Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 416/2563: In this case, the Defendant was appointed by the Court to be the administrator of the estates of 2 deceased persons who left no wills. The Defendant therefore held the duty to prepare an inventory of the estate, collect the assets, and distribute them to the legally entitled heirs within the specified period pursuant to Sections 1719, 1728, 1729, and 1732 of the Civil and Commercial Code.The Supreme Court ruled that an administrator of an estate has no power to manage the estate assets arbitrarily, but must proceed with honesty, good faith, transparency, and openness toward all parties of heirs. The fact that the Defendant transferred land, which was an estate asset, to become the ownership of themself and another person without obtaining the consent of the heirs and without obtaining permission from the Court—even though the Defendant held the duty as an administrator of another person's assets—naturally constitutes an act adverse to the estate under Section 1722. Furthermore, if an administrator of an estate breaches their duties to the extent of causing damage, they must naturally be held civilly liable under Section 1720, and if there is a dishonest intent, it may constitute the offense of embezzlement under the Criminal Code.An administrator of an estate has the duty to manage and administer the estate assets for the benefit of the heirs, rather than holding the right to own the estate assets. Exercising power in bad faith or seeking personal benefit will naturally lead to both civil and criminal liabilities.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 191/2541, the Court of First Instance appointed both the petitioner and the objector as joint administrators of the deceased’s estate. The petitioner later appealed, seeking to be appointed as the sole estate administrator and requesting dismissal of the objector’s petition.While the case was still pending before the Court of Appeal, the objector filed a petition seeking the petitioner’s removal as estate administrator on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prepare an inventory of the estate within the period prescribed by law.The petitioner argued that the order appointing the estate administrators had not yet become final and that there was therefore no obligation to prepare the estate inventory. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It held that the order of the Court of First Instance appointing the petitioner as an estate administrator was already binding. No party had appealed against the petitioner’s appointment itself. Accordingly, regardless of how the Court of Appeal might decide the remaining issues, the petitioner’s status as an estate administrator would not be affected.Once the petitioner and the objector had been appointed as estate administrators and had become aware of the court order, their duties commenced immediately. They were required to begin preparing the estate inventory within 15 days and to complete it within one month as prescribed by law. The petitioner’s argument that there was no obligation to do so while the appeal was pending was therefore without merit. The Court also considered that the petitioner had possession of all the estate property and had been collecting the benefits arising from that property exclusively, but had failed to prepare an estate inventory or distribute the estate to the heirs. The petitioner had also indicated an intention not to prepare the inventory at all. These circumstances provided sufficient grounds for removing the petitioner from the position of estate administrator.This judgment establishes that, once a court has appointed an estate administrator, the administrator’s duties begin upon becoming aware of the appointment order, even if the case remains under appeal. The administrator must prepare the estate inventory within the statutory period. Failure to do so, particularly where the administrator retains possession of the estate and its benefits without distribution, may constitute grounds for removal by the court.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 2295/2565, the deceased died intestate, and the first defendant was appointed as the estate administrator. The first defendant later authorized the second defendant to register the sale of the disputed land, which formed part of the estate, to the third defendant. The proceeds of the sale were then used for the benefit of the first and second defendants, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and the deceased’s children, who were heirs of the estate.The Supreme Court held that an estate administrator has the authority to sell estate property where such sale is necessary for the administration of the estate or for distribution of the estate among the heirs. However, the administrator may not dispose of estate property for personal benefit or in bad faith.Since the first defendant sold the land and then misappropriated the proceeds for personal use, the transaction did not constitute lawful estate administration. Even though the third defendant purchased the property in good faith, paid valuable consideration, and duly registered the transfer, the third defendant could not acquire rights greater than those of the transferor, because the transferor lacked authority to sell the property in those circumstances.This judgment establishes that an estate administrator may sell estate property only for the proper administration and distribution of the estate and must act in good faith. If the administrator sells estate property and uses the proceeds for personal benefit, the heirs are entitled to seek revocation of the transfer and recover the estate property.