21 February 2022
The deed formalises a dación concerning 159 listed mortgaged properties.
JUDICIAL TITLE → APPEARERS → CALCULATION → DEED → CANCELLATION REQUEST → NOTIFICATION
Protocol 457 formalised a transaction; it does not by itself answer whether every component was legally payable.
The notarial audit must separate documentary authentication and formalisation from matters reserved to the Court, the parties, the Insolvency Administration and the Land Registry.
Evidential limit. The deed proves what the appearers declared and formalised and which documents were invoked. It does not by itself prove that every debt component was payable in insolvency, that every property was correctly included or that the requested cancellation was actually registered.
What is currently documented
EUR 13,065,186.68 → EUR 13,168,082.02
The six printed components total EUR 13,065,186.68, not EUR 13,168,082.02. The EUR 102,895.34 difference exactly matches the step from EUR 3,079,104.66 first-rank default interest to the EUR 3,182,000 mortgage cap. That identity explains the arithmetic; the legal basis, source calculation and threshold-to-extinguished-debt bridge remain open.
Requested effects
It declares the debt extinguished, requests mortgage cancellation and contemplates notification to the Court within five days.
The notarial chain that should be producible
1 · Title
Orders, testimonies, finality and powers presented.
2 · Capacity
Who appeared and under what authority.
3 · Calculation
Who supplied each component and what support accompanied it.
4 · Warnings
Reservations, discrepancies, charges, properties and stated limits.
5 · Notification
Court communication, Registry presentation and evidence of receipt.
Finite questions
- Which authentic copies, testimonies and statements of finality were produced?
- Which source document justified the six printed components totalling EUR 13,065,186.68, the EUR 102,895.34 cap step and the stated EUR 13,168,082.02?
- Does the deed reproduce the judicial authorisation literally or add a further economic characterisation?
- What title and charge verification was carried out for the 159 properties?
- What reservations were recorded concerning Matkator, third parties or unencumbered assets?
- Which cancellations were requested and what evidence shows that they were later made?
- When, how and with which schedules was the deed notified to the Court?
- What effect, if any, did the deed have in Arrecife Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012?
Strongest notarial defence
The notary may maintain that the deed relied on facially valid testimonies and decisions, that the appearers declared the debt and transaction, that insolvency payability was for the Court and parties, and that qualification and entry were for the Land Registry.
What this page does not establish
It does not establish that the notary invented the figure, knew of any falsehood, joined any coordination, knowingly exceeded the notarial role or incurred civil, disciplinary or criminal liability. For a private actor, CP 392 incorporates only CP 390.1.1º–3º: a materially false party recital faithfully reproduced in the deed does not by itself satisfy CP 392. CP 393 additionally requires an already-false document and then, knowing its falsity, presentation in court or, for other use, a purpose to harm. Each hypothesis requires the complete protocol, incorporated documents, communications and applicable law.
Priority evidence
- Complete certified copy of the protocol and schedules.
- Judicial documents produced and their issuance chain.
- Debt liquidation or certificate delivered to the notary.
- Indexes, communication and receipt of the court notification.
- Registry presentation, qualification and resulting entries.
Open adjudication reconstruction → · Registry implementation → · Corrections →
Correction and right of response
The notary, appearers, Registry or any affected person may provide the primary source that completes or corrects this reconstruction. The page should change when the evidence requires it.
Status: open documentary investigation · no judicial finding.
Insolvency 36/2012 and Arrecife EH90: distinct instruments
Protocol 457 implements the 159-property insolvency dación. It is not, by itself, a certified liquidation, satisfaction, termination or cancellation of Arrecife Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012. The located enforcement claim concerns the second facility and claims EUR 857,373.81 plus EUR 257,000 provisional; the complete file, allocations, payments, termination decisions and cancellation entries remain outstanding.
Separate EUR 400,000 branch. The transaction concerning 29 premises and 2 pools/solarium—31 properties—belongs to a documentary branch distinct from the 159-property dación. It must not be automatically folded into, added to or allocated against the Protocol 457 consideration.
This separation does not establish double recovery, NPL fraud or falsity. The strongest lawful explanation is that each instrument served a distinct function, date, balance and procedural perimeter and that the complete record reconciles them. Gil Marer and Aweswell's contrary allegation requires document-, balance-, use-, disposition-, benefit- and harm-specific proof for each actor.
Open ALG-NPL-019 and the CaixaBank reconciliation → · Liability chain →
CAEPR IDENTITY · PROTOCOL 457
José del Cerro Peñalver^
The Protocol 457 source identifies the authorising notary. The caret confirms identity only: it does not prove knowledge of an inaccuracy, adoption of a party position, liability, or the instrument’s legal correctness.
The other notaries named in the corpus and the three verifications still pending appear in the complete professional census →