1 · Transaction
What exact credit was sold, by whom, to whom, when and through what structure? Was it litigious in the legal sense? Does Article 1536 exclude the transaction?
ARTICLE 1535 · PRESERVATION · MULTITRACK CONTROL
Day Zero Before Day Nine.
Por Derecho's position is that no party obtains an irreversible nine-day forfeiture merely by declaring that the clock has started. The juridical event said to constitute Day Zero must first be established.
Control rule: make it impossible for the other side to win on “Day Nine” without first proving “Day Zero”: a qualifying litigious credit, an Article 1535 transfer, the assignee, the debtor, the legally relevant demand for payment, receipt, and an effective basis for identifying the economic exercise of the right.
What Article 1535 actually says
Civil Code Article 1535 allows the debtor to extinguish a sold litigious credit by reimbursing the assignee the price paid, costs and interest; the right may be exercised within nine days from the assignee's demand for payment. Article 1536 contains exceptions.
Strict caducity requires strict proof of the trigger. A narrative about who “was” the creditor does not replace proof of the credit, transfer, assignee and the specific demand relied upon as the dies a quo.
Proving Day Zero
2 · Economics
What price was actually paid, when, what recoverable costs are asserted and what interest forms part of the statutory reimbursement?
3 · Demand
Which precise communication is said to constitute the assignee's demand for payment? Who received it, when and in what capacity?
4 · Effective exercise
Did the debtor possess the legal and economic information needed to understand and exercise the right? This does not rewrite Article 1535, but it is central when forfeiture is asserted on facts that themselves remain unproved.
LO 1/2025: a new preservation layer
Article 7 of Organic Law 1/2025 provides that a properly framed request to start a recognised negotiation process may interrupt prescription or suspend caducity, subject to the statute's documentary and timing conditions.
COUNSEL VALIDATION REQUIRED. The statutory text creates a serious basis for arguing that a still-live civil Article 1535 caducity period can be suspended through a qualifying MASC. This page does not present that specific Article 1535 application as settled Supreme Court doctrine. Counsel must validate the nine-day application, transitional law and exact procedural posture. LO 1/2025 should not be represented as reviving a right a court determines had already expired.
Criminal overlap does not automatically “freeze everything”
The public position is narrower. Article 40 LEC requires proof of a criminal cause investigating facts underlying the civil claims and that the criminal determination may decisively influence the civil outcome. Criminal overlap therefore has to be mapped fact by fact.
If identity, authority, documentation, price, representation or validity of acts underpinning the alleged Day Zero are themselves under a judicially relevant criminal investigation, those facts should not simply be assumed for the benefit of the party asserting forfeiture. That is a procedural argument for the competent court, not a claim of automatic suspension.
Multitrack determination
Article 1535 / PP 1041
PH122→CAM credit, litigiosity, price, litigation and demand for payment.
Insolvency 36/2012
Powers, decisions, effects and procedural chain must be reconstructed without confusing them with the assignment itself.
Insolvency Administrator
Any liability theory requires individualised causation: control, knowledge, act/omission, damage, knowledge date, cessation and interruptive acts.
Criminal / title / later acts
Each investigation, transfer and later act retains its own object, date and legal effect. They do not automatically become one offence or one clock.
The judge: institutional control, not automatic personal allegation
Judicial acts in Insolvency 36/2012 are an essential part of the causal record: what each order decided, on what evidence, what became final and what was never decided. This page does not allege personal unlawful conduct by the judge or a relationship with Acosta Matos. Any personal responsibility would require independent evidence and the legally competent route.
Anti-trigger protocol
- Preserve any demand from CAM/Acosta Matos/HNT or another actor connected to the credit in full: sender, capacity, date/time, text and attachments.
- Classify immediately: Article 1535 trigger? yes / no / uncertain.
- Avoid inadvertently acknowledging the assignment, assignee, amount, title, sufficiency of the communication or expiry.
- Calculate the shortest conservative deadline while the true Day Zero is disputed.
- Consider urgent interim measures before negotiation where appropriate.
- Consider a qualifying MASC under LO 1/2025 Article 7 and document communication precisely.
- Map any judicially relevant criminal nexus under Article 40 LEC.
This is a preservation and documentary-control protocol. It is not a substitute for legal advice on a specific communication.
Questions not published as settled
COUNSEL VALIDATION REQUIRED:
- specific application of LO 1/2025 Article 7 to a live nine-day Article 1535 caducity period;
- whether any historic or future communication constitutes the statutory demand for payment;
- whether the credit was litigious at the legally relevant date and whether Articles 1535–1536 cover the transaction structure;
- transitional application of LO 1/2025;
- whether an actual criminal cause satisfies Article 40 LEC and at what stage;
- the exact present prescription/caducity position of any action against the Insolvency Administrator;
- any claim-specific “latest safe date”.
The question for anyone asserting expiry
Show Day Zero. Identify the transfer, credit, price, assignee, debtor, demand for payment, receipt and legal basis for saying that this communication — rather than another event — activated Article 1535. Only then can Day Nine responsibly be determined.