This is merely one way of expressing the idea that the party is authorized to mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber the property by granting other types of rights in it such as usufruct, easements (servidumbres), etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2013-01-08 15:07:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it should be noted that the expression "derechos reales" doesn’t necessarily refer to rights in "real property". "Prenda", for example, is a "derecho real de garantía mobiliaria", i.e., a pledge/security interest in personal property (bienes muebles) rather than real property (bienes inmuebles). Thus “derechos reales inmobiliarios” are “rights in real property” (or) “real property rights,” while “derechos reales mobiliarios” are “rights in personal property” (or) “personal property rights.” Likewise “cosa” (the Latin “res”) may refer equally to real property (“cosas inmuebles”) and personal property (“cosas muebles”).

A standard classification:

Derechos reales inmobiliarios—servidumbres, habitación, anticresis, enfiteusis, derecho de superficie

Derechos reales mobiliarios—prenda

Derechos reales que pueden recaer sobre bienes muebles o inmuebles—propiedad, usufructo, uso, hipoteca

In other respects, in English, “rights in rem” are “rights exercisable against the world at large” (Black’s) and are also called “real rights,” but aren’t necessarily “real property rights” or “rights in real property.”


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2013-01-08 17:37:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In response to Bilh’s comment:

Hi Bill,

I think you may be confusing property (“propiedad”) which as you mention is not referred to here and “derechos reales” which are “rights in property” or “property rights,” two of which (hipoteca and prenda) are indeed the subject of the text to be translated.

If you will reread my comment you will see that I did not indicate that “rights in rem” is an inappropriate translation for “derechos reales.” My comment referred to Andy’s observation that the text concerns “rights over REAL PROPERTY”, and this is inaccurate, since the text mentions both “hipoteca” (a right in real property—bienes inmuebles) and “prenda” (a right in personal property—bienes muebles). And as the classification that I provided shows, in Spanish the expression “derechos reales” includes both “derechos reales inmobiliarios” (= rights in real property) and “derechos reales mobiliarios” (= rights in personal property). One may indeed consider these “rights in rem” because they are rights that are “exercisable against the world at large”, which is the definition of “rights in rem” as opposed to in personam rights that are interests solely protected against specific individuals. But in my experience (and as was the case here) “rights in rem” are often confused with “real property rights”, so it may be preferable (and is certainly accurate) to translate “derechos reales” simply as “property rights” or “rights in property” when the expression includes, as in this text, both real and personal property rights.

My source for the above is:

Carlos Lasarte. "Principios de Derecho Civil, Vol. V--Derechos Reales y Derecho Hipotecario." Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2002.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2013-01-08 18:40:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

An additional comment for Billh:

There is probably no expression that is more universally recognized than “property rights” (here or elsewhere)! But “rights in rem” is certainly ok. What is not ok are the dictionaries that translate “derechos reales” as “real property rights” which probably started this mess in the first place. When translating patently civil law concepts, I avoid trying to force them to “fit” American or British legal terminology if I think the US or E/W terms will prompt a miscue. “Derechos reales” has been translated so many times as “rights in rem” or “real rights” along side the incorrect rendering of “real estate” or “realty” that I think many translators assume that “rights in rem” means rights in real property. For that reason I prefer the simple “property rights”.

Here are two prime examples:

1) Alcaraz Varó/Hughes “Diccionario de Términos Jurídicos”: derecho real = “legal interest; real right or interest; property right; realty; real estate” The definition was correct until they got to the “realty; real estate” part. To be fair, the last edition of this dictionary that I bought is from 2005, so this may have been corrected in the many editions since then.

2) Cabanellas/Hoague “Diccionario Jurídico Español-Inglés”: derecho real = “law regulating rights over real property; in rem right; right pertaining to tangible property.” This is incorrect on two counts. “rights over real property” are “derechos reales INMOBILIARIOS” and “derechos reales” may “certainly pertain to intangible property”. Two very common “derechos reales sobre bienes intangibles” that immediately come to mind are “usufructo de acciones” y “usufructo de patentes (o) marcas”.

Here is an example of a dictionary that got it right:

Thomas L West, III “Spanish-English Dictionary of Law and Business” derecho real = “right in rem; interest in property (both real property and personal property—examples include “propiedad” (ownership), “usufructo” (life estate) and servidumbre (easement)).” (the only incorrection here is defining “usufructo” as a “life estate” since usufructo can certainly be granted for a term of years and thus “life estate” would perhaps be a more appropriate definition for “usufructo vitalicio”.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2013-01-08 19:01:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

An additional comment for Billh:

There is probably no expression that is more universally recognized than “property rights” (here or elsewhere)! But “rights in rem” is certainly ok. What is not ok are the dictionaries that translate “derechos reales” as “real property rights” which probably started this mess in the first place. When translating patently civil law concepts, I avoid trying to make them “fit” American or British legal terms if I think the US or E/W terms will prompt a miscue. “Derechos reales” has been translated so many times as “rights in rem” or “real rights” along side the incorrect rendering of “real estate” or “realty” that I think many translators assume that “rights in rem” only include rights in real property. For that reason I prefer the simple “property rights”.

Here are two prime examples:

1) Alcaraz Varó/Hughes “Diccionario de Términos Jurídicos”: derecho real = “legal interest; real right or interest; property right; realty; real estate” The definition was correct until they got to the “realty; real estate” part. To be fair, the last edition of this dictionary that I bought is from 2005, so this may have been corrected since then.

2) Cabanellas/Hoague “Diccionario Jurídico Español-Inglés”: derecho real = “law regulating rights over real property; in rem right; right pertaining to tangible property.” This is incorrect on two counts. “rights over real property” are “derechos reales INMOBILIARIOS” and “derechos reales” may “certainly pertain to intangible property” Two very common “derechos reales sobre bienes intangibles” that immediately come to mind “usufructo de acciones” y “usufructo de patentes (o) marcas”.

Here is an example of a dictionary that got it right:

Thomas L West, III “Spanish-English Dictionary of Law and Business” derecho real = “right in rem; interest in property (both real property and personal property—examples include “propiedad” (ownership), “usufructo” (life estate) and servidumbre (easement)).” (the only incorrection here is defining “usufructo” as a “life estate” since usufructo can certainly be granted for a term of years and. “Life estate” would be more appropriate as a definition for “usufructo vitalicio”.