# Montelanza / Molina → JV 1260/2011 → AP 89/2014 ↔ Pink / AC / Concurso 36/2012
## Procedural-propagation and actor-adoption control

**Control date:** 24 September 2026  
**Status:** CANONICAL INVESTIGATIVE BRIDGE — source-led; allegations and hypotheses are not findings  
**Purpose:** bind the historically distinct private-owner exploitation litigation to the later AC-driven Pink/Monterecco rent and calificación chain without collapsing actors, entities, capacities or causes.

## 1. Identity and procedural-label controls

The verified Track A route in the controlled repository is:

**JPI no. 4 Arrecife · JV 1260/2011 → Roll 793/2012 → Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas · Sentencia 89/2014 (13-Jan-2014).**

Earlier references to **“ICFE”** are superseded: **“ICFE” was a voice-to-text error for “Audiencia Provincial,” not a separate proceeding or institution.** The verified route is the JPI/appeal chain stated above.

The relevant Spanish company in Track B is **Monterecco Sun Park, S.L./S.R.L. → Pink Canary Services, S.L./S.L.U. (same Spanish legal person)**. It is separate from the UK company now named **AWESWELL LIMITED**. This control does not create a separate legal person called “Big Canary”.

## 2. Controlling conclusion

The controlling thesis is stronger than mere “procedural propagation”. It is a **functional-repetition / operator-displacement hypothesis across two legally distinct routes**.

**Track A** used owner-specific possession/exploitation litigation concerning 18 dissident units, later extended against Monterecco, to remove those units from the operative reach attributed to CEXP/Monterecco and ultimately obtain an adverse appellate result against Monterecco/Pink for that bounded unit perimeter. **Track B** later used the insolvency-administration route — contract termination/rent litigation, possession and keys narratives, later calificación propositions and their proposition-specific judicial adoption — to challenge, burden and displace Pink’s operating position within the LPB/concurso perimeter. The concursal judge belongs on Track B as an adjudicator who adopted or rejected particular propositions; that is legally different from originating Track A.

The commonality to test is therefore **same practical direction / different juridical mechanism**: fragmentation or exclusion of the hotel operator from an economically integrated hotel, first through private-owner litigation and later through insolvency/institutional processes. The investigative question is whether Track B arose independently, merely converged with Track A, reused assumptions or evidence from it, or functionally broadened the earlier exclusionary effect — and, proposition by proposition, who knew, supplied, adopted, rejected or benefited from each step.

This thesis does **not** establish a common plan, concert, criminal agreement, transferred intent or collective liability. Those require independent proof. The bridge must remain actor-specific, capacity-specific and source-specific.

### 2A. Gil Marer's allegation — mutual / cross-proceeding instrumentalisation

Gil Marer's current investigative position goes further than parallel effect. He alleges a **reciprocal instrumentalisation architecture** in which private actors and their successors, the insolvency administrator, and later judicial acts can function as procedural or evidential instruments for one another across otherwise distinct proceedings.

The allegation to test is not that these actors are legally interchangeable. It is that **acts generated in one lane may be reused in another lane as inputs, leverage, legitimating premises, evidential shortcuts, enforcement effects or later institutional authority**. On that hypothesis:

- private-owner pleadings, possession theories, Community acts and adverse judgments may supply propositions later useful in the concurso;
- AC reports, litigation positions, certifications, testimony or possession narratives may supply propositions later useful to private actors or later judicial reasoning;
- judicial orders and judgments may then be invoked downstream by the AC or private actors as institutional validation or practical leverage;
- later private acquisitions, Community control or successor positions may benefit from procedural/evidential states produced in earlier private, concursal or judicial tracks;
- the same proposition can therefore travel **private actor → AC → court**, **AC → court → private actor**, **private actor → court → AC**, or through other source-proved sequences.

For this workspace, **“interchangeably” means functional cross-use, not identity merger**. No relationship, succession, repeated outcome or downstream benefit proves a common plan, instruction, corrupt agreement, transferred knowledge or criminal intent. Every claimed cross-use must identify the exact originating act or proposition, the receiving actor, the knowledge route, the later source that actually adopts or deploys it, the practical effect, contrary evidence and an innocent alternative.

### Track A — private actors / minority-unit exploitation litigation

The 23-Dec-2011 JV 1260/2011 claim was brought by a private-owner perimeter concerning 18 units. The controlled primary reconstruction identifies Acciones Canarias, Muruga, Roque Prieto, Amenem, Tengolf, Miguel Molina Betancor and Francisco Luis Molina Molina in the claimant perimeter. Álvaro Campanario Hernández represented much of the same perimeter in Community governance before acting in the litigation.

