# ETJ 163/2020 — Cuatrecasas opposition to Matkator reconsideration appeal — 3 September 2026 **Primary control:** `PD-ETJ163-FIL-20260903-EN` **Proceeding:** Enforcement of Judicial Titles 163/2020 (`TF-CIV-002`) **NIG:** `3802342120190009565` **Court:** Seat No. 3, Civil Section, Court of First Instance of San Cristóbal de La Laguna (`PD-SP-I-0038`) **Enforcement creditor named in the filing:** Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Pereira, S.L.P. / currently Cuatrecasas Legal, S.L.P. **Enforcement debtor:** Matkator, S.L. **Court representative:** José Javier Bueno Mesa **Lawyer identified in the signed filing:** Teresa Morenés Basabe **Filing date:** 3 September 2026 **LexNET presentation verified:** 3 September 2026, 14:10:19 > **Translation and attribution control.** This is a faithful English rendering of the complete substantive filing. Electronic signatures, document hashes, validation codes and unnecessary personal metadata are excluded. The statements below are Cuatrecasas’s party submissions; publication does not adopt them as proved fact. --- ## ENFORCEMENT OF JUDICIAL TITLES 163/2020 **Enforcement creditor:** CUATRECASAS GONÇALVES PEREIRA, S.L.P. **Enforcement debtor:** MATKATOR, S.L. ### TO THE CIVIL SECTION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAN CRISTÓBAL DE LA LAGUNA — SEAT NO. 3 **JOSÉ JAVIER BUENO MESA**, Court Representative, acting in the name and on behalf of **CUATRECASAS LEGAL, S.L.P.** — formerly CUATRECASAS GONÇALVES PEREIRA, S.L.P., whose change of corporate name is attached as Document No. 1 — appears and states: **I.** On 29 July 2026 this party was served with the appeal for reconsideration dated 26 June 2026 filed by MATKATOR, S.L. — the enforcement debtor or MATKATOR — against the Order of 19 June 2026, which refused to suspend the present enforcement proceedings on grounds of criminal prejudiciality and granted five days in which to oppose the appeal. **II.** Within that period, Cuatrecasas **OPPOSES** the appeal for reconsideration and seeks its complete dismissal and confirmation of the challenged Order, on the following grounds. # SUBMISSIONS ## PRELIMINARY — The reconsideration appeal is inadmissible and the Order of 19 June 2026 is correct. Reiteration of the judicial approach already taken in these proceedings Cuatrecasas argues that MATKATOR’s application must first be placed in its procedural context. It says the 19 June 2026 Order is not isolated, but forms part of a series of final judicial decisions rejecting successive attempts by the enforcement debtor to halt the enforcement: 1. **Order of 26 September 2024:** refused to admit MATKATOR’s 20 September 2024 application for nullity, expressly stating that the auction had already taken place and that no relevant procedural infringement was alleged. 2. **Order of 3 June 2025:** dismissed MATKATOR’s reconsideration appeal against the earlier order. 3. **Order of 3 June 2025:** refused to admit the exceptional nullity incident under Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act in the bill-of-exchange proceeding from which this enforcement derives. 4. **Procedural Order of 11 March 2026:** the Court Clerk stated that no decree of adjudication had yet been issued and that opposition by the enforcement debtor was not available at that procedural stage. Cuatrecasas says the Court has repeatedly considered MATKATOR’s arguments about the alleged transformation of the property and alleged nullity of the auction and has rejected them. It characterises the present appeal as another attempt to relitigate the same matters under a different formal label. It maintains that the challenged Order correctly applies Article 569.1 of the Civil Procedure Act, examines the suspension request, identifies that the criminal complaint has no relationship with the enforceable title or the commencement of enforcement and therefore refuses suspension. ## SECOND — No manifest factual error: provisional dismissal means there is no active criminal investigation MATKATOR’s first ground alleges a manifest factual error because Preliminary Criminal Proceedings 748/2026 exist before Seat No. 4 of the Criminal Investigation Section in San Cristóbal de La Laguna. Cuatrecasas responds that those proceedings were provisionally dismissed by Order dated 24 March 2026. It argues that, under Article 641 of the Criminal Procedure Act, provisional dismissal means the investigation has ceased, albeit provisionally. Therefore, on 19 June 2026 there was not, in its submission, a criminal case in which apparently criminal conduct was actively being investigated, which it says is required by Article 569.1 before civil enforcement can be suspended. It says MATKATOR’s pending appeal for reconsideration and subsidiary appeal against the dismissal do not change this. A pending appeal against dismissal is not the same as an open criminal investigation. Unless and until the dismissal is overturned, Cuatrecasas says the investigation remains closed. If the dismissal were later reversed and the investigation reopened, the suspension issue could then be raised again if appropriate. Cuatrecasas adds that even an active criminal case would not justify suspension because, in its view, it bears no relationship to the enforceable title or the commencement of enforcement. Regarding the **Public Prosecutor’s report of 8 June 2026**, which MATKATOR says supported partial allowance of the reconsideration appeal because of inadequate reasons, Cuatrecasas argues that the report is non-binding, is not a judicial ruling, does not reopen the criminal case and does not itself establish an active investigation. It therefore says there was no factual error in the 19 June Order. ## THIRD — No breach of Article 569.1: the criminal case is unrelated to the enforceable title and the commencement of enforcement Cuatrecasas argues that, even assuming an active criminal proceeding existed, MATKATOR’s