Court dismisses heirs' prescription plea

The First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday dismissed a plea of prescription raised by three of the heirs of the late Karmena and Francis Buttigieg against a writ filed by six of the other heirs.

Charles Buttigieg, Doris Debono, Salvino Buttigieg, Freddie Gravina, Maria Buttigieg and Rita Mifsud filed their writ against Yvonne Formosa, Dione Zahra and Carmen Zammit.

Plaintiffs requested the court to order the division of the assets left by the late Karmena and Francis Buttigieg, grandparents of the parties to the suit, and to distribute the assets equally among the heirs.

Defendants pleaded that plaintiffs' writ was barred by lapse of time as the grandparents had died over 40 years ago.

Mr Justice Alberto J. Magri noted in his judgment that the law provided that any action requesting a portion of an inheritance had to be filed within 10 years from the date of the opening of succession of the deceased. There was no doubt that Karmena and Francis Buttigieg had both died well over 10 years before the writ was filed.

However, the prescription in these cases was of an acquisitive nature and therefore certain legal elements had to be proven before prescription could be successfully pleaded.

Thus, not only had defendants to prove that they had possession of their grandparents' estate but they had also to prove, in order for their plea to subsist, that their possession was formal and continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and unequivocal for the whole period mentioned by the law.

It resulted, said the court, that the mother of the three defendants was one of the children of the late Karmena and Francis Buttigieg and that they used to live, with their parents, in their grandparents' home.

Plaintiffs alleged that all the movable items pertaining to the estate of the late Karmena and Francis Buttigieg were kept in two rooms in their grandparents' home, pending the return to Malta of one of the heirs.

This was never denied by the three defendants.

Mr Justice Magri concluded that, from the evidence produced, the plea of prescription raised by defendants could not be upheld, for although the movables in question were held by one of the three defendants, namely Yvonne Formosa, the latter was not holding them as an owner but in the interest of all the heirs until the division took place.

The plea of prescription was therefore dismissed.