Abraham and Isaac: Sculptures returned home after Spanish Supreme Court decision

April 8, 2026

Abraham and Isaac, attributed to Maestro Mateo, Museo do Pobo Galego

By Lucas Güimil Valdés

Introduction

In a recent ruling, 18 June 2025^[1], the Supreme Court of Spain decided that two sculpture of Abraham and Isaac attributed to Maestro Mateo^[2], originally part of the Portico of Glory of the Santiago de Compostela’s cathedral^[3], must be returned to Santiago de Compostela. At the time, the sculptures were in possession of the Franco family. The pieces were restituted on the 1^st of December 2025 and are currently on temporary display at the Museo do Pobo Galego (until 30 May 2026)^[4] as part of an exhibition entitled Restitution of the Sculptures of San Mateo:

This ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain (which overturned two previous decisions) helps to illustrate some of the particularities of Spanish law in terms of cultural heritage owned by Public Entities and highlights the importance of properly identifying art works in these kinds of cases, which is a rather universal issue. In other words, plaintiffs will need to provide evidence (usually through expert reports) to demonstrate that the pieces they own are the ones in the possession of the defendants.

The facts of the case are as follows. The Council of Santiago de Compostela acquired the works from the Count of Ximonde in June 1948. However, in 1954 (during the visit of the then head of state Francisco Franco and his wife Carmen to celebrate the Año Santo Jacobeo) they were given by the Mayor to the presidential couple without following any procedure and had been in possession of the Franco family ever since. According to Spanish Public Law, when a Public Administration acts without following any procedure it is referred to as a vía de hecho.^[5][6]

The First Ruling, February 8, 2019 (Court of First Instance)^[7]

The Council of Santiago de Compostela first claimed ownership of the sculptures through the exercise of the acción reivindicatoria (also known as revindicatory action) against the Franco before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 41 de Madrid (one of the Courts of First Instance sited in Madrid) on the 22^nd of November of 2017.

The Local Government argued that having purchased both sculptures to place them in the Town Hall, they would have acquired the status of bienes demaniales (or public property) according to Spanish law, therefore being inalienable, imprescriptible and even unattachable (inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables). Hence, the Franco family could not have legally acquired them nor obtained them through their peaceful and uninterrupted possession via the mechanism of usucapion.^[8]

In Spanish law, goods owned by Public Administrations (such as the State) are divided into two different categories: demaniales or public property and patrimoniales or assets, according to article 4 of the Law 33/2003^[9]. Whereas the first category includes all those goods used for public use or to provide a public service, the second one refers to all those items that are not (thus constituting a residual category).

Therefore, this argument served the Administration to highlight not only that any possible transaction to the Franco family would have been completely against the Law, but also to rule out the possibility that they had obtained them through usucapion.

On the other hand, the defendants claimed that their grandparents obtained the sculptures directly from a private seller (with the intermediation of an antique dealer) and therefore there were not handed over irregularly by the City Council of Santiago de Compostela. Furthermore, they argued that the claim needed to be dismissed based on the following considerations:

1. Firstly, because there was no consistent evidence that the City Council had either paid the price agreed nor received the statues. Therefore, it was rather uncertain whether the sale had actually been completed in the first place.
2. On the other hand, since it had not been proven that the sculptures were actually in the possession of local authorities, they could not be considered public property (due to the fact that the City Council would not have been able to allocate them in the Palace and therefore use them for a public service or use).
3. That the family would have acquired the ownership of the sculptures due to their peaceful and prolonged possession since at least 1961, year in which the statutes were publicly displayed as property of the head of state in an exhibition organized by the Spanish government called El Arte Románico (Romanesque art) which took place in Santiago de Compostela and Barcelona.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the Court ruled that the sculptures were not to be returned to Santiago de Compostela as there was no evidence that they had been handed over to the City Council nor that they were public property. Moreover, the Court also considered that there were serious doubts regarding the identity of the two sculptures since it was not possible to affirm that the pieces purchased by the city were the same as those in possession of the Franco family:

1. Examining the evidence provided, the Court concluded that it was unclear exactly how many sculptures were removed from the Portico and later recovered by the Count of Ximonde. Therefore, more exhaustive evidence was necessary to prove that the statues purchased by the City Council were indeed those owned by the Franco family.
2. Furthermore, the expert who first spotted the sculptures at the Count of Ximonde’s Palace (cited by the City Council’s specialist) stated that one of them had a fracture (in his article named Duas obras excultoricas do Maestre Mateu published in 1933)^[10].

