A will saying the reserved portion was paid is not proof

The First Hall of the Civil Court held on 4 June 2026 that a testator's statement that a child has already received more than his share does not, by itself, take away his reserved portion. Mr Justice Henri Mizzi found that the heirs had not proved any benefit that could be set against it. He ordered them to pay the son €24,286.78, with interest, as his reserved portion from his mother's estate.

The facts

In C.A. vs G.E., the plaintiff was one of three children. His parents made a joint will in 2000 that allowed the survivor to change it. After his father died, his mother made further wills, the last in 2010.

That will left her share of a property, bank shares and a family grave to her daughter, the daughter's two children and other grandchildren. It left the plaintiff nothing. In its seventh article she declared that he had already taken more than his share, because he had used a rented garage for some 17 years without paying rent or utility bills. The clause also mentioned a money box and a quarrel between them.

The mother died in 2021. Three grandchildren renounced the inheritance, which left the daughter and her two children as heirs, and they are the defendants. The plaintiff sued for his share of both parents' estates. His claims on his father's estate fell away during the case, after the family property was sold and he declared himself satisfied.

What the court held

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had never formally asked the court to annul the seventh article, so the court had to give it effect. The court rejected this plea. The will contained no express order depriving him of the reserved portion, and no declaration of disinheritance under article 623 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta).

No clause therefore had to be struck down for him to succeed. Article 620(4) requires the court, when it liquidates the reserved portion, to deduct whatever the claimant received from the testator that is subject to collation under articles 913 to 938. Examining the seventh article was a necessary step in that calculation, so the court did not go beyond the claim.

On the substance, the court held that such a statement creates no conclusive presumption that the portion was paid. It reasoned: “Il-jedd għas-sehem riżervat huwa jedd mogħti mil-liġi, u għalhekk dikjarazzjoni bħal din ma tistax, mingħajr prova ulterjuri, iċċaħħad lil wild jew lil konjuġi mill-jedd li l-liġi tirriżervalu.” (The right to the reserved portion is given by law, so such a declaration cannot, without further proof, deprive a child or spouse of that right.)

Heirs who rely on the statement must prove the payment, donation or benefit. These heirs did not. The plaintiff did not deny using the garage, but he was not its only user. His father rented it and kept animals and the family business van there, and the plaintiff and his brother testified that he worked unpaid for his father.

The court added three points of law. Under article 620(1) the reserved portion cannot be burdened with any condition, so a temporary right of use cannot count as payment. A donation under article 1737(2) transfers a thing permanently and without payment, and this use was neither. Under article 921, collation is due only to the donor's estate, and any benefit came from the father, who paid the rent.

The court then valued the mother's estate. It added €83,918.54 in cash, gold, bank assets and the grave to €137,500, her five-eighths of the property at the €220,000 it fetched in 2024. After €2,837.38 in expenses, the net estate was €218,581.16.

With three children, the reserved portion is one-third of the estate under article 616(1), shared equally, so the plaintiff was due one-ninth. He claimed it within two years of the succession opening, so under article 615(2) interest runs from that opening. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs.

Why it matters

A clause declaring that a child has already had his share does not replace proof. Heirs who want to reduce a reserved portion need evidence of a donation or benefit from the testator herself. A claimant need not first sue to annul the clause.

Where it sits

The case applies the rule that the reserved portion is a right given by law, which a testator can remove only by a valid disinheritance on the grounds listed in article 623. Anything else a child received counts only through imputation and collation. The defendants did not rely on disinheritance at all.

The court followed the Court of Appeal (17 March 2022), which held that a testator's statement that the reserved portion was paid raises no conclusive presumption. On what a claim necessarily contains, it cited the Court of Appeal (12 December 2024, 15 November 2023, 26 March 2021 and 6 October 2010).

It also relied on the Court of Appeal (21 July 2021) and the First Hall of the Civil Court (29 November 2024 and 27 October 2022), where courts liquidated the reserved portion without first annulling the will. On burdens on the portion, it cited the Court of Appeal (25 May 2023).

Source

First Hall of the Civil Court, 271/2023, 4 June 2026.