2/2551 Thailand Supreme
Court Opinion 152 (No. 1397-1399) 2008
Mrs. Preopran Seenuan petitioner Administrator, Mrs. Kanchana Singkavat intervenor, Mrs. Kanchana Singkavat petitioner, Mr. Duan administrator 1, Mr.Suriyan administrator 1 petitioner
Re: Passing of Estate to Rightful Heir
The law does not stipulate that half siblings with the same biological father (section 1629 (4) of the Civil and Commercial Code) must all be lawful children of the same father. Interpreting the law to the effect that siblings with the same biological father must be the lawful children of the same father would mean that the first marriage of the father would have to be terminated prior to his second marriage. This interpretation makes the application of law more restrictive than the provisions of the law dictate and was not the intention of the provisions of laws concerning passing of an estate to the nearest blood relative, and, on the other hand, the barring of remote kin from receiving the Thailand estate of the deceased according to section 1630 of the Civil and Commercial Code.
Furthermore, the provisions of law do not require that siblings have certain responsibilities or duties to each other in the manner of a legal father and child relationship. Therefore, the true facts are that the siblings are rightful heirs with the same biological father.
The first petitioner and the deceased were siblings with the same biological father, and as such were half siblings, even though the deceased was not a lawful child of the father. Therefore, the first petitioner is a rightful heir according to section 1629 (4) of the Civil and Commercial Code. Because the deceased had no lawful descendants nearer in degree of kinship than the first petitioner, the first petitioner shall be entitled to receive the estate of the deceased.
The Intervenor was the child of Jor, the uncle of the deceased who possessed rights to the estate according to section 1629 (6). However, the first petitioner was the fourth nearest blood relative, and nearer in kin than Jor who subsequently died. Therefore, Jor and his descendants have no rights to the estate of the deceased based on the first paragraph, section 1630, of the Civil and Commercial Code. Therefore, the Intervenor has no rights to the estate of the deceased. Consequently, all 3 petitioners shall be entitled to request the court to appoint the first petitioner as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. However, the intervenor has no such rights based on section 1713 of the Civil and Commercial Code.