NANNI & OTHERS V.

PACE
& THE SOVEREIGN ORDER
OF MALTA
DONE BY: S.E.SIVAM(19BLB1056)
S.AJAY(19BLB1098)
S.NAGARAJAN(19BLB1099)
S.ASHWIN KESAVAN(19BLB1080)
V.A.KAARUNYAA(19BLB1100)
FACTS(S.E.SIVAM)
• On March 26, 1863, [lolo] Mattia was granted an ecclesiastical benefice [a
church office which gives income to the holder] by the Church of
• S. Rocco. The office was to descend in [lolo] Mattia’s family in the male
line according to primogeniture [first-born male]. The Order was to approve
each

• candidate for office according to his moral qualifications. When the family
line became extinct, the office would pass to the Order.
• [Lolo] Mattia was succeeded by [tatay] Annibale. Unfortunately, [tatay]
Annibale sold the land where the Church stood to NANNI & OTHERS. In
1921, [tatay] Annibale died.
• Subsequently, a resolution was adopted by the Council of the
Sovereign Order of Malta on December 15, 1923 which granted
investiture of the benefice [a permanent ceremonial conferment by the
Church] to Guisseppe Pace [the son], subject to the condition that
Guisseppe recover property sold by his father, [tatay] Annibale.

• The Tribunal of Avezzano [kinda like an RTC] made a declaration that

the acts by which the benefice was endowed were null and void on the
ground that State authorization had not been obtained for the
acquisition of the property under the Law of June 5, 1850. Thus, the
Tribunal rejected Guisseppe’s request for restitution.
• The Court of Aquila [kinda like a CA] reversed and held that the alienation
by [tatay] Annibale was a nullity. It gave judgment for restitution. Hence,
this appeal by NANNI & OTHERS.
• NANNI & OTHERS argue the following:

• (1) The endowment of the benefice was a nullity because the approval
required by a Neapolitan Law of 1819 had not been obtained;
• (2) The Chuch was in Neapolitan territory; and
• (3) The Order must be regarded as a religious institution in the canonical
sense — a gift or endowment in favor of the Order required State
authorization by the Law of June 5, 1980. Thus, the Order had acquired no
title to the benefice.
ISSUE(S.E.SIVAM)
• Whether the grant by the Order to Guisseppe is invalid because of the
lack of state authorization. NO, the condition of the grant is valid
because state authorization is not needed by the Order which is
considered a juridical person of its own.
Recit-Ready Facts(AJAY)
• The Sovereign Order of Malta granted a benefice to Guisseppe Pace.
However, this grant was subject to the condition that Guisseppe
recover the property where its church stood that was sold by
Guisseppe’s father to Nanni & Others. Thus, Guisseppe instituted an
action for the recovery of the property against Nanni & Others. The
CFI denied the petition. But on appeal, the Tribunal granted the
petition. When it reached the highest Court, it likewise sustained the
Tribunal’s decision.
• Nanni & Other’s contention is that the Order needed state
authorization before it can accept property. Thus, the conferment of
the grant was void. The Tribunal and the Highest Court denied this
contention and held that the Order is a juridical entity of its own by
reason of its origins, historical development, and position in the
international legal community. Notably, the Order maintains
diplomatic relations with 93 states. Lastly, the Italian State recognizes
the right of the Order to confer title through 2 Royal Decrees and 1
Convention.
Doctrine(AJAY)
• It is impossible to deny to other international collective units a limited
capacity of acting internationally within the ambit and the actual
exercise of their own functions with the resulting international
juridical personality and capacity which is its necessary and natural
corollary
Application to the case(NAGARAJAN)
• This case provides an example of Non-State Entities who are given a
juridical personality under international law. The Sovereign Order of
Malta, by virtue of customary norm of international law, was
considered a separate juridical entity of its own which was allowed to
acquire property of its own.
Disposition of the Court(NAGARAJAN)
• We must therefore conclude that, given the position which is,
according to our legal system, enjoyed by the Order as an international
person, there was no necessity, for the valid acquisition of this
property, to obtain the permission of the government.
This recognition is manifested by the
following(ASHWIN KESAVAN)
• (1) Convention of February 20, 1884 by which the Italian State
recognized the aims and emblems of the Order, its right of active
legation, and the right to confer titles;
• (2) The Royal Decree of October 7, 1923 by which, on the
termination of the military occupation of Corfu, the government
entrusted to the Order a mission suited to its character as a universal
institution; and
• (3) Decree of November 28, 1929, which reconfirmed the title of the
Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta in Court ceremonial and at
public functions.
• “It is impossible to deny to other international collective units a
limited capacity of acting internationally within the ambit and the
actual exercise of their own functions with the resulting international
juridical personality and capacity which is its necessary and natural
corollary. In accordance with these doctrines, such personality was
never denied to the Holy See even before the Lateran Treaty of 1929,
and it is unanimously conceded to the League of Nations, although it
is neither a State, nor a super-State, nor a Confederation of States. It is
equally conceded to certain international administrative unions.”
EXPLANATION(KAARUNYAA)
• The Court held that the Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta possesses a
juridical character resulting from its origins, historical development, and
position held in the international legal community. “Just as the Order had a
special legal character, so had the endowment which ... did not require State
authorization.”

• “[T]he Sovereign Order of Malta, being a juridical entity, did not require
[State authorization] for the valid acquisition of this property [ ] prescribed
by the Law of 1850, because the destination of the said property was not the
Order itself but the endowed institution, which could not be legally
assimilated to a juridical person or to other autonomous bodies.
• “It is, accordingly, by virtue of a customary norm of international law,
received by our own internal law, exempt from the necessity of
obtaining the permission of the government for the acquisition of
immovable property for its own institutional purposes.”

• “Historically, the essential element of such autonomy can be found in

the political nature of the mission which the Order has been destined
to fulfill, namely, by the aid of its arms to resist the Saracen and
Mohammedan menace and to establish its hospitallers in the Levant.
In the course of centuries it has aided in the establishment of
Christianity and of European “
• “The definitely European and universal character of its aims and ideals
must be admitted. These aims are charity, Christian piety, and spiritual
enlightenment.”

• “Finally, the recognition on the part of the Italian State of the

‘sovereignty and independence with which the Order acts in the
fulfillment of its mission’ is, above all, the indirect consequence of
being considered free from all repressive and restrictive laws, with
regard to the tenure of immovable property, and also with regard to the
public activity of ecclesiastical orders, as well as the laws relating to
charitable bodies and juridical entities in general.”