The claim was later expanded against Monterecco after the claimant side asserted a change in exploitation. First instance found insufficient proof that Monterecco possessed/exploited the 18 units. AP 89/2014 reversed that result after considering a post-judgment May-2012 key-delivery event. Contemporary material describes those keys as CEXP maintenance copies, but the complete notarial/appellate evidential package remains keystone evidence.

**Boundary:** AP 89/2014 is materially adverse evidence. It does not, by itself, adjudicate universal whole-hotel authority, extinguish all CEXP rights, decide the legal status of every non-claimant unit, establish that LPB owned the whole hotel, or establish that Pink validly succeeded to every owners-derived exploitation right.

### Track B — AC-initiated Pink / rent / termination / calificación chain

The AC, Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte, later pursued the LPB–Monterecco/Pink operating-contract/rent dispute. The controlling Allegation-03 ledger identifies the AC's 17-Jan-2014 contract-resolution/rent claim and the 24-Nov-2015 Pink judgment as a separate procedural chain.

The AC's later calificación case divided into propositions that must remain separate:

1. **03-A — entry into the 6-Feb-2012 operating agreement was itself economically culpable:** Sentencia 163/2023 rejected the AC's rent-versus-mortgage reasoning as sufficient to make entry into the contract culpable.
2. **03-B — alleged non-payment/non-enforcement:** Sentencia 163/2023 made materially adverse findings of gross fault, causation and Pink complicity. Those findings are appealed.
3. **03-C — underlying authority/validity/CEXP continuity:** not resolved merely by the 03-A economic-rationality holding. The Project's nullity/ineffectiveness theory remains an attributed legal position subject to the contrary case and primary-source proof.

The same ledger records that the AC ultimately litigated the contractual-resolution/rent claim and later used the Pink/rent history in calificación. The exact euro bridge from the monthly contractual burden to later judgment/execution figures remains a controlled reconciliation task.

## 3. The bridge: bind without merging

The two tracks are analytically linked at the following dependency points:

| Dependency | Track A | Track B | Current classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hotel operated economically as one complex over divided titles | foundation of CEXP/owner dispute | context for LPB/Pink agreement and operating burden | DOCUMENTED CONTEXT |
| CEXP authority / owner accession | central to the 18-unit dispute | material to whether LPB alone could grant Pink the relevant exploitation rights | SHARED DEPENDENCY; legal scope open |
| Monterecco/Pink factual operation | Monterecco added to JV 1260/2011; AP 89/2014 adverse for 18 units | bilateral LPB/Pink contract, rent, termination and execution | DOCUMENTED, but scope differs |
| Keys / possession | May-2012 CEXP maintenance-copy event | May-2017 facial Pink→LPB access-key/possession instrument | TWO DISTINCT EVENTS — never conflate |
| AP 89/2014 → later Pink/AC/judge use | possible source/narrative predecessor | later actors operated in a record where AP 89/2014 existed | EXPRESS RELIANCE must be proved source-by-source |
| 22-May-2017 handover → Auto 804/2018 | not the 2012 key event | Auto 804/2018 relied on AC authority/testimony and the 2017 narrative | DIRECT DOWNSTREAM LINK documented in current control |
| 22-May-2017 handover → AC 2019 calificación | no automatic backward implication | AC later used the handover premise | DIRECT DOWNSTREAM USE documented |
| AC/Fiscal propositions → Sentencia 163/2023 | no identity with Track A | selected propositions became judicial findings; another AC branch was rejected | JUDICIAL ADOPTION, proposition-specific |
| Private-actor/CAM convergence in May–June 2018 | AMENEM belongs to original JV1260 claimant perimeter | AC represented LPB at 18-May-2018 Community meeting; later concurso decisions separate | LATER CONVERGENCE; no retroactive proof of 2011 coordination |

**Rule:** shared subject matter, temporal sequence or later benefit does not transfer knowledge, agreement, intent, causation or liability.

## 4. Private-actor → Community → litigation architecture

The current Track A reconstruction supports these source-controlled points:

- 29-Apr-2008: CEXP was collectively created in a meeting with substantial participation; several later JV1260 corporate claimants were present or represented. The record also contains opposition/reservation and does not prove universal accession.
- 26-May-2008: Montelanza–CEXP instrument records a formal cession of exploitation of the Sun Park complex to CEXP, while unit-level authority remains a proof question.
- 2-Feb-2011: Álvaro Campanario represented much of the future claimant perimeter, became Secretary of the Community meeting and proposed litigation/procedural strategy.
- 22-Jun-2011: the controlled ACTA evidences the debt/voting-right mechanism later treated by the Project as a governance question; its legal validity remains separate.
- 23-Dec-2011: JV 1260/2011 filed.
- 23-Feb-2012: claimant-driven extension against Monterecco.
- 2012 first instance: CEXP adverse result after qualified submission; Monterecco absolved for insufficient proof.
- 28-May-2012: post-judgment key event.
- 13-Jan-2014: AP 89/2014 reverses Monterecco's first-instance result as to the 18 claimant units.

