Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was the lawful child of Mr. Sai Sutthiwiset, brought an action seeking recognition of rights in three items of estate property: a house, a rice granary, and one parcel of farmland. The plaintiff argued that the deceased had not made a will leaving the property to anyone else and had orally expressed an intention that the plaintiff alone should receive it.The defendant, who claimed to be the deceased’s wife, argued that there had been a written record dividing the property in the presence of several witnesses. However, that document did not bear the deceased’s signature or fingerprint.The Supreme Court held that the document did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid will. Even if it were treated as an oral will, the witnesses had not reported the testamentary declaration to the district authority within the period required by Sections 1663 and 1665 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The purported testamentary disposition was therefore invalid.The Court further held that the defendant had not been legally registered as the deceased’s spouse and therefore did not acquire inheritance rights as a lawful spouse. In addition, there had been no completed transfer of the property during the deceased’s lifetime, so no valid gift had taken effect.Accordingly, the purported written or oral disposition could not be relied upon to transfer the estate property, and inheritance rights had to be determined under the applicable rules governing lawful heirs and valid testamentary dispositions.

Interesting Article
Wat Noi Saeng Chan, acting through its abbot, authorized Mr. Maen Chanthai to bring an action against four defendants seeking the return of property listed in the schedule attached to the complaint. The temple alleged that the property belonged to the temple but had been taken and used by the defendants for their own benefit without lawful authority.The defendants argued that the plaintiff had no standing to sue, that some of the listed property did not exist, and that certain items belonged to the former abbot, who had left them to the defendants by will. They also raised a limitation defense.The Supreme Court held that a temple is a juristic person under the Sangha Act B.E. 2484. The abbot therefore had authority to bring proceedings in the temple’s name and could authorize another person to act on the temple’s behalf under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code.The Court further held that a will in which the witnesses signed first and the testator affixed a fingerprint three days later in the presence of those same witnesses was valid under Section 1656 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the will was effective only in respect of property personally owned by the testator and could not dispose of property belonging to the temple.The Court also held that this was not an inheritance action, but an action to recover temple property held by the defendants without lawful right. The limitation rules applicable to inheritance claims therefore did not apply.The Supreme Court accordingly ordered the return only of property belonging to the temple. Property belonging to Phra Khru Phun or to other persons fell outside the scope of the temple’s claim.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was the lawful child of Mr. Sai Sutthiwiset, brought an action seeking recognition of rights in three items of estate property: a house, a rice granary, and one parcel of farmland. The plaintiff argued that the deceased had not made a will leaving the property to anyone else and had orally expressed an intention that the plaintiff alone should receive it.The defendant, who claimed to be the deceased’s wife, argued that there had been a written record dividing the property in the presence of several witnesses. However, that document did not bear the deceased’s signature or fingerprint.The Supreme Court held that the document did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid will. Even if it were treated as an oral will, the witnesses had not reported the testamentary declaration to the district authority within the period required by Sections 1663 and 1665 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The purported testamentary disposition was therefore invalid.The Court further held that the defendant had not been legally registered as the deceased’s spouse and therefore did not acquire inheritance rights as a lawful spouse. In addition, there had been no completed transfer of the property during the deceased’s lifetime, so no valid gift had taken effect.Accordingly, the purported written or oral disposition could not be relied upon to transfer the estate property, and inheritance rights had to be determined under the applicable rules governing lawful heirs and valid testamentary dispositions.

Interesting Article
This case arose from a dispute between the petitioner, who was the lawful wife of Second Lieutenant Wiboon, the deceased, and the objector, who was the deceased’s elder brother. The objector had previously been appointed estate administrator under a will made in B.E. 2519, under which certain property had been left to him.The petitioner later discovered a subsequent will dated September 28, B.E. 2520, which revoked the earlier will and directed that all of the deceased’s property be presented to His Majesty the King. The petitioner therefore sought the removal of the objector as estate administrator, relying in part on her ownership rights in marital property, which included several assets of substantial value that the deceased could not dispose of by will insofar as they belonged to her.The objector argued that the petitioner had no legal interest because she was not named in the later will.The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It held that the surviving spouse owns one-half of the marital property in her own right. The deceased had no authority to dispose by will of the portion belonging to the surviving spouse.The petitioner therefore had a direct legal interest in the estate proceedings even though she was not a beneficiary named in the will.The Court further considered that the petitioner had previously been appointed as an estate administrator, while the objector no longer had any entitlement to property under the later will. The Court therefore ordered the removal of the objector from the position of estate administrator under Section 1727 of the Civil and Commercial Code.This judgment confirms that a surviving spouse’s rights in marital property exist independently of inheritance rights under a will. The deceased may dispose by will only of property that forms part of the deceased’s own estate and cannot dispose of the surviving spouse’s ownership share in marital property.

Interesting Article
In this case, the petitioner applied to be appointed as estate administrator, relying on a will under which the deceased had left property to the petitioner and other persons. The Court of First Instance initially granted the application. The objector, who was a statutory heir, later challenged the will on the ground that it had not been executed in accordance with the legal requirements.The Supreme Court held that the will relied upon was a public document will under Section 1658 (1) of the Civil and Commercial Code, which required execution in the presence of two witnesses at the same time.However, the witnesses gave conflicting testimony on material points. One witness stated that he did not know that the document was a will and had merely signed a blank document. There was also no clear evidence establishing that the relevant signatures had in fact been made in the presence of both witnesses as required by law.The Court therefore held that the will was void under Section 1705 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Although the petitioner was a statutory heir and was not otherwise legally disqualified from serving as estate administrator, the Court considered that the petitioner’s reliance on a void will had created doubt and distrust among the co-heirs. In the interests of the estate as a whole, the Court therefore exercised its discretion not to appoint the petitioner as estate administrator. This judgment confirms that witnesses to a will must genuinely participate in its execution in the manner required by law. A witness who does not know that the document is a will, signs a blank document, or is not present during the required execution process may cause the will to fail for non-compliance with statutory formalities.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff brought an action seeking a declaration that the deceased’s will was void, arguing that the witnesses named in the will were not present when the document was signed and did not personally see the testator sign it.The defendant argued that although the witnesses had not been present at the time of signing, they later spoke with the testator and received confirmation of the testator’s true intention. The defendant therefore contended that the witnesses understood the deceased’s wishes and had signed the document in good faith.The Supreme Court held that, under Sections 1656 and 1705 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the witnesses must sign the will while present with the testator at the time of execution. If they sign later or did not witness the execution, the statutory formalities have not been satisfied and the will is void. A later confirmation of the testator’s intention cannot cure that defect.The Court further held that although the Court of First Instance had not specifically framed the validity of the will’s formal execution as an issue, the Court of Appeal was entitled to raise and determine it because it involved a question of law concerning public order under Section 225, paragraph two, of the Civil Procedure Code.This judgment confirms that compliance with the statutory formalities of a will is fundamental to its validity. Where those formal requirements are not observed, the will cannot be enforced regardless of subsequent evidence concerning the testator’s true intention.