Prosecutor Miguel Pallarés has not been able to explain this Tuesday, while testifying as a witness in the La Bufona case, why the property he acquired in that urbanization has 384 meters according to the Property Registry, while the Cadastre shows 546. "And what do you want me to tell you?", he replied to the lawyer of the private prosecution, when he asked him about that discrepancy of more than 160 meters.
"But what did you buy, a property of 384 meters or one of 546?", the lawyer insisted. "I bought the property that is on Chabusquillo street, perfectly fenced and closed", Pallarés replied, who assured that he "did not check" if the surface area that appeared in the purchase deeds matched the real surface area.
"I don't know what was reflected in the Cadastre, I have no idea", replied the former coordinating prosecutor in Lanzarote, who also could not specify who made that modification in the Cadastre. For years, Pallarés has been practicing outside the island and has testified by videoconference. And his interrogation has been one of the most tense of those that have taken place in the first two sessions of the trial, which will continue next week.
He "believes" that the license authorized the works, but "would have to look at it"
In addition to bringing to the table the family relationship that unites Pallarés with two people who at that time held key positions in the City Council, such as former secretary Felipe Fernández Camero and the head of the Cadastre and the Collection Office, Cristina Fernández, the private prosecution has emphasized whether or not Pallarés had a license for the works he carried out after the house was handed over to him.
According to Miguel Pallarés, he did subsequent works but requested "the appropriate license". Specifically, he has referred to the installation of a pergola and a barbecue and the paving of the floor. However, when one of the lawyers of the private prosecution expressly asked him if the license covered all the works he carried out, and which have been under demolition order from Apmun since 2013, Pallarés did not specify it. "I think so, but I would have to look at it", he replied.
Next, the lawyer reminded him that in that demolition file (which has just been confirmed by the Court, although Pallarés has stated that he will appeal), it says that the works are not covered by any license. "I remind you that you are under oath", the lawyer stated before repeating the question. "And do you have to remind me?", Miguel Pallarés replied in an annoyed tone.
He did not present the license to avoid the demolition
Afterwards, the lawyer insisted by asking Pallarés why he did not provide the license to that demolition procedure, if the works really had permits. "We have based ourselves on other legal arguments. That maybe you don't like them, but we have found them correct", he replied. Among those "arguments", he cited one: a "certification from the Cabildo" which, according to him, maintains that the works are 500 meters from the protected land. "What you don't like it? Fine. But it is one of the ones we have used", he insisted again.
In any case, he has also pointed out on several occasions that he does not know "perfectly the file" and that "right now from memory" he does not have all the data of the license he obtained. In fact, when asked by the other lawyer of the private prosecution, he also replied with "I am not aware" and "I don't remember".
Specifically, the lawyer reminded him that in the municipal file that was incorporated into this case, it states that he only requested a license to put the floor tiles, and that he even "expressly renounced" installing the pergola. "I am not aware of that, I don't remember that resignation", Pallarés replied, who nevertheless could not assure that that permit covered all the works he carried out.
The pool has no license and does not appear in the deeds
In the case of the pool, Miguel Pallarés has admitted that he did not ask for a license. "No, I don't think so", he ended up answering, after several questions about it. According to Pallarés, when the construction company handed over the house, they left the "hole" of the pool made (the promoters deny having made the pools, although several buyers have stated the same as Pallarés, that they paid for that added work before receiving the houses). Afterwards, he hired another company to finish the works. However, he neither asked for a license for that work nor did the existence of a pool appear in the purchase deeds of the house. "I don't know if that has to be reflected, I don't know", he replied in this regard.
One of the keys to the trial is to determine if the two defendants, Federico Echevarría and Antonio Carmona, owners of the promoter Brisa Inversiones, occupied rustic protection land with the construction of those houses. The land in question is the one located in the back of the houses, where the buyers then made pools, pergolas and other facilities. According to the owners, they did works on the land that was handed over to them, because it was perfectly walled, marking the limit of their property. The defendants, however, hold the owners of the houses responsible for what they did there and deny that the sale included that land.
For his part, Pallarés has insisted that he was unaware that it was protected land. "If the City Council authorizes me to put tiles, it will not be protected rustic land", he stressed in this regard, insisting that he had a license, at least, for part of the works he carried out. When the City Council granted that permit, there was already an order to stop the works in that urbanization (specifically from July 2000). "I think none of the neighbors who were buying the houses knew that it was rustic land", he assured, stating that they have all been finding out, including him, "through the press".
He has not taken action against the promoters
Regarding whether he has taken any type of action since 2002, which is when the issue had already jumped to the media and it was known that there was a sealing order, among other things, for occupying public land, Pallarés has replied that he has not. "What do you want me to do if I have not yet suffered any damage?", he asked in response, adding that he could go against the City Council or the promoters if that demolition were to be consummated. "Surely you know much more law than I do, but for the moment I don't think we can go. But surely I'm wrong", Pallarés pointed out.
Nor has he been able to specify how long the works he carried out lasted. "From 15 years ago, I can't tell you dates", he pointed out, later denying that they lasted "two or three years". In addition to the works in that kind of backyard, Pallarés has also added later that when he entered the house, the first thing he did was "expand the kitchen". In total, according to his words, the closure was about 16 square meters.
Years without paying the IBI
During his statement, Pallarés has also insisted that what he bought was a house "completely finished, with a certificate of occupancy, with electricity, water..." However, he has admitted that the neighbors spent years without paying the IBI. "There was a period, I don't remember the exact time, in which they didn't send us the receipts due to a problem in the City Council", he pointed out, stating that afterwards they charged them "what was owed", "what was not prescribed". In total, the neighbors spent about seven years without paying taxes, because the houses were not officially registered.
At this point, the lawyer of the prosecution has asked him about Cristina Fernández Fernández, who according to the lawyer represented Pallarés in the writings related to the request for the minor works license in the house, and who was also "in charge of the Cadastre and the Collection Office" of the City Council. "Is it the same Cristina Fernández?", the lawyer asked him, after asking him to identify that person.
"If the question you want to ask me is what relationship she has with me, you have asked it wrong", Pallarés replied, who after several interventions concluded with a: "If what you want to know is what family relationship she has with me, I'll tell you: she is my wife's sister". Next, the lawyer also asked him about his family relationship with the former secretary of Arrecife, Felipe Fernández Camero, who intervened in the granting of the building permits and was also charged in this case, but the judge has not admitted the question. Specifically, Camero is Pallarés' 'political uncle'.