According to the judge, the absence of any mention to the fracture in the deed of sale or in any sale-related document made it impossible to identify the pieces, especially taking into consideration that the photographs provided by the expert did not show any kind of fracture (so there was a possibility that the sculptures purchased by the City Council were different than those representing Abraham and Isaac).

1. Additionally, the Court considered that there were some contradictions between the testimonies of the two experts that advised the City Council during the sale, since one of them stated that one of the statues (a third one not involved in the case) was laid out while the other referred to it as a standing upright statue. Taking this into account and considering that only one of them mentioned the fracture, there was not enough proof of the identity of the sculptures.

The Second Ruling, December 17, 2019 (Provincial Court of Madrid)^[11] 

The Council of Santiago de Compostela appealed the decision to the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (the Provincial Court) based on these arguments:

1. That the Local Government had acquired full ownership of the two sculptures through the public deed of sale via traditio ficta (fictional tradition) even if they had not been physically delivered to the City Council, according to article 1462 of the Spanish Civil Code.
2. On the other hand, even if the sculptures could not be legally considered public property (bienes demaniales) they still could not have been legally transmitted to the Franco family at the time as they were part of the Spanish cultural heritage. As we shall see in more detail, the truth is that, both the laws in force at the time and the current Spanish legislation regarding cultural property are quite restrictive in this matter, in order to avoid the loss of cultural heritage. Therefore, according to Spanish law, Public Administrations cannot transfer nor sell their cultural assets except to other public entities (or in cases of an exchange celebrated with a foreign State).
3. Finally, because the identification of the sculptures had been clearly established.

The Provincial Court of Madrid acquiesced the decision rendered by the Madrid Court of First Instance, deeming it to have conducted a meticulous examination of the sculptures and their characteristics (thereby concluding that their identity was not proved enough).

Nevertheless, the Provincial Court considered it difficult to believe that the Council had not obtained ownership of the statutes through the public deed and particularly as they had been moved to the City Council for in-situ examination by experts, which indicated that they had been physically handed over to the Local government.

Despite the Court of First Instance considering this to be a temporary stay prior to the sale, the Provincial Court found it implausible that the works had been returned to the Ximonde’s Palace before its formalization.

Furthermore, the Provincial Court also ruled that the two sculptures could not have been transferred to the Franco family since they belonged to the Spanish cultural heritage (patrimonio histórico español) and therefore their transmissibility was limited.

The Court ruled in favor of this argument, since according to the Law of May 13, 1933^[12] (in force at that time) cultural assets owned by the Public Administrations could not be transferred to any private person. Moreover, the current Law 16/1985 establishes also restrictions on the sale of cultural property owned by public Entities (article 28.2)^[13].

Lastly, the judges deemed it highly improbable that such monumental statues could be transferred to the Franco family without leaving a documentary trace.

Thus, on the basis that the statues had not been adequately identified, they were not to be returned, confirming the ruling of the Court of First Instance.

It follows that it is crucial to properly identify works of art (which is not always easy given their traceability), as this is a determining factor inherent to the claimed work. If this identification is not done properly, it can prevent restitution: no judge will order the restitution of a work if its identity has not been clearly established.

Supreme Court Ruling: Clear error in the evaluation of the evidence^[14]

Ultimately, the City Council of Santiago de Compostela appealed against both verdicts, invoking the following arguments finally considered by the Supreme Court:

1. The issue of the sculptures’ identification was never raised by the defendants, meaning the Provincial Court couldn’t base its decision solely on this (arguing that this was a procedural violation or infracción procesal).
2. That there was a clear and obvious error in the evaluation of the evidence, since the photographs provided by the Council showed that the statutes were those in the factual possession of the heirs of the then head of state.

While the Supreme Court rejected the first of the motives (considering that by analyzing the correspondence of the pieces the other courts had checked for a fact that had not been confirmed by the plaintiffs, something perfectly legal), it did consider that there was a clear error in the assessment of the evidence insofar as:

1. Given that the two sculptures had been purchased by the Local government and were no longer in its possession, the lack of documentary evidence of the transaction only proved that the statues were transferred without following any procedure.
2. Of the nine sculptures removed from the Cathedral attributed to San Mateo there were only two seated statues, so there could be no doubt that the sculptures recovered by the Count of Ximonde and ultimately transferred to the Council of Santiago de Compostela were those of Abraham and Isacc in the possession of the Franco family, all on the following terms.

