NON-NEGOTIABLE GOVERNANCE · AUTHORITY / CAPACITY / STANDING / PERSONACIÓN
Authority before arithmetic
A figure, fee, quota, debt or expense cannot answer the threshold question: who was legally acting, for what exact body, under what authority, and with what procedural or patrimonial effect?
An unchanged amount does not establish lawful authority. Change of creditor ≠ change of credit; and neither proposition proves who could act as the “Comunidad”, whether the obligation was valid, whether the actor had standing, or whether a representation was lawfully introduced and given effect.
THIS IS NOT AN ARITHMETIC QUESTION.
Automatic audit trigger
Every appearance of Comunidad, Comunidad de Propietarios, community, comunidad de bienes, cuotas, derramas, fees, honorarios, gastos or deuda comunitaria triggers this audit before amount:
^ INCIDENT^ ALL PARTIES^ EXACT ACTOR / NATURAL PERSON^ EXACT ENTITY / LEGAL FORM^ CLAIMED CAPACITY^ SOURCE OF AUTHORITY^ FORMAL PERSONACIÓN IN CONCURSO 36/2012^ STANDING / CAPACITY / REPRESENTATION^ ACT PERFORMED^ DOCUMENT / DATE / SOURCE^ RECIPIENT — JUDGE / LAJ / AC / PARTY / THIRD PARTY^ PROCEDURAL EFFECT^ PATRIMONIAL EFFECT^ CRIMINAL / PROSECUTORIAL RELEVANCE^ CONTRARY OR INNOCENT EXPLANATION^ EVIDENCE GAP^ RELATED INCIDENTS^ ALL RELATED ACTORSControl boundary: “NOT LOCATED IN THE PRESENT CONTROLLED CORPUS” is not “did not exist / did not occur.” A certified complete docket is still required before a negative proposition is treated as conclusive.
Canonical Comunidad authority matrix
This matrix deliberately separates the Community, private legal persons, natural persons, creditor/title capacities and alleged de facto-control roles. Association, ownership, creditor status or corporate office does not automatically create Community authority.
| Actor/entity | Natural persons | Claimed role | Legal form | Authority relied upon | Formally personated in 36/2012? | Standing document | Acts attributed | Court/AC treatment | Procedural effect | Patrimonial effect | Evidence status | Criminal/legal issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park / generic “Comunidad” | Must be resolved incident-by-incident | Owners’ community; fee/quota, voting, security, access and common-area acts are attributed in different records | Community of owners; composition/date must be proved | ACTAs, resolutions, office, powers or asserted owner-community authority depending on incident | NOT LOCATED as a complete certified date-resolved personación record | No single canonical poder/personación yet located for every material intervention | Fees/debt, decisions, security/access, representations affecting LPB | Judicial/AC “Comunidad” references exist and require identity/authority/reliance audit | Incident-specific | Potential estate/hotel/property effects; source-specific | Partly documented; authority chain incomplete | Working allegation of possible unauthorized/misleading Community identity use; offence elements not established by label |
| Acosta Matos / CAM perimeter | JDAM, LPAM, FMMM and others only where source identifies them | Creditor/owner/private-actor perimeter; not the same legal identity as the Community | Exact legal person must be resolved document-by-document | Credit/title/ownership and sometimes asserted Community-derived positions must remain separate | No single certified denominator located for every capacity | Credit/title record is not itself a Community mandate | Creditor/title acts; alleged access/control; AC/court communications | Disaggregate by exact capacity | Documented in some creditor/title lanes; Community lane separately auditable | Central alleged estate/control effects, still incident-specific | Multiple capacities documented; Community authority not established by capacity alone | Fraude procesal/concursal and de facto-control allegations require statutory proof; no finding of guilt |
| Francisco Mario Matos Matas | Francisco Mario Matos Matas | Alleged Community-facing/de facto-control actor | Natural person | Any office, mandate, ownership or corporate authority must be proved per incident | NOT LOCATED in personal capacity for the reviewed Community acts | General Community mandate not located | Alleged material/control conduct where sources identify him | No generalized judicial authority inferred | Unresolved / incident-specific | Requires attribution/accounting | Allegation with documentary leads; authority incomplete | Test alleged de facto administration/false-authority/participation actor-by-actor |
