Chapel ownership claim by the Church dismissed

An action filed by the administrator of Church properties in which the Church claimed ownership of a chapel in Zejtun has been dismissed by Mr Justice Ray Pace in the Civil Court.

Vincent E. Ciliberti, on behalf of the archbishop, filed the writ against Marianna and Lorenza Spiteri.

He claimed that a chapel in Madonna tal-Hniena Street, Zejtun, dedicated to Our Lady of the Sacred Heart was included among the churches that fell within the archbishop's jurisdiction.

This chapel formed part of the lay foundation established by the noble Margerita dei Conti Manduca in her will drawn up in 1879.

The Spiteris were claiming that the chapel belonged to them and the archbishop was duty bound to rebut such claims.

Ciliberti therefore requested the court to find in favour of the church and to decide that the Zejtun chapel was ecclesiastical property in terms of the foundation.

But the Spiteris pleaded that the archbishop's claims were unfounded, as their brother had purchased the chapel in 1977 from the Apap Bologna family.

They added that they had inherited the property after their brother's death in 1991.

Furthermore, plaintiff had never had possession of the chapel nor of its contents.

Mr Justice Pace noted that by means of a will drawn up in April 1990, Carmelo Spiteri had bequeathed the Zejtun chapel to the Franciscan Order.

The bequest had included all the movables contained in the chapel.

Carmelo Spiteri had appointed his brothers and sisters, including Lorenza and Marianna Spiteri, as his universal heirs.

It further resulted that the Franciscan Order had renounced to the legacy made in its favour by Carmelo Spiteri.

The court pointed out that legal doctrine established that when an action to establish ownership was filed, plaintiff was duty bound to provide absolute proof of his title to the property in issue.

All defendant had to do was declare that he was in possession of the property, and wait for plaintiff to produce his evidence.

It further resulted from the law that lay persons could have property rights over churches or chapels.

The court added that plaintiff was basing his title upon the will drawn up by the noble Margerita dei Conti Manduca in 1882, and it was therefore imperative to establish whether in terms of the will, the ownership of the chapel was transferred or if it had been retained by the heirs of the testator.

This was rendered even more important by the fact that the successors of the Noble Margerita dei Conti Manduca, namely the Apap Bologna family, had in 1977 sold the chapel to Carmelo Spiteri.

From an examination of the 1882 will it resulted that the possession and ownership of the chapel was retained by the heirs of the late Margerita dei Conti Manduca, and that the archbishop, as the administrator of church property, had not acquired any title over the chapel by the will.

It was not contested that the chapel had been used for the celebration of the Mass, but this did not lead to the conclusion that the ownership of the chapel could not vest in third parties.

On the contrary, it resulted from the evidence produced that the rights of ownership had always been exercised by the predecessors in title of Marianna and Lorenza Spiteri.

Mr Justice Pace therefore concluded that when the lay foundation was established in 1882, the noble Margerita dei Conti Manduca had reserved the rights of ownership in the chapel to her heirs, without any reservations.

Plaintiff's writ was therefore dismissed with costs against him.