The Antonio Saura Foundation of Cuenca was born, at the express wish of the painter himself, in 1995 after a proposal put forward by some of his closest friends in Cuenca. On the 11th of December of that year a protocol was drawn up and signed for the creation of a museum-foundation which would carry the name of Antonio Saura. Those appearing at this act were Mr. Manuel Ferreros Lozano, mayor of Cuenca, Mrs Marina Moya, president of the Cuenca Council, Mr. Justo Zambra Pineda, Education and Culture Minister for the Castilla-La Mancha Region, Mr. Luis Francisco Galán Polo, representative of the Castilla-La Mancha Caja de Ahorros (Building Society) and Mr. Antonio Saura himself, as founder of the museum.

The first commitments undertaken by the parties involved included the creation of a museum-foundation dedicated to the permanent exhibition and diffusion of the artistic and literary work of Antonio Saura, as headquarters for which the Casa Zavela was chosen, a building ceded by the Town Hall and personally chosen by Antonio Saura. Other agreements subscribed to related to the financial resources of the newly formed foundation, both in relation to the resources required to fund its activities and the building work needed to adapt the host building, which would be paid for by the consistory of Cuenca, or the commitment to invest in paintings to provide the museum with an initial fund of pictorial work. In this respect, Antonio Saura himself donated to the foundation the collection of drawings called Nulla dies sine linea 1994, consisting of 365 drawings accompanied by the news items that inspired them, he indicated a series of paintings with which to complete the museum fund and he expressed his wish to increase pictorial, documental and bibliographic deposits in the future, in accordance with the viability of the foundation.

On the 16th of December 1995, the constitution of the Antonio Saura Private Foundation was registered in Cuenca and its first statutes were approved wherein the objectives of the institution were defined, together with its governing bodies, the scope of its board, the initial resources the parties involved were committed to and the resources budgeted for its maintenance, as had been already established in the protocols signed earlier by the institutions and by the painter himself.

Despite the controversy aroused with the clear intention of delegitimizing the institution created at the express wish of Antonio Saura, successive rulings by the Castilla-La Mancha High Court of Justice in 2003 and the Supreme Court in 2005, recognised that the Antonio Saura Foundation is a completely legal institution from a judicial view-point, the inscription of which in the Foundations Register, authorised and effected by the Ministry of Social Welfare of the Castilla-La Mancha Regional Government in 1999, constituted an action fully in line with the law.

To this legal legitimacy categorically recognised by the afore-mentioned judicial resolutions, is added the evident recognition of the moral legitimacy of the institution created in Cuenca at the express and consistent wish of Antonio Saura himself, with none of the insinuations about the supposed change of mind of the founder in relation to his intention of creating a foundation that would bear his name in Cuenca ever being proven.

The main legal milestones in this litigation were the following:

In a resolution of 30th of March 1999, the Ministry of Social Welfare of the Castilla-La Mancha Regional Government legally recognised the Antonio Saura Foundation of Cuenca and ordered its inscription in the corresponding Register of the afore-mentioned institution.

On the 4th of June, 1999, an administrative contentious appeal was lodged against said resolution at the behest of Antonio Saura’s widow, daughter and executor. The plaintiffs substantiated the illegality of the inscription of the foundation as a legal body on the basis of a number of legal reasons: the absence of a hearing and defencelessness during the process, deviation of authority, decision against the volition of the creator and non-compliance of the legal requisites. Each and every one of these arguments expressed by the plaintiffs was rejected.

With regard to the absence of a hearing and defencelessness, the ruling concludes that ... such allegations are in no way justified and do not reflect the reality of the facts, without there having been any real or effective defencelessness whatsoever, or any conduct other than the compliance with applicable guidelines on the part of the Administration (...) Therefore, and with regard to the absence of hearing the plaintiffs in this case, it is untrue and, at no time meriting the status of illegality as alleged...

Neither has the deviation of authority as indicated by the plaintiffs been accepted, as the Administration, in the face of an application from the Board to proceed with the recognition of the founding act by means of its inscription (pages 46 and 66)and evaluating the concurrence of the requisites for same (art. 3.1 of Law of Foundations), as well as the pre-existing documentation provided by all the interested parties, decided to proceed with its recognition and inscribe same in accordance with the regulatory provisions...