This is enough to treat the litigation as embedded in the Community/CEXP governance history. It is not enough to characterize every claimant, lawyer or Community act as criminal.

## 5. AC → Pink → later judicial-adoption architecture

The later chain must be reconstructed independently:

- **6-Feb-2012:** LPB–Monterecco/Pink operating agreement.
- **17-Jan-2014:** AC contract-resolution/rent claim identified in the controlled source stack.
- **24-Nov-2015:** Pink judgment later relied upon in the broader record; principal/interest/cost arithmetic requires complete reconciliation.
- **22-May-2017:** facial Pink→LPB access-key/possession instrument; it must not be conflated with the May-2012 CEXP maintenance-key event.
- **Auto 804/2018:** adverse criminal-procedural outcome relied on AC authority/testimony and the 2017 narrative; it was not a whole-hotel title/tourism judgment.
- **11-Feb-2019:** AC calificación report makes direct downstream use of the 2017 handover premise and advances the Pink/rent culpability case.
- **Sentencia 163/2023:** Judge Alberto López Villarrubia rejects one AC economic-rationality branch and adopts adverse non-payment/non-enforcement propositions, with severe patrimonial/professional consequences. Appeals remain material.

This supports a proposition-specific **institutional adoption** analysis. It does not, without further evidence, establish bad faith, criminal agreement, corrupt influence or an unlawful motive by the AC or judge.

## 6. Later private-actor / AC / Community convergence

A separate later bridge is documented and should be displayed because it connects some of the historic private-owner/Community perimeter to the 2018 control sequence:

- 18-May-2018: Laura Acosta Matos represented CAM and Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori represented LPB at a Sun Park Community meeting.
- The ACTA's voting-right list includes the AMENEM/Shaila Cogolludo 0.385% line; AMENEM was an original JV1260 corporate plaintiff.
- The meeting approved a Community security/access-control mechanism by those recorded as entitled to vote.
- A separate registry chain records Finca 8718 — not one of the 18 litigated units and formerly in the TENGOLF/AMENEM perimeter — transferring to CAM through deeds dated 23-May and 31-May-2018.
- 7-Jun-2018 is the Project's documented material-control pivot.

**Boundary:** this is later functional convergence. It does not prove CAM directed the 2011 litigation, that the AC shared any 2011 plan, or that the judge inherited criminal responsibility from any private actor.

## 7. Actor/capacity map

### Historical private-owner / Community side
- Montelanza / Monte Lanza: historical corporate/title/exploitation source; do not merge with individual Molina owners.
- Molina owners: unit-specific private owners; identify each person and finca separately.
- Acciones Canarias, Muruga, Roque Prieto, Amenem, Tengolf: claimant-side legal persons in JV 1260/2011 according to the controlled pleading.
- Álvaro Campanario Hernández: lawyer/representative and 2011 Community-meeting actor; those capacities must be dated and kept separate.
- FMMM / Antonio Cogolludo / Shaila Cogolludo and related entities: later Community/private-actor continuity must be proved act-by-act, not by family or association.

### Exploitation / debtor / estate side
- CEXP: owners-derived exploitation structure; not the Owners' Community.
- Comunidad de Propietarios: horizontal-property organ; not CEXP.
- LPB: major property owner and later insolvent debtor; not the whole hotel.
- Spanish Monterecco → Pink Canary Services: separate Spanish legal person; factual operator/administrator for a defined period/perimeter, not automatically universal successor to CEXP.
- AWESWELL LIMITED: UK company; legally separate from Spanish Monterecco/Pink.

### Institutional side
- Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte: court-appointed insolvency administrator. His litigation, reporting, meeting representation and calificación acts must be attributed to his actual capacity at the date.
- Alberto López Villarrubia: concursal judge. Judicial adoption of an AC/Fiscal proposition is a distinct judicial act; it does not merge the judge with the AC or private actors.
- Fiscalía: separate institutional actor; adoption, support, change of position or silence must be source-specific.

## 8. The core investigative test

For every proposition migrating from Track A or the wider Community/CEXP record into Track B or later concurso decisions, record:

**ORIGIN → ACTOR → CAPACITY → PRIMARY SOURCE → EXACT PROPOSITION → LIMITS → CONTRARY EVIDENCE → KNOWLEDGE ROUTE → LATER USE → ADOPTION/REJECTION → EFFECT → BENEFIT/HARM → LAWFUL ALTERNATIVE → EVIDENCE STATUS.**

Use the following edge labels:

- **DIRECT CITATION / EXPRESS RELIANCE**
- **DIRECT DOWNSTREAM USE**
- **FUNCTIONAL REUSE**
- **SHARED FACTUAL DEPENDENCY**
- **TEMPORAL PREDECESSOR ONLY**
- **INFERRED CONTINUITY**
- **CONTRADICTED**
- **UNRESOLVED**

Never promote an inferred edge merely because the later result is consistent with the earlier narrative.

