely if the community approves it in junta or statutes
Art 19.1	Digital act book authorised	Removes the bound paper act-book obligation

The reform is not yet law. The toma en consideracion is the first step of parliamentary processing: the bill now goes to the competent commission, opens to amendments, and must pass through ponencia, commission and Pleno before referral back to the Senate. The estimated entry into force is between late 2026 and mid 2027, depending on the amendment pace. Until the reform publishes in the BOE, the current LPH remains in force unchanged.

The PNV’s spokesperson, Mikel Legarda, voted in favour but warned that the bill “should not see the light in the BOE as it currently stands” because it lacks guarantees on videoconference conditions that the pandemic-era decree did provide, including participation through multi-call telephone. The Catalan Código Civil has permitted telematic juntas since 2015, which gave Junts a reference point, and it voted in favour despite Catalonia already having its own framework for remote community meetings.

Outside the reform, mixed juntas held without legal coverage remain risky. The Audiencia Provincial de Granada annulled agreements from a telematic junta held without statutory backing in October 2024, and the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid confirmed in ruling 8928/2025 that pandemic measures have expired and the LPH requires strict compliance. Until the reform passes, the safest approach for non-resident owners is written proxy delegation rather than remote live participation.

If a community does hold a mixed junta, the acta should record the identity and cuota of each remote participant and confirm that they could hear and be heard throughout the deliberations. The acta must be closed and signed by the president and secretary within 10 natural days of the junta under Article 19, after which the agreements become executable.

What are the three judicial approaches to counting abstentions?

When an owner present at the junta abstains rather than voting for or against, the effect on the majority calculation is not settled law. The Tribunal Supremo acknowledged this discrepancy in its Auto of 27 May 2020, identifying three positions across the Audiencias Provinciales:

Approach	Jurisprudence	Effect
Subtract from base	AP Madrid 634/2009, AP Asturias 337/2007	Majority computed only on votes for and against
Add to majority	AP Asturias 166/2007, AP Albacete 3/2007	Abstentions favour adoption of the agreement
Exclude entirely	AP Madrid 450/2009, AP Asturias 23/2007, AP Cantabria 300/2009	Abstentions neither help nor hinder either side

This unresolved question makes abstention a risky choice. An owner who opposes an agreement should vote expressly against rather than abstain, both to preserve impugnation standing under Article 18.2 and to avoid the uncertain effect of their abstention on the majority count.

Comparison of Spanish community voting methods

Method	Legal basis	When used	Non-resident applicability	Formality
Personal vote (show of hands)	LPH Art 15.1, Art 17	Default for all junta votes	Owner must attend in person	None beyond identification
Written proxy delegation	LPH Art 15.1	When owner cannot attend	Primary method for non-residents	Signed letter, no notarial deed
Email proxy delegation	AP Madrid 418/2012	When written delegation is sent electronically	Practical for overseas owners	Email to secretary with signed scan
Constructive consent (silence)	LPH Art 17.8	Absent owner who was properly summoned	Default if no proxy sent	None; silence equals yes
Moroso deprivation	LPH Art 15.2	Owner in arrears listed in convocation	Applies to resident and non-resident alike	Convocation must list morosos and warn
Secret ballot	Prohibited by STS 1192/2001	Not permitted (narrow exception: identical cuotas)	N/A	Invalid except in exceptional case

How does the voting method interact with impugnation rights?

The method by which an owner votes determines whether they can later challenge an agreement in court. Article 18.2 of the LPH requires that an owner have voted against the agreement (salvado el voto) to have standing to impugn. This means:

• An owner who voted in favour cannot impugn.
• An owner who abstained cannot impugn (except for agreements contrary to law or gravely harmful to the community).
• An owner who was absent and did not dissent within 30 days under Article 17.8 is deemed to have voted in favour and cannot impugn.
• An owner whose proxy voted in favour cannot impugn, as confirmed by the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra in ruling 21/2011 and the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante in ruling 426/2005, because the principal is bound by the representative’s acts under Civil Code Article 1727.

This is why written voting instructions in a proxy delegation matter. If the proxy votes contrary to written instructions, the owner may have grounds to argue the representative exceeded the mandate’s scope. Without written instructions, the proxy’s vote binds the owner completely.

The impugnation deadline under Article 18.3 is three months from the adoption of the agreement, or from notification to absent owners, extended to one year where the agreement is contrary to the law or the statutes. The owner must also be current on community debts or have consigned the disputed amount judicially or notarially under Article 18.2.

For a broader treatment of community governance structures, majority thresholds and meeting types, see our guides on community governance and voting rights, community meeting types, the Horizontal Property Law, amending community statutes, community internal rules, and the community administrator’s role.