Title regime · operating structure
All 262 hotel fincas sit automatically inside one CP; CP then grants the hotel exploitation.
262 hotel fincas / units→E001 · CP Sun Park
H76013184
automatic by title→CP grants/entrusts hotel exploitation to the explotadora/operator→integrated hotel operation + income + hotel/common costs
Structural lock. The denominator is 262 fincas—not a claim of 262 distinct owners. All 262 fincas are automatically within CP by reason of title. Registered ownership can be split among LPB, CAM, Matkator or other owners without creating any finca category outside CP. Fragmented title is not fragmented CP membership.
CP is automatic with title for every finca
Every one of the 262 hotel fincas sits within the Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park perimeter automatically by reason of title. CP is the horizontal-property community; it is not CEXP and it is not erased by a change of owner or operator.
The horizontal-property statutes treat each finca as separate title while common elements are inseparable from the private finca and governed collectively. Project Sun Rock relies on the title/statutory/tourism package to test any assertion that an accommodation unit could become an operationally independent mini-hotel.
CEXP is separate; LPB is not to be labelled the explotadora
E002 · Comunidad de Explotación Sun Park (H35997568) is a separate unincorporated exploitation arrangement. It does not create CP membership and is not a necessary constitutive bridge from finca title to CP or from CP to the explotadora. Any period-specific CEXP role must be established from the operative instruments.
The recovered CEXP statutes contain annual-renewal/desvinculación language. Gil Marer considers those “free exit” provisions legally problematic when tested against the title, hotel unity and tourism regime. Correction lock: do not describe LPB as the hotel’s explotadora. The actual explotadora/operator must be identified period by period from the operative contracts/licences.
Adverse/ambiguous source preserved. A one-page document headed “BAJA LUCHY DE CEXP”, dated 1 February 2011 and bearing a CEXP receipt stamp, purports to notify rescission of LPB’s participation and a future operating change. It is evidence that such a notice existed and was received. It is not being treated as proof that a legally effective withdrawal occurred, and it cannot alter the automatic CP membership of the fincas by title. Gil disputes the claimed CEXP effect. The clause validity, authority, timing, internal inconsistency and later conduct remain evidence questions.
Why “do their own thing” is an evidentiary/legal question, not a slogan. Reception, common circulation, pools/solaria, utilities, staff, maintenance, guest access, licensing/classification and the marketed tourist product are integrated. Separate title therefore does not itself prove a right to establish a competing autonomous tourist operation inside the same hotel. The controlling answer must be tested against the horizontal-property deed/statutes, LPH, the tourism licence/classification, Ley 7/1995, the regulations in force for each period, CEXP instruments and the actual operator contracts.