appeal would still fail because there is no necessary connection between the criminally investigated facts and either the validity of the enforceable title or the legality of the enforcement order. It says Article 569.1 permits suspension only where the criminal case concerns facts which, if true, would make the enforceable title false or void or make commencement of enforcement invalid or unlawful. ### a) The enforceable title Cuatrecasas identifies the enforceable title as a **final judgment in Bill-of-Exchange Proceedings 1048/2019**, ordering MATKATOR to pay **EUR 182,517.72 principal**. It argues that the alleged physical transformation of apartments into hotel rooms has no relationship to the validity of that bill-of-exchange judgment. The title, it says, is a final monetary judgment and its validity cannot depend on the physical configuration of a property attached later. ### b) Commencement of enforcement Cuatrecasas says enforcement was correctly commenced under Articles 549 and following of the Civil Procedure Act. It characterises the criminal complaint as concerning the planning or physical condition of a property rather than the enforcement order itself. A material alteration of a property might, it says, have administrative, planning or civil relevance but does not invalidate an enforcement order intended to enforce a final monetary judgment. ### c) Auction and adjudication Cuatrecasas says MATKATOR is attempting to extend Article 569.1 to the physical identity of the auctioned asset, while the statute concerns the title and the lawfulness of commencement of enforcement. It states that the auction concerned a duly identified registered property — **finca 8584 of the Yaiza Land Registry** — using Registry data as required by Articles 656 and following. It endorses the statement in the challenged Order that the criminal complaint “has no relationship whatsoever with the title being enforced or with the commencement of enforcement”. It relies on Provincial Court authorities concerning the restrictive application of criminal prejudiciality, including Madrid Section 19 Order 108/2011, and says the relevant requirements are that a criminal process be fully established, that the investigated facts ground the civil claims and that the criminal outcome could decisively affect the civil result. Cuatrecasas says none is satisfied here because: the criminal case is provisionally dismissed; the alleged facts do not, in its view, have the appearance of a criminal offence or form the basis of this enforcement; and a criminal decision would not affect an enforcement which it characterises as collection of a liquid, due and enforceable debt. It also invokes the restrictive nature of prejudiciality in enforcement proceedings and cites authorities from the Provincial Courts of Madrid, Málaga and Jaén which it says support continuation of enforcement where the criminal issue does not directly undermine the title or enforcement order. ## FOURTH — Primacy of the Land Registry position. The identity of the auctioned property is not in question MATKATOR argues that the criminal proceedings concern the “identity of the auctioned asset” because apartments were allegedly transformed into hotel rooms. Cuatrecasas rejects this. It says the enforcement asset is identified by its Registry entry — **finca 8584 of the Yaiza Land Registry** — rather than by physical configuration or actual use. It relies on Articles 1, 38 and 34 of the Mortgage Act regarding protection of Registry entries, presumptions attaching to registered rights and protection of a good-faith purchaser for value. Cuatrecasas expressly states that **MATKATOR remains the registered owner of the finca**, that the property legally exists and is perfectly identified. It says the auction was held over the property identified by the Registry and that any physical transformation does not alter its legal identity or invalidate the auction. It further states that **the successful adjudicatee will acquire the property in whatever condition it is in, as occurs in any forced transfer, and will be subrogated into the position of the enforcement debtor**. Cuatrecasas therefore distinguishes physical/material identity from legal/Registry identity. It says the property continues to exist, MATKATOR remains the registered owner and the debt remains outstanding, so enforcement can continue. It adds that discrepancies between physical reality and Registry description have separate legal routes, such as Registry rectification or title proceedings, and are outside Article 569.1 suspension. ## FIFTH — The challenged Order was sufficiently reasoned MATKATOR alleges insufficient reasoning in the Order of 19 June 2026. Cuatrecasas rejects that allegation. It says the Order expressly cites Article 569.1, considers the request and reaches the reasoned conclusion that the criminal complaint has no relationship with the title or commencement of enforcement. It says this satisfies Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 248.2 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary. It relies on Constitutional Court and Supreme Court doctrine that judicial reasoning does not require a detailed answer to every argument, provided the essential legal reasons are stated. It cites, among others, Supreme Court Judgment 175/2020 and other authorities. Cuatrecasas says the legal question was straightforward: in its view, a criminal complaint about physical transformation of a property does not relate to the bill-of-exchange judgment that constitutes the enforceable title. ## SIXTH — The subsidiary request for partial suspension should also be rejected MATKATOR asks in the alternative for suspension limited to **adjudication, approval of the remate, registration or delivery of possession**. Cuatrecasas opposes that request for three reasons: 1. If Article 569.1 does not permit total suspension, it says there is no basis for partial suspension either. 