159 mortgaged properties
Protocol 457 identifies the mortgage dación perimeter. It must be compared with the entry made for each property.
PRESENTATION → QUALIFICATION → ENTRY → CANCELLATION → CAM→HNT → LATER RIGHTS
Requesting an entry is not the same as obtaining it: the chain must be reconstructed property by property.
The Registry can publicise and protect rights satisfying the statutory conditions, but it does not remove the need to identify the causal title, the affected properties, the charges actually cancelled and the persons whose rights would be altered.
Evidential limit. A registered entry is legally significant and may produce strong effects. It does not by itself prove that every upstream economic or procedural fact was true, nor permit cancellation of later rights without consent, sufficient title or a decision against the necessary parties.
Current documentary position
Cancellation requested
The deed requests mortgage cancellation. A May 2022 simple note reviewed by Por Derecho still displayed both mortgages, so request and outcome must not be conflated.
CAM→HNT and third parties
Later transfers, charges and possible third-party rights require individual analysis of chain, good faith, consideration, knowledge and dependency.
Property-by-property matrix
| Required field | What must be proved | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Property / CRU / reference | Unambiguous identification and match with the physical unit. | Prevents conclusions concerning one property being transferred to another. |
| Prior owner | LPB, Matkator, CAM or third party at the relevant date. | LPB’s insolvency did not automatically absorb other parties’ rights. |
| Title presented | Order, testimony, deed, demerger, sale or other instrument. | Allows the causal dependency of the entry to be tested. |
| Presentation and qualification | Date, presentation entry, defect, cure and Registry decision. | Separates request, suspension, refusal and registration. |
| Charges | Mortgages, attachments, statutory charges and cancellations actually made. | Any “free of charges” representation must match the actual history. |
| CAM→HNT | Corporate operation, included asset, date and entry. | Determines whether HNT universally succeeds, acquires separately or depends on another bridge. |
| Later rights | Lender, beneficiary, purchaser for value, knowledge and good faith. | Defines what may survive even if an earlier title is challenged. |
Finite questions for the Registry and title-holders
- Which exact title was presented for each property?
- Which presentation entry, qualification and cure exist?
- Which mortgages were cancelled, when and under which title?
- Which premises or unencumbered properties followed a separate chain?
- Which Matkator or third-party properties now appear within the HNT perimeter and under what title?
- Which later rights invoke independent protection and which remain legally or economically dependent on the earlier entry?
- Which parties must be joined to any rectification claim?
Strongest Registry defence
The Registry may maintain that it qualified formally sufficient judicial, notarial and corporate documents within its competence; that it could not reopen the merits determined by the Court; and that substantive rectification requires title-holder consent or a final judgment made with all affected parties participating.
What this page does not establish
It does not establish unlawful Registry qualification, knowledge of falsehood, automatic loss of HNT or third-party rights, or that upstream invalidity automatically cancels every later entry.
Priority evidence
- Historic and current certificates for every relevant property.
- Presentation entries, qualification notes and cures.
- Complete adjudication, cancellation and CAM-to-HNT instruments.
- Map of charges, lenders and later title-holders.
- Reconciliation with the 262-property map and deed schedules.
Correction and right of response
The Registry, title-holders, lenders or any affected person may provide certificates and instruments completing or correcting this reconstruction. Each property should change status when its primary source requires it.
Status: open Registry reconstruction · no judicial finding.
NAMED-PERSON CONTROL · LAND REGISTRY
No Registry individual is named in the reviewed source.
The controlled corpus identifies the Tías Land Registry, entries and acts by function, but does not provide the exact name of a registrar or staff member. No personal caret is therefore published, and a generic office is not converted into a person.