El Dorado Condominium lawsuit won by condominium owners after 7 years - pt1

This is a report of the final result of the lawsuits against the illegal assemblies of the Compound Condominium that was held in March, 2011

I.- What is the motive of the claims against the illegal assemblies of 2011 of the Compound Condominium?
Multiple Condominium Owners of Condominium Unit 1, from El Dorado Condominium, demanded the absolute nullity of the following assemblies: 1. Ordinary Assembly of the El Dorado Compound Condominium, of March 2, 2011, which is in public deed number 459, of Mr. Jorge Luis Ramos Uriarte. 2. Extraordinary Assembly of the El Dorado Compound Condominium, of March 9, 2011, which is in public deed number 469, of Mr. Jorge Luis Ramos Uriarte.
The reasons that led the condominium owners to claim their nullity, was that the developer called himself the first administrator of the Condominial Unit 1 — without previously consulting the owners of private units of this — in the assemblies of reference he made decisions that benefit him, and negatively affect the rights of the condominium owners:
A.- Designates as administrator of the common areas (Compound Condominium) a company (suspected to be actually controlled by the developer) called SICOM BLUE S.C., and illegally pretended to modified statutes raising the quorum for removal for this administrator, pretending it would be in practice extremely difficult or impossible to remove, which would give the developer absolute control over the common areas in detriment to the condominium owners of Unit 1 as well as Unit 2.
B.- Establishes charges on the condominium units, giving right to the administrator of the compound condominium imposed by the developer (SICOM BLUE), to have access to the units without the permission of their owners.
C.- Modifies the use of the condominium in general, including Unit 1, and the common areas from housing to tourism.
D. - Without rendering accounts, unilaterally, imposes a debt greater than 19 million pesos, in its favor and against all condominium owners (in Condominium Unit 1 and 2), supposedly spent by the developer, without showing proof of any of the alleged expenses.
E.- Imposes condominium fees, without explaining their need and / or destination.
F.- Imposes the obligation to connect to SIMAPA services, when initially a development with a sewage treatment plant was offered.