TSJ Canarias · Government Secretariat
J00023418
REGAGE26e00073341191
First territorial supervisory recipient.
PUBLIC MESSAGE · LAJ / COURT OFFICE · TESTIMONY → FINALITY → SERVICE → DELIVERY → EXTERNAL USE → CURRENT EFFECT
Three competent levels now hold the same file. Who will take responsibility for reconstructing the official documentary chain?
We do not ask the recipients to accept our interpretation or to revisit the merits of judicial decisions. We ask the Justice Administration to produce its own records, identify who performed each material court-office act and establish what testimony, certification, DIOR or expression of finality was issued, served, delivered and later used.
15 AUG 2026 · THREE-LEVEL LAJ SUPERVISORY CHAIN FORMALLY ACTIVATED
The same evidence-controlled PDF was separately registered with the TSJ Canarias Government Secretariat, the Las Palmas Provincial Coordination Secretariat and the national Secretariat-General responsible for LAJ coordination. Each later filing identified the previous recipient(s). Registration proves notice, not that an inquiry has already been opened.
Las Palmas · Provincial Coordination Secretariat
J00022837
REGAGE26e00073341382
Second filing, expressly linked to the first.
National Secretariat-General
E05077001
REGAGE26e00073341477
Third filing, expressly identifying both earlier registrations and requesting coordinated handling.
The document-answerable question
For every material testimony, DIOR or certification in Insolvency 36/2012, can the Justice Administration produce the complete chain: request → decision → certified content → expression of finality → service → delivery → external use → current effect?
If the chain is fully regular, certified production can close the issue. If there is a material divergence, it can be isolated by document, date, person and effect. What should not remain is a space in which no institution assumes responsibility for checking the official record.
2018: a concrete worked example
- The 26 June 2018 order suspended realisation of the mortgaged properties in the terms stated by that order while an issue was pending before the Provincial Court. This page does not say that the entire liquidation phase was literally suspended.
- On 17 October 2018 the Insolvency Administrator requested testimony of the orders of 16 April and 26 June 2018. The located request does not state a specific external purpose.
- On 22 October 2018 a court-office act signed by LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida ordered, among other matters, delivery to the Administrator of the requested testimonies.
- On 28 November 2018 the Administrator and CAM formalised the €400,000 branch of the transaction before a notary.
- The available record attributes to the 24 October 2019 order a refusal to validate that separate sale after the fact. The exact wording and consequences must be controlled by the complete primary order.
No allegation is made that the LAJ necessarily knew the later notarial use or that issuing a testimony was unlawful. The supervisory question is precisely what was issued, what it contained, what purpose was recorded, who received it, how it was used and what—if anything—the court office did after later developments.
2021–2022: the documentary bridge to the deed
The current record identifies a second finite chain requiring reconstruction: 12/18 May 2021; decisions of 15 October; the distinct DIOR references of 25 and 27 October; challenges and finality; January 2022 implementation acts; the 14 February 2022 order for testimony of the 18 May 2021, 15 October 2021 and 26 January 2022 orders with expression of finality; and the deed of 21 February 2022.
The central question is not rhetorical: which exact judicial-office instrument or combination of instruments was actually relied upon to formalise the deed and subsequent Registry/corporate consequences?
Identified LAJs — attribution by primary act only
Eduardo José Rebollo Sanz
Appears as LAJ in the authentic copy associated with the 26 June 2018 order. Further attribution requires primary support.
Águeda Reyes Almeida
Signs material court-office acts in 2018, 2021 and 2022, including testimony handling and the 14 February 2022 act.
María Teresa Oliver Guerra
Appears as LAJ in the 11 March 2019 order. Further attribution requires a primary copy or certified index.
Not just insolvency harm: three simultaneous planes
Insolvency plane · LPB
Estate value, income, realisation, restructuring/refinancing alternatives, payments, causes of action and current routes to restoration or conclusion.
Extra-insolvency plane · Matkator / third parties
Property, title, possession, access, works, exploitation, income, community burdens and rights that were not automatically part of LPB's estate.
Cross-border plane · Aweswell / foreign capital
Foreign shareholder/investor value, capital, financing, recovery, professional costs and remedies crossing Spain's border.
The originating events may be historic while alleged effects on title, possession, hotel exploitation, income, financing, public incentives or restrictions remain current. Causation and quantum must be proved asset-by-asset and right-by-right.
External life of judicial-office instruments
The investigative hypothesis is limited: instruments generated inside Insolvency 36/2012 may have acquired documentary portability outside it—at notary, Registry, corporate, investor, financing, administrative or public-incentive level. This does not establish that any LAJ knew, intended or caused every downstream use.
The audit should therefore follow: originating decision → request → office instrument → service/delivery → external use → later transaction/representation → current legal/economic position.
Where a documented bridge exists, compare the judicial title/availability position with the material held by Intervención General, SNCA / EU-funds authorities, CNMV/RICPE and other relevant public bodies. Public financing or incentives do not prove irregularity; the question is whether asset, title and availability representations matched the rights actually available.
What DP 1901/2026 can verify — and why the routes remain separate
DP 1901/2026 remains a public criminal-verification node →
The criminal route and the LAJ supervisory route do not replace one another. A criminal investigation may assess criminal relevance within its remit; the LAJ hierarchy can obtain, preserve and certify Justice Administration records within its own functions. A certified LAJ result may confirm, reject or qualify factual premises relevant elsewhere.
The strongest institutional defence should be tested, not suppressed
It may be that every testimony was correctly issued, every relevant party properly served, every expression of finality legally justified, external use was solely the responsibility of the recipient, no LAJ knew of any improper use, and no court-office instrument exceeded the judicial decision it certified. That explanation should not be rejected in advance. It should be demonstrable from the official record.
What this page does not establish
It does not establish prevarication, forgery, cooperation, collusion, favouritism, criminal liability or extra-procedural knowledge by any LAJ. It does not establish that all current hotel value, financing or public support is damage to LPB, Matkator, Aweswell or third parties. Registration of the three supervisory filings does not itself prove that a preliminary or disciplinary inquiry has been opened.
Public message to the three LAJ supervisory levels
To the TSJ Canarias Government Secretariat, the Las Palmas Provincial Coordination Secretariat and the national Secretariat-General:
The three institutions now have formal notice of the same evidential corpus and the same finite documentary questions.
We do not ask you to share our conclusions. We ask you to produce the official record capable of confirming, correcting or rejecting them.
What testimonies were actually issued? What did they contain? To whom were they delivered? What finality was certified? Who was served? How were the instruments later used? What effects did they produce inside and outside the insolvency proceeding? What happened when those effects or uses later became known?
If everything was regular, a certified reconstruction can demonstrate it. If it was not, the divergence can be identified and the competent response determined.
The request is more basic than accepting our interpretation: an identifiable authority should assume responsibility for finding out what happened in its own records.
Correction and right of reply
If any LAJ, supervisory office, court, institution or affected person identifies a primary document that corrects, completes or contradicts this reconstruction, Project Sun Rock invites its production. The page and evidential classification should change when the evidence requires it.
Who should answer what → · CGPJ → · Ministerio Fiscal → · DP 1901/2026 →