# DP 748/2026 — Order of 16 July 2026 — complete substantive English translation **Control:** `PD-DP748-ACT-004-FULLTEXT-EN` **Proceeding:** Preliminary Criminal Proceedings 748/2026 **NIG:** `3802343220260002351` **Court:** Seat No. 4, Court of First Instance, Criminal Investigation Section, San Cristóbal de La Laguna (`PD-SP-I-0037`) **Judge:** Graciela Pérez-Valencia Díaz (`PD-SP-P-0147`) **Electronically signed:** 16 July 2026 **Transmission received by the party:** 1 September 2026 · `PD-DP748-NOT-001` **Status:** not final; the Order itself states that an appeal may be filed within five days counted from the day after the last notification. > **Translation and privacy control.** This is a faithful English translation of the substantive judicial text. Court contact details, validation codes, signatures and unnecessary notification metadata are excluded. The original judicial copy remains in private custody. This translation is not itself an authenticated court document. ## ORDER In San Cristóbal de La Laguna, on the date of the electronic signature. ### FACTUAL BACKGROUND **SOLE.-** Gil Marer filed an appeal for reconsideration against the Order dated 24 March 2026 which ordered the provisional dismissal and archiving of the proceedings. The appeal was transferred to the parties and to the Public Prosecutor, with the result recorded in the case file. ### LEGAL GROUNDS **FIRST.-** The submissions made in the appeal cannot be accepted, for the reasons set out below. The complainant raises the possibility of an offence of falsification or procedural fraud allegedly committed by the reported parties in enforcement proceedings conducted in this judicial district but concerning real property situated in the Province of Las Palmas. **SECOND.-** Although the appellant and the Public Prosecutor are correct in stating that the earlier Order lacked reasoning, the decision provisionally to archive these criminal-investigation proceedings, in light of the complainant’s statements and enlargements, must be confirmed as legally correct. The complainant maintains that the real properties against which enforcement was ordered had been modified and that, knowing this, the reported parties continued to advance the enforcement. He also states that he informed the enforcement court of this fact by filing submissions in that proceeding. In the Judge’s view, all these matters should have been raised — and apparently were raised — before the court which ordered enforcement and could, where appropriate, be dealt with through incidents within those enforcement proceedings; they will not be reviewed by this court through the criminal route. The complainant also merely states that both the physical and registry reality may have been manipulated and asks that this be verified, without specifying the exact act attributed to the reported parties, the specific properties to which it may relate, or a minimum indication of criminality in their conduct. In this way, he makes non-specific assertions and asks the criminal-investigation court to undertake enquiries in case an offence of falsification or procedural fraud may have occurred, without specifying the offence, when what he seeks, with all due respect, is review of the civil enforcement proceeding. In those circumstances, it is not possible to answer individually every request in the complaint. A joint explanation for dismissal is appropriate, while recalling that this is a **provisional dismissal which could lead to reopening of the proceeding if other indications are provided**. **THIRD.-** For all of the above reasons, the appeal for reconsideration filed by Gil Marer against the Order of 24 March 2026 provisionally dismissing and archiving the proceedings must be partially upheld as regards the lack of reasoning. The Court has therefore supplied reasons for the provisional dismissal decision, which is confirmed. ### OPERATIVE PART I partially uphold the appeal for reconsideration filed by Gil Marer against the Order dated 24 March 2026 ordering the provisional dismissal and archiving of the proceedings, insofar as that decision lacked reasoning, but the decision to dismiss and archive is confirmed. **METHOD OF CHALLENGE.-** This decision is not final. An appeal may be filed against it within **FIVE DAYS**, counted from the day following the last notification of the judicial decision, by a written submission filed before this court. Thus ordered and signed by Graciela Pérez-Valencia Díaz, Judge of Seat No. 4 of the Court of First Instance (Criminal Investigation Section), San Cristóbal de La Laguna. --- ## Controlled reading The Order performs three legally distinct functions: 1. It agrees with the appellant and the Public Prosecutor that the original 24 March dismissal lacked adequate reasons. 2. It nevertheless maintains provisional dismissal because it considers the exact alleged act, the concrete properties and a minimum criminal indication insufficiently individualised, and because it regards ordinary ETJ 163/2020 incidents as matters for the civil enforcement route rather than criminal review. 3. It expressly preserves two later routes: appeal, because the Order is not final, and possible reopening with other indications. ## Controlled interconnection This Order should be read together with: - `TF-CIV-001` — Cambiario 1048/2019; - `TF-CIV-002` — ETJ 163/2020; - `PD-ETJ163-FIL-20260626` — the 26 June civil filing seeking suspension for criminal prejudiciality; - `PD-ETJ163-FIL-20260903` — Cuatrecasas’s opposition filed 3 September 2026; - `docs/cuatrecasas/DP748/2026-09-02_borrador_apelacion_propuesta.md` — public proposed appeal draft, not filed. Interconnection does not merge jurisdictions or convert a civil dispute into a criminal offence. Equally, formal separation of case files does not itself prove the absence of factual, economic, asset, mandate or knowledge connections. Each bridge must be proved through a specific act, asset, source and legal/professional capacity.