## 9. Highest-priority proof gaps

1. Complete certified JV 1260/2011 file, including the claimant appellate evidential filing and complete 28-May-2012 notarial/key material.
2. Unit-by-unit 2008 CEXP accession/non-accession schedule and authority chain.
3. Complete AC 17-Jan-2014 Pink contract-resolution/rent claim and certified 24-Nov-2015 judgment/execution record.
4. Full monetary bridge: contract month → rent → Community burden → tax/cost → payment/set-off → judgment principal → interest → costs → execution → later €3,032,010.34 consequence.
5. Exact source showing any express later AC, Fiscalía or concursal-judge reliance on AP 89/2014. Until located, classify the AP89→calificación/judge edge no higher than source-specific evidence supports.
6. Complete 22-May-2017 Pink→LPB handover provenance and physical inventory.
7. Complete Auto 804/2018 file and exact AC testimony/authority relied upon.
8. Exact proposition matrix for the 11-Feb-2019 AC calificación report → Fiscalía → Sentencia 163/2023, including what was rejected, adopted, narrowed or left unresolved.
9. Contrary/exculpatory evidence with equal retrieval priority.

## 10. Required propagation

This bridge is mandatory context for future work involving:

- Montelanza/Molina and the historic unit-owner perimeter;
- JV 1260/2011, Roll 793/2012 or AP 89/2014;
- CEXP / Owners' Community authority;
- Spanish Monterecco / Pink Canary;
- AC Pink rent/termination/execution work;
- Auto 804/2018;
- calificación / Sentencia 163/2023 and appeals;
- AC separation / RPL 3304/2025;
- 18-May–7-Jun-2018 Community/CAM convergence;
- actor-specific analysis of Campanario, Rodríguez-Batllori, López Villarrubia, FMMM, Cogolludo actors and Acosta Matos actors.

## 11. Source spine

- `archive/JV1260_AP89_UNITARY_REVERSE_ENGINEERING_CAM_CONTINUITY_17AUG2026.md`
- `archive/SUN_PARK_FLAGSHIP_CASE_JV1260_AP89_CANONICAL_CONTROL_17AUG2026.md`
- `evidence/jv-1260-2011/full-text/AP89-2014-JV1260-sentencia-redacted.md`
- `archive/CALIFICACION_ALLEGATION_03_PINK_OPERATING_RENT_CAUSATION_LEDGER_16AUG2026.md`
- `archive/GIL_PAMANIL_AEAT_PINK_NULLITY_CRITICAL_REANALYSIS_22AUG2026.md`
- `archive/JUDGE_ALBERTO_LOPEZ_VILLARRUBIA_UNITARY_ALLEGATION_LEDGER_16AUG2026.md`
- `archive/CALIFICACION_JUDICIAL_ADOPTION_PRIVATE_ACTOR_EFFECT_16AUG2026.md`
- `archive/CRIMINAL_FIRST_UNITARY_REVERSE_ENGINEERING_2011_TO_PRESENT_25AUG2026.md`
- Drive controls: `PINK_CANARY_UNITARY_PROSECUTORIAL_FIRST_MASTER_21SEP2026_CURRENT`, `PINK_CANARY_UNITARY_PROCEEDINGS_BRIDGE_22SEP2026`, `PINK_CEXP_UNITARY_PROCEEDINGS_ANTI_FRAGMENTATION_CONTROL_23SEP2026`.

## 12. Safety / falsification rule

This is an investigative and forensic map. It does not declare criminal guilt, conspiracy, corruption, judicial wrongdoing or collective responsibility. An identified relationship proves only the relationship actually sourced. Later adoption does not prove prior coordination. Association does not transfer knowledge or intent. A judgment proves what it decided within its scope; it does not silently decide the upstream or downstream questions listed here.


## 13. Mandatory criminal/procedural-law addendum — 27-Sep-2026

For any criminal, prosecutorial, falsity, procedural-fraud, administration-of-assets, insolvency-offence, participation/omission, judicial-prevarication or organization/group analysis arising from this bridge, also read:

- `archive/JV1260_PINK_CRIMINAL_PROCEDURAL_LAW_INTEGRATION_27SEP2026.md`

That addendum controls the offence-element tests, temporal-law gate, public-law duty baseline, evidence labels and P0 proof sequence. It does not upgrade any allegation into a finding.