| Antonio Cogolludo Rojas | Antonio Cogolludo Rojas | Private/corporate actor in security/operations/Community perimeter | Natural person | Corporate powers and any Community mandate must be separated | NOT LOCATED in personal capacity for reviewed Community acts | General Community mandate not located | Security/operations/corporate and alleged de facto-control conduct where sourced | No standing inferred from company office | Unresolved / incident-specific | Potential access/security effects require proof | Corporate links documented; Community authority unresolved | Association is insufficient; participation requires conduct/knowledge evidence |
| Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos | Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos | Private/corporate perimeter actor | Natural person | Later powers cannot be back-projected into 2018 Community authority | NOT LOCATED for reviewed 2018 Community acts | Contemporaneous 2018 Community mandate not located | Only acts contemporaneously sourced to her | No retrospective authority inference | Unresolved | Unresolved | Later corporate power documented; 2018 Community authority not established | No participation/intent inference from later authority |
| José Daniel Acosta Matos | José Daniel Acosta Matos | Natural person in creditor/owner/business perimeter | Natural person | Specific credit/title/corporate/Community instrument required | NOT LOCATED for a general Community mandate | Separate capacity evidence does not answer Community standing | Only source-attributed perimeter acts | Exact actor/capacity required | Unresolved as Community representative | Unresolved as Community representative | Perimeter relationship; Community capacity unresolved | No criminal inference from relationship alone |
| Laura Patricia Acosta Matos | Laura Patricia Acosta Matos | Natural person in business perimeter | Natural person | Specific corporate/title/Community instrument required | NOT LOCATED for a general Community mandate | General Community authority not located | Only source-attributed acts | Exact actor/capacity required | Unresolved as Community representative | Unresolved as Community representative | Perimeter relationship; Community capacity unresolved | No criminal inference from relationship alone |
| Pamanil, S.L.; Pamalexsha Servicios Integrales, S.L.; Explotaciones Noalpa, S.L. | Date-specific corporate officers/powers must govern | Corporate vehicles in the wider perimeter; not treated as “Comunidad” merely by association | Sociedades Limitadas | Corporate authority only unless separate Community mandate is produced | NOT LOCATED as Community representatives in the present controlled corpus | Community standing documents not located | Corporate/perimeter acts only where sourced | No Community standing inferred from corporate existence/office | Unresolved | Unresolved / incident-specific | Corporate records partly documented; Community authority unresolved | Any alleged instrumental use requires transactions/instructions/conduct/knowledge proof |
Formal-Concurso audit
For each actor/entity the controlling questions are whether it filed a poder, identified procurador/counsel, obtained party/creditor/interested-party recognition, appeared in an incidente concursal, received traslado, filed claims, obtained orders, asserted fees/quotas/debt, exercised rights over LPB or the masa activa, or obtained recognition from the AC, judge or LAJ. Where the presently controlled corpus does not answer a question, the status remains an evidence gap.
Every judicial reference to the “Comunidad” is therefore an evidentiary event: identify what entity the judge meant, who acted, the authority source, formal status, AC verification, LPB challenge, judicial resolution, reliance and resulting procedural/patrimonial consequence.
Separate 2014 authority-verification event
3205/2014^ has a contemporaneous complaint and summons concerning a distinct Arrecife access/key incident. It remains contextual only and is not part of Insolvency 36/2012.
| Source-reported role | Identity treatment | Authority / personation | Merits and outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community president / complainant | Contextual candidate Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez · PD-SP-P-0004; primary source form not silently merged | Exact Community, date-effective appointment, mandate, work order, access authority, funding and personation remain open | The complaint records an allegation and the summons a scheduled hearing. Corroboration, hearing occurrence, decision, appeal and finality remain open. No Concurso relationship is inferred. |
| Community administrator / affected party | Contextual candidate Francisco Mario Matos Matas · PD-SP-P-0009; shortened primary source form remains controlled |