Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 472/2537, both plaintiffs claimed that they were the lawful adopted children of the deceased and were therefore entitled to inherit from the estate. They brought an action seeking division of the estate and also requested that the defendant be disqualified from inheriting.However, the facts showed that, on the date the deceased registered the plaintiffs as his adopted children, he already had a lawful wife, but his wife had not given her consent to the adoption registration.The Supreme Court held that, at the time of the events, Section 1584 of the Civil and Commercial Code (the former law) provided that an adopter, or a person to be adopted, who had a spouse was required to obtain the spouse’s consent, unless the spouse was of unsound mind or had been missing for not less than one year.Since the deceased’s wife had not given her consent, the adoption registration was not legally valid and did not create a legal relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs as adoptive parent and adopted children. As a result, the plaintiffs did not have the status of heirs and were not entitled to inherit from the deceased.The Supreme Court confirmed that an adoption must fully comply with all legal requirements, particularly the requirement of spousal consent. If such a requirement is not satisfied, the adoption is invalid and does not give rise to inheritance rights for the person claiming to be an adopted child, even if the adoption has been registered.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2591/2526 This case concerned two petitioners who wished to adopt Master Ampornphong, a minor, but were unable to register the adoption because the minor had no father or mother who could provide consent. The father had been declared a missing person, and the mother, who had previously exercised parental power, had died. The relevant authorities therefore took the view that a court order granting permission was first required.The Supreme Court ruled that the Child Adoption Act B.E. 2522 (1979) does not prescribe the procedure to be followed where a minor has no person authorized to give consent. Accordingly, Section 1598/21 of the Civil and Commercial Code must be applied, under which the minor’s legal representative must petition the court for an order permitting the adoption.In this case, the first petitioner was the minor’s legal guardian and therefore had the right to file the petition with the court. The second petitioner, although the husband of the first petitioner and the minor’s uncle by marriage, was not the minor’s legal representative and therefore had no right to file the petition.This judgment demonstrates that the adoption of a minor may still proceed even where the minor has no father or mother who can provide consent. However, the minor’s legal representative must first submit a petition to the court seeking permission. The Supreme Court therefore ordered the Court of First Instance to accept the first petitioner’s petition for inquiry and to issue a new order. The second petitioner’s petition was dismissed because he was not the minor’s legal representative.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2359/2521 In this case, the deceased died intestate. The court had initially appointed the objector as the estate administrator because, at that time, it did not appear that the deceased had any first-ranking statutory heir. The petitioner later filed a petition stating that the petitioner was the deceased’s lawfully adopted child and was therefore the sole first-ranking statutory heir entitled to inherit the entire estate. The petitioner also requested that the court remove the objector as estate administrator and appoint the petitioner in the objector’s place.The objector argued that the registration of the petitioner as an adopted child was invalid because the consent given by the adopter’s spouse was not properly provided. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the law in force at that time required only that the registration of an adoption receive the consent of the adopter’s spouse. It did not require the spouse to sign the consent personally. Therefore, where the competent official recorded that the spouse had provided written consent, this was sufficient, and the adoption registration was valid under the law.As the petitioner was the deceased’s lawfully adopted child, the petitioner had the status of a first-ranking statutory heir and was solely entitled to inherit the deceased’s estate. The objector was not an heir and had no interest in the estate and therefore had no right to continue administering it. The court was entitled to remove the estate administrator even though the administrator had committed no wrongdoing.This judgment establishes the principle that the consent of an adopter’s spouse does not need to be signed personally. Where written consent has been given and recorded by the competent official, the adoption registration is valid under the law, and the adopted child is entitled to inherit as a first-ranking statutory heir.