An aspect of utmost importance in relation to the moral legitimacy of the foundation relates to the supposed lack of volition of the founder with regard to the very existence of the institution. Well, the court rules that neither does said theory conform with reality, and for the following legal reasons, of which: a) The firm and consequent will of the founder is accredited by the proof expressed in writs, which at no time is placed in doubt by any other firm and clear judicial act to the contrary (...) b) Folios 1 to 99 of the administrative file ostensibly, clearly and decisively reveal the wish of Mr. Antonio Saura Atarés to constitute the “Antonio Saura Private Foundation”, by consigning said wishes to public deed (...) which states the intention to bestow a collection of assets for general interest purposes by means of the technical tool that is the foundation (...) c) Said wishes have been ratified unreservedly by the sworn declarations of the witnesses (...) all of them existentially close to the founder (...) f) These cannot be opposed by the “post-mortem” instructions brought by the plaintiffs by means of administrative appeal (...) neither can the letter of 23rd January 1998, because said document, contradictory to the conduct of the founder himself when he attended the Board meetings of 6th of March and 12th of June 1998 (...) generate serious doubts about their authenticity as they are not written in the founder’s handwriting.

Lastly, the ruling of the High Court of Castilla-La Mancha also found against the plaintiffs, where they sustained the illegality of the foundation at the time of its inscription, due to the absence of the legal requisites for same. Well, once again the ruling very definitively and literally says: the deed constituting the foundation establishes its resources, consisting in foundational assets of a collection of works, which constitute the initial fund of a collection, made up of three hundred and sixty five drawings and some other documents (...) assets which are transferred fully in both domain and name to the foundation (...) This provision of resources was made in order to comply with art. 10.1 of the Law of Foundations, with the agreement subscribed to by the Town Hall and the Council of Cuenca, Regional Government and Mr. Antonio Saura himself (...) which has materialised practically in full, through the re-modelling of the Zaba (sic) House-Museum for use by the foundation (...) the annual contributions by the Provincial Council of Cuenca during the 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 budgets of the amounts agreed; as well as the acquisition for hosting in the foundation, of diverse works of Antonio Saura as specified in the agreement (...) to which must be added the contributions from the Regional Government and the acquisitions of works of art of both this body and the Castilla-La Mancha Caja (...) All these details reveal that the resource base of the foundation was being complied with (...) and that at the time of the inscription all the requisites required under law for same were complied with, such as the volition, purpose and foundational resources sufficient to guarantee the future viability of the foundation.

With each and every one of the accusations against the foundation being dismantled, the plaintiffs presented an appeal against the ruling to the High Court of Castilla-La Mancha on the 7th of May 2003.

The Supreme Court ruled on the appeal in November 2005 and, once again, point by point, the allegations that had been made against the Antonio Saura Foundation of Cuenca were rejected. The ruling relied to a large degree on the bases of law upheld by the earlier ruling, but also added new and resounding legal reasons that have finally accredited the absolute legality of the Antonio Saura Foundation, as well as its moral legitimacy.

Amongst the most important conclusions included within the Supreme Court ruling, some deserve to be re-emphasized. In the first place, the allegation that the Antonio Saura Foundation of Cuenca was inscribed without the consent or against the volition of the founder is rejected: none of the infractions alleged can be perceived, as the Foundation was created by the decision of the Founder, as required by article 1 of Law 30/94 and the instructions, upon which the plaintiffs rest their argument, in addition to being contrary to the clear and explicit wishes of the Founder, in terms of both his accredited public actions, as well as the existence of indisputable public documents, do not even present the established requirements.

With regard to the formal legality itself of the inscription of the foundation in relation to the volitive and patrimonial elements that must converge, the ruling states the following: the volition of the Founder appears clear and manifest (...) in relation to the patrimonial element, the contribution made by the Founder and the value of these assets is stated in public deed, as are the commitments made to the Founder by public deed on the 11th of December 1995, by the Town Hall and Council of Cuenca, and the Regional Government. With regard to the alleged deviation of authority on the part of the Antonio Saura Foundation of Cuenca, the court was once again unequivocal: any allegation about the deviation of authority lacks virtue, as it has been seen and stated that the Foundation was viable, it presented the requirements demanded by law 30/94, and was created in accordance with the free and publicly accredited volition of the Founder, with no importance attaching to the instructions, the knowledge of which on the part of the Administration, the plaintiff bases the allegation of deviation of authority, but moreover the evidence referred to by the plaintiffs cannot lead to the conclusion they maintain as it is both reasonable and normal that upon the death of the painter the procedures for the approval of the Foundation were accelerated and even though during the lifetime of the Founder these proceedings had slowed down. Lastly, it is appropriate to once again underline that the Supreme Court judges considered that the “post-mortem” instructions provided by the plaintiffs, upon which good part of their allegations against the Antonio Saura Foundation relied, give rise to serious doubts about their authenticity and true purpose, in not being written in the founder’s handwriting.

The conclusion of the Supreme Court, in summary, was to state there were no grounds for an appeal, a decision with which the legal proceedings were brought to a close. Both judicial bodies before which sundry appeals were presented, the High Court of Castilla-La Mancha and the Supreme Court, have certified the legality and legitimacy of the foundation, unequivocally ruling against the allegations put forward by the painter’s wife, daughter and executor.