“(…) Likewise, of all the statues removed from the cathedral and attributed to Master Mateo, which are the subject of the proceedings initiated by the Regional Government of Galicia (…) three are incomplete (in fact, one is only a head) and, of these, one was found in 2016; two others are not seated and two others correspond to kings, as they wear crowns and do not appear to be holding a scroll.

Consequently, the only statues that correspond to those described in the reports of the administrative proceedings prior to purchase (…) are those in the possession of the plaintiffs.”^[15]

1. Finally, that the photographs provided by the Administration showed a clear and evident fracture that confirmed that those statutes purchased by the city of Santiago de Compostela were the same as those recovered by the Count of Ximonde and owned (possessed) by the Franco family:

“Well, the statement in the judgment that none of the disputed statues has the fracture referred to in the aforementioned article and report is clearly erroneous, because examination of the photographs provided as documentary evidence shows at a glance that the only one of these statues, of all those removed from the cathedral and attributed to Master Mateo, that has damage of this nature is one of the two claimed, an old man with a long beard holding a placard, which has a horizontal, slightly diagonal fracture at leg height.”^[16]

As a result, the Supreme Court agreed to the return of the sculptures to the Local Council of Santiago being able to provide and answer the question everyone had wondered about: are those Abraham and Isaac?

Since the dispute ultimately revolved around the identification of the work, this case serves as an example that highlights the importance of this aspect in cases involving the restitution of works of art in general.

About the author

Lucas Güimil Valdés is a Legal Trainee at the Public Law Department of Garrigues. Specialist in Art Law (UC3M). Graduate in Law with a minor in History and Politics and student of a Master’s degree in Law of Culture (UC3M) with a focus on Public Law and religious cultural heritage. His interest revolves mainly around art and cultural heritage Law, having worked in both the Teatro Real and Biblioteca Nacional of Spain as an intern.

Select References

1. S.T.S., Jun. 18, 2025 (R.J. 974) (Spain) ↑
2. As stated in the Supreme Court’s decision. When we talk about Maestro Mateo it is crucial to comprehend that we refer to a workshop rather than a sole sculptor. ↑
3. The statues were originally conceived for the exterior façade—or narthex—of the Portico of Glory. Following a renovation undertaken on the façade in the 16th century, the sculptures were subsequently relocated to the gardens of the Pazo de Fonseca. They were ultimately recovered by the Count of Ximonde toward the end of the 18th century ↑
4. All information regarding the exposition can be found at the official website of the Museum: https://www.museodopobo.gal/es/evento/restitucion-das-estatuas-do-mestre-mateo ↑
5. Article 51.3 of the Ley 29/1998, de 13 de julio, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa, Boletín Oficial del Estado (1998). ↑
6. “An image of the Old Testament scene (Genesis 22, 1-19) in which, on the orders of God, Abraham prepares to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Seeing that Abraham follows his orders with blind faith, God accepts this as proof of his faithfulness and sends an angel to save Isaac at the last moment, ordering that a lamb be sacrificed in his place. This passage from the Bible is understood as a foreshadowing of Christ´s sacrifice on the Cross: the ass symbolises the Synagogue, the lamb refers to Christ and the altar to the cross” (official description provided by the Prado Museum). ↑
7. Juz. Prim., Feb. 8, 2019 (R.J. 20) (Madrid, Spain). ↑
8. Article 1940 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil, Boletín Oficial del Estado, 1889). ↑
9. Ley 33/2003, de 3 de noviembre, del Patrimonio de las Administraciones Públicas, Boletín Oficial del Estado (2003). ↑
10. Published in the Boletín da Real Academia Galega (in Galician) in 1933. ↑
11. A.P., Dec. 17, 2019 (R.J. 432) (Madrid, Spain) ↑
12. Ley de 13 de mayo de 1993 relativa al Patrimonio Artístico Nacional, Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spain). ↑
13. Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español, Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spain). ↑
14. S.T.S., Jun. 18, 2025 (R.J. 974) (Spain) ↑
15. Page 5 of the ruling. Unofficial translation made by the author. ↑
16. Page 5 of the ruling. Unofficial translation made by the author. ↑