Credit · Article 1535 · PP 1041/2017
Object: the PH122→CAM assignment of mortgage credit. LPB sought the deed, price, payment and costs to assess possible Article 1535 relief. This track did not concern sales of individual apartments or locals.
DO NOT CONFUSE · CREDIT ≠ UNITS ≠ CO-OWNERS ≠ EXPLOITATION
There is no single “retracto” at Sun Park.
The proper analysis separates four legal tracks. One is documented as judicial proceedings concerning the PH122→CAM credit assignment. A second is documented as a 2018 legal workstream concerning unit transfers. The other two require transaction-specific proof of genuine pro-indiviso ownership or an independent contractual, tourism, exploitation or insolvency-estate right.
Control rule: no right is presumed merely because a unit later entered the CAM perimeter. Identify the finca, seller, buyer, ownership structure, deed, registration/knowledge, potential right-holder, deadline and action taken.
Day Zero Before Day Nine
A demand does not by itself convert an undetermined controversy into a won forfeiture defence. On the Article 1535 track, Por Derecho requires identification and proof of the credit, transfer, assignee, debtor and the precise demand for payment relied upon as the trigger. LO 1/2025 Article 7 now adds a potential caducity-suspension mechanism through a qualifying MASC where the right remains alive; its specific application to the nine-day period is marked COUNSEL VALIDATION REQUIRED. Criminal overlap is analysed under Article 40 LEC, not as an automatic freeze.
The four tracks
Unit-rights legal workstream · May–June 2018
It is documented that counsel analysed a possible “tanteo/retracto legal de LUCHY” concerning units acquired from minority owners by a third party, contemporaneously written as “CAM?”. The workstream is direct evidence; a valid right is not presumed.
Co-owner retracto · Civil Code Articles 1522–1524
Potentially relevant where an outsider purchases an undivided share in the same common property. Article 1524 provides a nine-day period from Registry registration or, failing that, actual knowledge of the sale.
Contract · tourism · single-operation · insolvency
The registered statutes, horizontal title, 2008 arrangements, CEXP, single-operation rules and insolvency instruments may create rights or obligations independent of statutory retracto.
Legal correction concerning Canary Law 5/1999
Counsel investigated, among other possible bases, paragraph 4 of the sole transitional provision of Canary Law 5/1999, which had created a preferential-acquisition mechanism linked to the single-operation principle.
However, Law 2/2000 altered that regime, and Constitutional Court judgment 28/2012 records that the paragraph had been repealed and declared it unconstitutional and void. It therefore cannot be published as an operative statutory basis in 2018.
The correct question is whether each transaction engaged another valid basis: Articles 1522–1524, contract, CEXP/single-operation obligations or a right belonging to LPB/the insolvency estate.
Horizontal-property boundary
Civil Code Article 396 is a critical control: sale of an independent flat or local does not give owners of the other flats/locals a statutory tanteo or retracto merely by virtue of that horizontal-property ownership. Owning different Sun Park apartments is therefore not enough for Article 1522.
The decisive question: was an independent private unit sold, or was an undivided share of the same common property sold? Only the latter structure opens the co-owner-retracto analysis.
Priority fincas
| Finca | Controlled node | Legal question | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8,499 local 3 | The 2016 Monte Lanza liquidation/adjudication chain must be reconciled with the later CAM title chain. | Who had authority to sell, under what title, and how much of the older Monte Lanza allegation survives the reconstructed chain? | Title/authority P0 |
| 8,500 local 4 | 2016 material records pro indiviso ownership: Yaiza 57.78%; José Luis Molina Marrero 25.28%; José Miguel Molina Petit 16.94%. | Was a share sold to an outsider? Who remained a co-owner then? When was it registered/known? Any waiver or consent? | Article 1522 priority |
| 8,706 apartment 168 | CAM acquisition of 100% by deed dated 27 Dec 2017, protocol 2,715. Seller identity still needs operative-deed closure. | Was this among the transactions being considered in the 2018 unit-rights workstream? Which right-holder and legal basis could have existed? | Buyer verified; seller P0 |
| 8,718 apartment 180 | Pre-CAM: Tengolf 5/15 and Amenemhat 10/15. CAM acquired 5/15 on 23 May 2018 (prot. 1,083) and 10/15 on 31 May 2018 (prot. 1,127). | At the first sale, was CAM an outsider and did the other co-owner have a potential Article 1522 right? At the second, was CAM already a co-owner? Analyse each date separately. | Sequence verified; right open |
| 8,501 | Separate retroventa / Inversiones Salinetas / later CAM title lane appears in the evidence set. | Reconstruct deed, price, holder, presentation date and any affected right. | P0 |
These rows are an investigative map. They do not mean every finca was legally retractable.
Aweswell / LPB / Matkator / CEXP: keep standing separate
Economic harm can be analysed at platform level, but legal standing cannot. Each transfer must identify the actual right-holder: LPB, Matkator, Aweswell, CEXP or another person. Matkator does not acquire a retracto over every Sun Park sale merely because it owns other units; Aweswell does not automatically inherit LPB's rights merely as shareholder.
The registered statutes do reinforce a separate proposition: Sun Park was configured for tourist exploitation as a single unit, with continuity into successive titles and a distinct exploitation-community structure. That architecture must be analysed separately as a potential source of exploitation obligations or rights.
Insolvency administrator: causation must be proved afresh
For PP 1041, C5 documentary evidence establishes that the insolvency administration caused the end of Cristo's specific formal LPB mandate. That does not prove the administrator cancelled possible unit-level rights.
For each finca reconstruct the right-holder, administrator knowledge, control of the right, legal advice received, deadline, decision/omission, estate benefit, loss and beneficiary.
Loyalty test: if a valid right existed and was within administrator control, what did the administrator do to preserve it—or what contemporaneous estate-interest analysis explains why it was not worth preserving?
PP 1041 procedural correction
The 15 February 2018 Commercial Court order provided a 20-day appeal under Article 97 bis.2 of the then-applicable Insolvency Law. Any prior repository wording describing that order as carrying a five-day reposición is superseded.
Keep separate: the 5 Mar 2018 PP1041 Decree carried a five-day review remedy; the 13 May 2024 ordering act carried a five-day reposición.
Unitary question
Between late 2017 and mid-2018, while individual Sun Park property interests were moving toward CAM, what valid protective, acquisition, co-owner, exploitation or estate rights actually existed for each transaction; who held them, who controlled them, when did the deadline run, and what happened to each right?
That question may confirm a legitimate sequence of independent transactions, or reveal a repeated direction of lost optionality and convergent benefit. The conclusion must emerge from the title-and-rights chain, not replace it.