Tuesday, June 15

The Francos defend that they have the right to take from the Pazo de Meirás the tomb that Pardo Bazán had carved


Coat of arms of the Duchy of Franco on the facade of the pazo de Meirás.

Coat of arms of the Duchy of Franco on the facade of the pazo de Meirás.
PLACE

The heirs of the dictator Francisco Franco They have just presented an appeal against the judicial order that decreed the suspension of the removal of the movable property of the pazo de Meirás and allegations to the incidents of execution of sentence presented by the Condition and the City of Sada against the removal of a series of elements that both administrations consider “inseparable” from the property. As this newspaper reported, the State Attorney detailed in its appeal up to 133 elements that it considers movable property by destination or incorporation (that is, they cannot be removed without causing a loss or that were placed with a permanent vocation).

The Council of Now goes further in his incident and also appealed to the inadmissibility of removing the furniture, works of art and other pieces that were sold with the pazo in 1938, that is, from the time of Emilia Pardo Bazán and their descendants, and of all those elements subsequently installed by the State and assigned to the service as the official residence of the Head of State, for which, he argues, they should be integrated into the public domain.

The Francos only agree with the State Bar and the Sadense Council on one point, on the inadmissibility of removing those elements that are considered to be real estate by incorporation, although they make a more restrictive interpretation and limit it to those that “cannot be separated without causing relevant, irreparable damage and consisting of its destruction or deterioration. [el inmueble] significantly with separation ”.

Sarcophagus in the chapel that Emilia Pardo Bazán had carved, a sculpture in the gardens that represents Saint Andrew and the altarpiece that the Francos request to remove. Antares Pérez N


The dictator’s grandchildren agree with the State in considering included in this category 78 of the 133 assets related to the incident the Lawyer. It is about elements, influence the brothers Martínez Bordiu, which were never considered to be removed as granaries, crosses, benches or stone pots, stairs, balustrades, fountains or ponds, the tennis court or some friezes, among others. The Francos defend, on the other hand, that they are within their right to take the 55 remaining that the State Bar considered “inseparable” from As Torres. Among others, assets with a high historical value, essential to interpret this Asset of Cultural Interest in the category of historic site. Among others, the sarcophagus that he ordered to be carved Emilia Pardo Bazán and in which, according to historians, she intended to be buried (although it was left empty after her death in Madrid in 1921). This tomb is described in one of his works by the Countess,La Chimera ‘, as well as another of the goods that the Francos believe they are entitled to take: the Natural hair christ. The central altarpiece of the chapel is one of the few elements of the temple that they consider that they should remain, although not its 14 wooden sculptures, as well as the confessional, two sculptures of the Virgin or the baptismal font.

The Francos also appeal to their right to withdraw all shields from the Duchy of Franco, both those included in the stone ensembles of the garden and the one on the façade of the pazo de Meirás. They also oppose the removal of sculptures, coats of arms or sundials carved in stone from the garden or from two baptismal fonts (although they do not refer to that of Moraime).

The legal representative of the Martínez-Bordiu brothers, Eduardo Ferreiro, defends that at this procedural moment it is not appropriate to open the debate on real estate by destination given that, he defends, in execution of the sentence, incidents can only be raised on “issues related to the physical or material separability of the element ”. The Franks make the State ugly that it does not distinguish in its incident between those elements that must be considered real estate by incorporation (those that cannot be separated without breaking or deteriorating the building) or by destination (those that were placed with a vocation of permanence) .

The Francos argue that the tomb they had carved Pardo Bazán, the wooden sculptures of the central altarpiece or the confessional of the chapel, the sculptures or coats of arms in the garden, among other goods, cannot be considered members of the Meirás pazo, neither by incorporation nor by destination. They argue that they are “absolutely movable without detriment to them.” “No one requires for their displacement an action that implies the deterioration of the floor or walls, at least not of one that cannot be corrected by simple polishing, painting or similar actions” they argue in their appeal and add: “The chapel will be able to fulfill its function perfectly without any of these ornamental elements ”.

The Franco requests two expert evidence, specifically two reports from the architects A hard tackle from Óscar Valcuende Rodríguez Y Blas Tojo Ferrero on the goods, their anchoring or fixing systems and their destination or utility. One of the architects submitted a letter to the court to record that he could not finalize the report because he was not allowed to enter the pazo. The dictator’s grandchildren have also asked the former guardian to give a statement.

In their appeal, Franco’s grandchildren describe the incidental issues as extemporaneous, see lack of motivation in the ruling that decreed the suspension of the removal of the assets and demand that the incident of the City Council be inadmissible. Now for “lack of active legitimacy.” They also reject their allegation that the assets that were part of the property at the time of its sale in 1938 are kept in Meirás and argue that the Court did not decree that the property belongs to the State due to the validity of the deed of sale but because of its possession. continued as owner.


www.informacion.es

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *