|
I thank you for printing my piece about the Ecclesiastical Entities (Properties) Act (EEPA) Chapter 358.
In last week’s issue of 28 June, 2004, issue you claim that you have been shown the document showing Ecclesiastical ownership of the land in question. Were you provided with a copy of this document? I would like to see a copy of this document to eliminate any doubts as to under what title the Ecclesiastical Entity held this property, viz: whether ownership or administration.
Did you know that in terms of Section 5 Sub-section 3 of the said Act, the Joint Office has to provide the Land Registrar with a ‘Certificate stating the property is one to which the Agreement (between Church and State) refers and was on the appointed day (18 February 1993) in the possession of the ecclesiastical entity…’
When did the “farmer families” stop paying rents to the church? Why, if they claim to have been paying rents were they claiming that the lands belonged to them? You either own the land or hold it on lease. Is it perhaps because they had stopped paying the rents for a considerable period of time. Why were they not successful in their claim of ownership? Could it be that the Church was receiving the rent in its capacity as administrator not as owner? How long ago was this? In case of administration the Church could never claim ownership but had only rights of administration and consequently the property listed in ‘Annexe 8’ was not owned by the Church but was only administered by it.
At the time of registration, six years after the company claimed it, is it possible that one of the requirements of the said certificate no longer existed, viz: the Ecclesiastical Entity had not been exercising “possession” for scores of years encouraging the farmers to claim acquisitive prescription - which fact may throw dubious light on the right of registration by the Joint Office in favour of Government.
The companies and the new owners in this unfortunate case have documentation which is subject to scrutiny and analysis and whether they are entitled to the property they are possessing is yet to be ascertained. It is only appropriate that the documents available to the Joint Office should be made available in the Land Registry for third parties by the Joint Office to afford the citizen a means of overcoming the handicap he has vis-à-vis the Joint Office created by the EEPA. At least now, after the registration, there is no obligation to present these before; although I have serious doubts from the wording of Section 5 (3) where the law goes on to state: “the Joint Office shall, where these (documentation) are available to it, produce any further document relative to the title to the property being registered.”
I highlight these points to create a public consciousness of the problematic situation which the Ecclesiastical Entities (Properties) Act 1992 may cause third parties in possession if the title to land formerly owned or administered by the Church as yet unregistered, is found to be uncertain or not clear after its registration. Precisely because the Joint Office has a right to register title anywhere - unlike the ordinary citizen who may register only in registration areas but not on a voluntary basis - and without documentation to prove title. And the registration gives Government title retroactively to 12 years ago. This potential problematic situation is surely to rear its head in the near future as, I was told, there are a good 11,000 former Church properties to be registered!
The remedies, in my opinion, are two:
a) For future registrations: an obligation on the part of the Joint Office to make a pre-registration in the Land Registry with a three-month period within which third parties (and multo magis the Joint Office) may substantiate any documentary claims they may have; full registration to be given by the registrar to the rightful owner after a further three months’ deliberation, subject to appeal in the Court of Appeal;
b) For past registrations: the right of the registrar to strike off a registration (whether Government or individual, whether obtained fraudulently or in good faith or by some mistake in identity of the land or documentation to be registered) after hearing submissions followed by a right of appeal.
Notary Victor J Bisazza
Valletta
|
