Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
Feature Articles :

Green Policies Take   Off: Thailand’s Support   For Renewable Energy

The Darker Side of   Tropical Bliss: Foreign   Mafia in Thailand

US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 1

US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 2
US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 3
Foreign Investigators:
  Crime Fiction in a Thai
Considerations for
  International Prenuptial
  Agreements in Thailand
Medical Malpractice in

Submissions :

This case decision was researched and translated with the assistance of Chaninat & Leeds a full service law firm providing legal services for client requiring a K1 visa in Thailand.


Supreme Court Opinion Summaries (2/2551)

Note concerning Thailand Supreme court opinions: Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction that also has elements of the common law system. Accordingly, the principle law sources are acts, statutes and regulations. However, published Supreme court decisions are an important part of the legal development of Thailand and are frequently used as a secondary authority. (Summaries sponsored by Chaninat & Leeds)


2/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 142 (No. 1128) 2008
Mr. Don Pattanagitjumloon as First Estate Administrator of Mrs. Somchai Wilaiwan, Mrs. Rattana Wiwattananggoon as Second Estate Administrator of Mrs. Somchai Wilaiwan vs. Sahawanit Construction Company Limited et al.

Administrator of Estate, Enforcement of Agreement

Although the court appointed the two plaintiffs joint administrators of the decedent’s estate, this does not mean that the estate administrators are required by duty to jointly perform or sign all legal documents. This area of Thailand Estate Law is covered in section 1726 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

The plaintiff, as first estate administrator of the decedent’s estate and creditor, entered into the Acceptance of Debt Agreement with the defendant while the second plaintiff, who was another estate administrator, acknowledged and consented to the action, but did not sign as the second estate administrator. The defendant argued the Agreement was not valid due to not having the signatures of both joint estate administrators.   

The Acceptance of Debt Agreement was drafted by the debtor acknowledging his debt to the creditor for loans lent by the estate owner while she was alive. The Agreement does not require the signing of the creditor as party to the Agreement to be valid according to Thai law. Consequently, the Agreement is considered legally valid and enforceable against the second defendant who had acknowledged his debt to the estate owner, whether the Agreement was signed by the plaintiff, as estate administrator, or not



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

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.



© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved
(except where the work is the individual works of the authors as noted)