2. The requested partial suspension would in practice indefinitely stop the **adjudication, which Cuatrecasas identifies as the immediately pending procedural act**. In practical terms, it says, that would have the same effect as total suspension. 3. It says suspension would seriously prejudice the enforcement creditor, which has pursued collection since the 2019 bill-of-exchange claim. It expressly states that **the auction has already been validly held and Cuatrecasas has requested adjudication with authority to assign the remate to a third party**. It says any additional delay would infringe its own right to effective judicial protection under Article 24 of the Constitution. ## SEVENTH — MATKATOR’s conduct is said to be manifestly dilatory Cuatrecasas says MATKATOR’s procedural history demonstrates delay. It refers to multiple submissions, nullity applications, suspension requests and appeals. It argues there is a recurring pattern in which an adverse decision is followed by another appeal, incident or application advancing the same points under a different description, and says the purpose is to prevent adjudication and indefinitely delay enforcement. It notes that MATKATOR’s 27 February 2025 filing said the transformation began in 2018 and included the statement that from 7 June 2018 the works resulted in the disappearance of the original apartments and commercial premises. Cuatrecasas contrasts that with what it describes as MATKATOR not filing a criminal complaint until 2025, seven years later and when the auction was about to culminate in adjudication. It characterises the criminal complaint as having been instrumentalised as a procedural device to halt enforcement rather than as genuine prosecution of a criminal offence. ## EIGHTH — No breach of the right to effective judicial protection MATKATOR invokes Article 24 of the Constitution. Cuatrecasas says the ground is unfounded. It argues that the challenged Order was reasoned, MATKATOR has had full opportunities to make submissions and appeal, no procedural defenselessness exists, and adverse outcomes do not themselves constitute denial of effective judicial protection. Cuatrecasas says its own right to effective judicial protection is also engaged, including the right to enforcement of final judgments. It argues that unjustified delay would infringe its right to obtain satisfaction of the judicially recognised claim. # REQUEST TO THE COURT Cuatrecasas asks the Court to treat MATKATOR’s reconsideration appeal against the 19 June 2026 Order as duly opposed and to issue a decision which: 1. **Completely dismisses MATKATOR’s reconsideration appeal and confirms the 19 June 2026 Order refusing suspension of the enforcement.** 2. **Orders continuation of the enforcement proceedings without further delay, grants Cuatrecasas’s application for adjudication of the auctioned property and preserves authority to assign the remate to a third party.** San Cristóbal de La Laguna, 3 September 2026. --- # Package provenance The 3 September transfer contains three separately controlled components: - **`PD-ETJ163-LEXNET-20260903` — LexNET summary.** Verifies 3 September 2026 presentation at 14:10:19, the destination court and ETJ 163/2020, the principal document classified as an opposition filing and the registry annex. Public copies omit hashes and unnecessary personal metadata. - **`PD-ETJ163-FIL-20260903` — Principal filing.** The substantive text translated above. - **`PD-ETJ163-ANN-20260903-01` — Corporate-name-change evidence.** Registry material filed to support the proposition that the entity formerly named Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Pereira, S.L.P. is now named Cuatrecasas Legal, S.L.P. Addresses, telephone numbers, validation codes and other unnecessary details are not reproduced. # Evidential bridges confirmed by this filing — without converting them into findings of liability This filing is a **later civil primary source directly connected by its own wording to DP 748/2026**. It establishes that on 3 September 2026 Cuatrecasas: - expressly knows and identifies DP 748/2026 and its provisional dismissal; - asks the civil court not to allow that criminal proceeding to halt ETJ enforcement; - identifies a final Cambiario 1048/2019 judgment for EUR 182,517.72 principal as the title; - identifies **finca 8584** as the auctioned asset; - acknowledges the controversy concerning physical transformation into hotel rooms but argues it is not legally capable of stopping enforcement; - states MATKATOR remains the registered owner; - describes **adjudication as the immediately pending procedural act**; - confirms again that Cuatrecasas **has requested adjudication with power to assign the remate to a third party**; and - expressly asks the Court to allow the enforcement to proceed to that result without further delay. None of these matters alone proves deception, fraud, conflict, completed assignment, assignee identity or criminal responsibility. They are primary evidence of current knowledge, Cuatrecasas’s legal position and the patrimonial act whose continuation is in dispute. # Canonical interconnection `TF-CIV-001 Cambiario 1048/2019 → TF-CIV-002 ETJ 163/2020 ⇄ TF-CRI-003 DP 748/2026` The reciprocal ETJ ⇄ DP 748 link is documentary and factual, not a merger of jurisdictions. The 3 September filing is particularly important because the enforcement creditor itself introduces and characterises DP 748 inside ETJ. The wider context — Concurso 36/2012, the Cuatrecasas/Sun Park professional mandate, hotel transformation and the Matkator asset perimeter — should remain connected as evidential and analytical layers. It should not be stated, without primary evidence, that a Matkator asset legally belonged to LPB’s insolvency estate or that ETJ was procedurally “inside” the Concurso merely because the assets were physically or economically integrated into the same hotel.