An agricultural lease may be paid by fruit or vegetables; however, the law dictates this must be mentioned in a written agreement. This was held in a judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal presided over by the Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Robert Mangion and Grazio Mercieca. The judgement was delivered on 12 November 2024 in Joseph Bartolo et vs Nicholas Bartolo et.
The case centred around the value of an undivided share of land left to the Defendant as a pre-legacy. The deceased, Filippa Bartolo wrote in her will that the pre-legacy will have effect, when there would be valuations on the property subject to the pre-legacy. The valuation will take into consideration the date of the death of Filippa Bartolo. The pre-legatee will pay 11/12 to his siblings. This has to take place before the first anniversary from her death.
The First Hall of the Civil Court delivered a preliminary judgement on 28 October 2021 and decided that the Defendant did not have a title of rural lease on the land left by means of a legacy. As a consequence, the value of the land had to be made on the premise that the land was free and unencumbered.
The First Hall of the Civil Court delivered another judgement on 13 March 2024, and based its findings on the expert appointed by the co-defendant Rose Agius who is the testamentary executor. The Court did not consider the valuation presented by Nicholas Bartolo.
In Nicholas Bartolo’s appeal he argued that he was the tenant on the land and as such his valuation of the land was valid.
The Court of Appeal went through the judgement of the court of first instance. The first Court explained that Filippa Bartolo is the mother and grandmother of the Plaintiffs and she was one fourth owner of land in Hal Qormi. The other three-fourths were owned by her siblings. Nicholas Bartolo worked the land for years. He had purchased the three-fourths share from his aunts. Filippa Bartolo passed away on 14 March 2015 but had left two wills. In the will of October 2010, she left Nicholas Bartolo a pre-legacy of one-fourth of the land, as long as he pays his siblings their share. A valuation had to be made by a reputable and independent person.
Nicholas Bartolo engaged an architect who valued the land at €28,000, meaning that one-fourth was €7,000. Rose Agius appointed an architect to value the property. This architect gave two valuations. One was considering the property free and unencumbered, €62,000. The second was with Nicholas Bartolo as a tenant, €31,000. It is for this reason that the Plaintiff, Joseph Bartolo filed the action in order for the court to establish the value of the land.
From the evidence produced it resulted that Nicholas Bartolo gave vegetables to Filippa Bartolo. Furthermore, the Agriculture Department held that Nicholas Bartolo was registered as a farmer and presented the agricultural leases book with the plans. Nicholas Bartolo presented a declaration from the owners that he was authorised to build a room on the land. The Court commented that the intention of this declaration was not to receive compensation or to confirm that the land was rented to him. The contract where Nicholas Bartolo purchased shares in the property, did not mention that he was renting another portion of the same land. The Court pointed out that the first time Nicholas Bartolo mentioned that he was a tenant on the land, was when Rose Agius engaged an architect to value the land.
The first court held that it was clear from reading the will that Filippa Bartolo wanted her children to be treated equally. The will mentioned that the valuation should be carried out as the property would have been free and unencumbered, therefore, even if Nicholas Bartolo had a title of agricultural lease, the valuation should not reflect this.
Nicholas Bartolo argued that his payment of rent took the form of vegetables he gave his mother. Not all agreed this was a payment.
The Court quoted from a judgement handed down by the Appeals Court on 3 February 2012 in the case Grace Ragan vs Emanuel Mizzi, which held that Article 1532 of the Civil Code states that the payment by means of fruit and vegetables has to be specifically agreed in writing. In this case the Court of Appeal did not accept that the fruit and vegetables were payment of rent.
Nicholas appealed this judgement and argued that the Plaintiffs never contested that there existed an agricultural lease and that this was registered with the Agricultural Department for over 50 years. The Court of Appeal held that this was not sufficient.
The Court of Appeal held that the other children of Filippa Bartolo also gave their mother fruit and vegetables.
The Court of Appeal held that if one had to argue that the agricultural lease existed, once Nicholas Bartolo’s mother died, he became owner of the one-fourth undivided share of the land and therefore the lease was terminated.
The Court then dismissed the appeal.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
