Part I

Part II

November 3, 2000

Punta Banda: A Mexican land scandal.

Part III - Secretary of Agrarian Reform dismisses rumors and provides assurances.

By Patrick Osio, Jr.

Carlos Teran del Rio relates in court documents on file with the federal court in Tijuana, that soon after signing the second of the two contracts with the Ejido Coronel Esteban Cantu in 1987, rumors that several individuals had filed court action claiming ownership of the lands subject of the two contracts, came to his knowledge.

According to Teran, his company, Grupo Koster, had taken possession of the second parcel of land, 128.5 acres, at Punta Banda, and processing of permit applications underway, along with financial commitments for the numerous activities. So on hearing the rumors he sought and obtained a personal meeting with Victor Manuel Barcelo Rodriguez, Undersecretary of Organization and Development of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.

Teran relates that Mr. Barcelo Rodriguez verbally assured him that there was no risk in the heavy investment he was committing and encouraged him to continue in full confidence with the development. Mr. Barcelo Rodriguez followed up with a written communiqué dated September 30, 1988, (Official document No. 555979).

The copy of the document so numbered entered as part of the court papers filed by Carlos Teran on behalf of his two companies, support his claim that he was assured there was no risk and encouraging him to continue with the development.

"Based on the assurances provided to me by the Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria, my entities continued with the construction until the completion of an entire tourist complex of great importance, which includes a hotel, restaurants, various cocktail bars, tennis courts, swimming pool, unattached residences for the use of national and foreign users, with all the infrastructure," stated Teran in his court fillings.

Teran at this point in his declarations turns attention to the land claimants who had filed court suits reclaiming their property in Punta Banda. Teran tries to build his case that the SRA (Secretary of Agrarian Reform) knew about the claims, and most importantly, that the SRA knew the claims had validity. And, that Undersecretary Barcelo Rodriguez had full knowledge of the claims validity at the time the two met, but not only failed to disclose this, he was given assurances contrary to Barcelo Rodriguez's known facts.

Teran explains that many of the documents filed in court by the land claimants were on file at the SRA since the early 1950s, and should have been easily identified prior to certifying the land in Punta Banda to be a part of the Ejido holdings, or prior to filing the approved contracts with the National Registry that requires a search precisely to avoid the type of problem now being faced.

Teran points out that he has uncovered documents in possession of the SRA since 1951 (Oficial documents No. 102350) provided to the SRA by the National Property Registry office related to the Punta Banda property. The document registers Punta Banda as consisting of 8 lots each consisting of 20.22 hectares (approximately 50 acres) with the exception of lot number 6, which was 20.02 hectares (49.5 acres) for a total of 161.56 hectares (399.21 acres). The 8-lot subdivision was published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion on November 13, 1952.

Lot No. 1 was in favor of a Ramon Pujol land title number 1774.

Lot No. 2 was in favor of Esteban Pujol land title number 1772.

Lot No. 3 was in favor of Cesar Carrillo land title number 1094

Lot No. 4 was in favor of Elena Solorzano land title number 1770.

Lot No. 5 was in favor of Elena Madrigal de Soriano land tile number 1768.

Lot No. 6 was in favor of Bernardo Baez land tile number 1235.

Lot No. 7 was in favor of Mario Alba Arredondo land title number 1236.

Lot No. 8 was clouded with a name, then registered with another name, and yet another.

However, Teran points out that of importance is that the above information was at all times in the archives of the SRA, and they failed to disclose the known facts.

To underscore the argument that the SRA had previous knowledge, and did in fact act to defraud him, Teran includes Oficial document No. 102350 addressed by the SRA to the Judge of the Fourth court in the Tijuana District providing the court with the names of those originally listed in the records of ownership.

To Teran this is can only mean that the SRA had full knowledge of the existence of property ownership titles, and failed to disclose those facts.

Teran also points out that there exists Oficial document No. 94187 in possession of the SRA, indicating that land title number 13 dated July 11, 1951 is in favor of Antonio Perisky Cisneros, which covers 62.59 hectares (154.66 acres), coinciding with the land included in the second contract he entered into with the Ejido.

(El Cuerpo Consultivo Agrario (CCA) is almost an equivalent of the US's Army Corps of Engineers. This body is called upon to map and mark ejido land boundaries as part of their duties. Their data, documents and maps become the governing documentation.)

Teran points out that on November 17, 1973, the CCA mapped out the Ejido Coronel Esteban Cantu. Their mapping included the land in Punta Banda as part of the land allocated to the Ejido. But then on November 1, 1974, the same CCA changed the mapping and excluded the Punta Banda land from their mapping, and rescinded the 1973 documents. But again on June 24, 1987, the CCA once again mapped the Ejido and included the Punta Banda in the Ejido land holdings.

(Incompetence? Or something more sinister?)

Teran then drops a bomb - he claims to have come in possession of information during preparation of his case against the SRA and Ejido, which disclosed that during the CCA's 1987 mapping, several of those making claim to ownership of lots in the Punta Banda property, approached the SRA and CCA representatives with their claims of ownership, maps and land deeds to assure the boundaries would not be change (from 1974 through 1987 Punta Banda had been excluded from Ejido land.) However, the boundaries were changed, and Punta Banda was again shown as part of Ejido land.

Had he known, Teran explains, he would not have gone through with the second contract, and would have stopped investing until the matter was cleared.

Teran claims that 385 members of the two clubs stopped paying dues and 83 home and lot buyers stopped making payment on their contacts. This has caused his enterprise a loss of 7.185 million dollars. He has an additional actual dollar investment of approximately 3 million dollars on the construction and infrastructure. These two figures do no include the added value to the entire complex his efforts created.

Teran is suing both the SRA and the Ejido Coronel Esteban Cantu. His case against the SRA is well documented. He filed against the Ejido because of the clause on the contract in which the Ejido warrants the property is free of any encumbrances or problems of any kind. Teran argues that the Ejido failed in this requirement, and that the Ejido had knowledge of the claims and did not disclose them.

As in most cases of this type in Mexico there are other factors to be considered. One must ask the question of why? Who had to gain? During much of the period in which the PRI party was in power, public office was used as a basis for business gain. Officials whether in high or low positions were always on the prowl for a "business deal" with the usage of the power of their office or position.

The probability of Punta Banda being an exception is almost non existent.

Next Part IV - Conclusion.