Qala’s anger at Scicluna, lawyers question lineage

Archbishop Charles Scicluna was escorted into the Gozo law courts on Friday with heightened security at the Citadella: the parking area below the bastions had been shut off from public access, and at least six police officers stood guard near the entrance of the historic fort.

The apprehension was understandable. He emerged two hours later to a baying crowd of some 20 Qala residents hurling insults at him for having so easily allowed the company Carravan to take control of a foundation with disputed claims to vast amounts of land.

Scicluna was testifying as a witness in a court case instituted by lawyer Patrick Valentino, the representative of Carravan Ltd, to challenge the property titles held by Qala residents on land now claimed to belong to a 17th century foundation that long time ago arbitrarily swept up swathes of lands in Qala and Nadur.

In a tense two-hour sitting, Scicluna seemed convinced that although the Maltese archdiocese had once challenged the pretension of the late Richard Stagno Navarra in 1992 to be made ‘rector’ of the so-called Abbazia di Sant Antonio delli Navarra, a foundation created by the noblewoman Cosmana Navarra (after the cleric entrusted with the foundation died) – his own decision in 2017 to resolve a 30-year legal battle by accepting Valentino as rector had been correct.

“When I saw that so many cases had come and gone over three decades, with so many people having passed away in the process... I didn’t think of it as a ‘short-cut’ – one just realises that the alternative to a resolution would be the unnecessary delay of court cases. Such an agreement may be viewed as a short-cut, but it was a way of resolving a protracted tussle.”

READ ALSO: Gozo: State delisted Abbazia property on Church’s request ‘no questions asked

But this decision, appointing Carravan’s man Patrick Valentino as rector of the Abbazia, has opened a deluge of cases: Carravan – whose owners are retired magistrate Dennis Montebello and former Gozo Curia lawyer Carmel Galea, as well as the Stagno Navarra heirs – are challenging title registrations on the land they claim is theirs. Dozens of families face eviction, or must relinquish their titles of ownership to pay higher market rates to Carravan.

 In the meantime, Carravan is also transferring properties held by the Abbazia to companies that develop the land.

Yet Scicluna claims he was not aware that this had been the intention of Carravan when they agreed to pay the sum of €200,000: a capital sum for the Church to invest, to use the interest to serve the pious obligations laid down in the Abbazia deed by Cosmana Navarra.

But a precedent already existed. In 1992, after the death of Abbazia rector Fr Saverin Bianco, Richard Stagno Navarra obtained a controversial decree from Magistrate Carol Peralta, all in the space of 24 hours – without the Church being notified – to be made the Abbazia’s rector. Stagno Navarra used that decree to transfer the lands to Carravan. The Church protested, and filed a case challenging the decision in 1992, which was finally resolved in 2013 in their favour.

Joint Office delisting

So why did Scicluna accept the 2017 resolution to give control of the Abbazia to Carravan again?

The Archbishop claims a 2010 court case decided by Judge Gino Camilleri had decreed that the Abbazia was not “ecclesiastical” but “lay”. It had been founded by Navarra for her heirs, not for the Church, he said; and that the Church had held control only because no direct descendant was able to take control of the foundation, so the Abbazia would have to be managed by a cleric.

Since it was “lay”, the property held by the Abbazia could not even be transferred by the Church to the Joint Office, the government office that manages church-owned property transferred to the State since 1987. “In 2013, the Joint Office accepted the deletion of the property from Annex 8,” Scicluna told the Court.

But even this is a matter of extensive debate.

The director of the Joint Office, Duncan Mifsud, testified in the same case saying that his office deregistered the Abbazia from Annex 8 based on declarations submitted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

“Every single entry in Annex 8 is examined by the Joint Office, to see which title the Church has or does not. Some of them have been deleted, or corrected, or others that were not included back in the day.”

So it was the Church that asked for the deletion of the Abbazia, by presenting its request to the Joint Office control committee, which includes two government representatives and two Church and Holy See representatives.

But Mifsud also confirmed that no cross-checks take place on such requests. “We rest on their (the Church’s) word... that’s what the Concordat says.”

Are Stagno Navarras rightful heirs?

Apart from appointing Carravan’s man Valentino as Abbazia rector, Scicluna also ceded his right to approve the transfers of land under temporary emphyteusis – an observation which led to a 10-minute hiatus in court as Valentino objected to the questioning. But the presiding magistrate insisted the question would be allowed.

“I did not want to have to be involved in the decisions concerning the transfer of the foundation’s property, or have anything to do with contracts and transfers,” Scicluna said.

But the defence, led by Jean Paul Grech, questioned why Scicluna had also accepted to appoint as Abbazia rector, a person who was not even connected to the Cosmana Navarra lineage as required by the deed, and taken money from Montebello and Galea – unconnected to the Navarra lineage (both contributed to the €200,000 capital payment to the Church in 2017 apart from the Stagno Navarras).

“What was important then was that the foundation and its known associates were paying.. maybe some parties did not have enough liquidity.”

The big question was about the lack of verification carried out by the Archdiocese as to whether the Stagno Navarras are truly the descendants of the Cosmana Navarra lineage.

No independent verification of the family tree presented by Richard Stagno Navarra back in 1992 has ever been carried out, but the document itself was never attacked in any of the dozen court cases that have characterised the court saga.

MaltaToday understands that the direct line which Cosmana Navarra indicated would inherit the Abbazia’s control died out early on. Richard Stagno Navarra’s claim to be the rightful heir was accepted only insofar that he actively demanded his recognition as Abbazia rector since 1992, together with Montebello and Galea as his backers.

“I rested on the 1992 decision by the late Archbishop Giuseppe Mercieca, that Stagno Navarra was only refused to be rector because he was not a cleric. I made no verifications as to the claim, and neither did my office do such a verification. No doubts had ever been presented on this claim,” Scicluna told the court, admitting he did not know who had drawn up the family tree presented by Stagno Navarra in court. “It’s something that would have to be verified.”

But the Archbishop felt that since Carravan and the Stagno Navarras had guaranteed the legitimacy of their claim, he could see no problem with their demands.

Indeed it was on the point of the heirs’ legitimacy, that the defence asked the Court to consider its request to challenge Valentino’s and Carravan’s juridical interest in the case, given that there was no guarantee that they are legitimate claimants to the Cosmana Navarra lineage and therefore, as rightful claimants to the control of the Abbazia.

The Court refused the request, saying the nature of the court case was not the Stagno Navarras’ legitimacy to the Abbazia, and that such a challenge would have to be made in a separate court case.

READ ALSO: Gozo land grab: Church took €200,000 ‘short-cut’ without verifying heirs’ claims