X’s father died in 1984 leaving a will drawn up in 1983. X was disinherited in accordance with the Civil Code. She claimed that even if the grounds he gave were proved, they would be deemed inadequate to legally justify disherison (the act of disheriting, or debarring from inheritance). X claimed that her father fabricated the grounds for her disherison to avoid giving his daughter the legitim (today known as the reserved portion), which is a portion of one’s estate reserved by law for certain beneficiaries.

Plaintiffs requested the court to declare that the grounds for disherison given by the testator were false and hence, her disherison was null and without effect. This would revive right to the legitim.

The plaintiffs also requested that in the event that X’s grounds for disherison be confirmed and her right to legitim lost, her children would still have the right to her legitim from their grandfather as her heirs.

The defendants claimed that:

• this court had already decided the matter in a case in 1986;

• the plaintiff had no right to represent her children in relation to this case;

• the grounds for disherison were legitimate.

However, the pleas made were different in the cases and none of plaintiffs’ claims in the current case were decided upon before.

X’s brother gave evidence, stating that:

• his father would give X gold and she would never pay him for it. This led to her father suing her before he died;

• his father had given her Lm3,000 as a dowry and had included her in his will;

• his sister would threaten his parents. She allegedly even threatened him in his own shop and X’s husband attacked his father-in-law;

• his sister had once said that she wished to see her parents dead in bed due to a long painful illness;

• his sister’s shop selling gold was set up by their father.

X’s uncle took the witness stand and stated that he knew that a few years before, an argument had arisen between X and her parents regarding money, gold and lack of reciprocal respect.

X told the Court that:

• she married in 1975 and went to live in the UK with her husband and returned to Malta after two years;

• When she returned, she took her father’s shop and that is when the problems started;

• her brothers had hit her in front of the housekeeper;

• regarding the incident referred to in the will, she had gone to find her father and found her brothers at her father’s shop instead. When they saw her, one of her brothers allegedly tried throwing acid at her;

• she never threatened her parents;

• the allegations mentioned in the will were unfounded.

X’s mother gave evidence, stating that:

• the relationship between her and her husband and their daughter was fine until she started to notice things missing from the safe;

• like many parents, they paid various things for their daughter including a cabin cruiser;

• when an argument arose between them, X told them to prepare their graves;

• once X went to the testator’s shop and attacked her father, after which she went to her parents’ home and threw a soup bowl at her brother;

• her son-in-law once punched her husband and threw him on the floor;

• X had not attended her father’s funeral;

• she and her husband had changed a previous will in which X was included;

• they changed their will and disinherited her due to her unacceptable behaviour;

Article 623 of the Civil Code provides an exhaustive list of the grounds for disherison. Sub-Articles (d) and (e) are relevant for this case:

“(d) if the descendant has struck the testator, or has otherwise been guilty of cruelty towards him;

(e) if the descendant has been guilty of grievous injury against the testator;”

The will disinherited X alleging that she struck or caused injury to the testator. It then gave as examples the incidents mentioned above particularly the threats, both verbal and physical by X and her husband towards the rest of the family members.

However, Article 625 goes on to state:

“(1) The ground of disherison must be proved by the party alleging such disherison.” (Mifsud et vs Mifsud et – 2003)

Interpretation of the will must be restrictive in that the testator’s volontà must be respected. The law allows derogation from the rule that all children must be left a portion by their parents. Yet, this requires that the ground/s for disherison fall within the exhaustive list and that this be proved by heirs.

According to Article 629, “Where the ground of disherison is not stated, or is not proved, the person disinherited shall only be entitled to the reserved portion.”

According to X’s uncle, he never saw physical fights involving the plaintiff. The court stated that it had an obligation to establish whether there existed unequivocal proof that the plaintiff struck or seriously injured the testator. The proof seemed rather conflicting and although it seemed that the plaintiff threatened her parents, and admittedly, X’s father was hurt by her behaviour, there was no conclusive evidence produced. Hence, in the court’s opinion, it could not be said that the plaintiff was guilty of the grounds claimed.

Hence, the disherison was deemed null and without effect and the plaintiff had a right to her share of the legitim.