Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
The significant issue in this case was whether an illegitimate child who had already been acknowledged by the father had the right to inherit and held the status of a descendant. The Petitioner, who was the younger sister of the deceased, filed a petition requesting to be appointed as the administrator of the estate. However, the 1st Objector claimed that he was the child of the deceased and had the right to inherit as a first-ranking statutory heir; therefore, he should be appointed as the administrator of the estate instead.The facts revealed that the deceased had introduced the 1st Objector to relatives, neighbors, and the general public as his child, provided support and care, paid for his education, and named the 1st Objector as a beneficiary in the application form for membership of a funeral welfare association in the capacity of his child.The Supreme Court ruled that such circumstances constituted the father’s acknowledgement of the 1st Objector as his child. Although no registration of child acknowledgement had been made, the 1st Objector was therefore an illegitimate child acknowledged by the father, a descendant, and entitled to inherit the deceased’s estate as a first-ranking statutory heir pursuant to Section 1629 (1) of the Civil and Commercial Code.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appointing the 1st Objector as the administrator of the estate, ruling that when a father openly and continuously expresses that a person is his child, together with providing support and care, such conduct constitutes acknowledgement of a child through circumstances. As a result, such child is entitled to inherit as a descendant even though no registration of child acknowledgement has been made. Meanwhile, the Petitioner, being a sibling of the deceased, was a third-ranking statutory heir and therefore had no right to the estate and no right to petition for appointment as the administrator of the estate.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3833/2559 In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant lived together as husband and wife without registering their marriage and had one child together, namely, Girl W. The defendant later took the minor child to live at the home of the defendant’s parents in Surat Thani Province without informing the plaintiff or obtaining her consent. The plaintiff therefore filed an action requesting that the defendant return the child.Although the defendant was subsequently granted permission to register his recognition of the child and later completed the registration, this did not extinguish the plaintiff’s right to bring the action, which had existed from the outset. The Court also gave primary consideration to the interests and welfare of the minor. It found that the child was only approximately three years old, was a young girl, and was still at an early age requiring close care from her mother.This judgment establishes the principle that, where the father and mother are not legally married and the father has not yet registered his recognition of the child, the mother has sole parental power over the child and is entitled to demand the child’s return. Even if the father subsequently registers his recognition of the child, this does not affect the mother’s original right to bring the action. In reaching its decision, the court must give primary consideration to the interests and welfare of the minor.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1505/2537 In this case, the two petitioners filed a petition seeking appointment as administrators of the deceased’s estate, claiming that they were the deceased’s lawful children. The deceased had died intestate. The objector subsequently filed an objection, asserting that the objector was also a child of the deceased, namely, a child born out of wedlock who had been acknowledged by the deceased. The objector therefore claimed the right to inherit and requested that the court appoint the objector as estate administrator, either alone or jointly with the two petitioners.The Supreme Court ruled that the acknowledgment of a child born out of wedlock must be made by the father himself and must be demonstrated by circumstances showing that the father acknowledged the child as his own. Such circumstances may include providing maintenance, paying for the child’s education, or assigning another person to care for the child on his behalf.In this case, however, the evidence showed that the deceased had neither maintained nor provided education for the objector and had not assigned any other person to care for the objector on his behalf. Although the objector used the deceased’s surname and the person who registered the objector’s birth had identified the deceased as the father, these facts were still insufficient to establish that the deceased had acknowledged the objector as his child through his conduct.This judgment establishes the principle that, for a child born out of wedlock to be regarded as a child acknowledged by the father, it must be proven that the father personally and clearly demonstrated such acknowledgment. Where there is no evidence that the father provided maintenance, paid for the child’s education, or assigned another person to care for the child on his behalf, the child cannot be regarded as having been acknowledged by conduct. The objector was therefore not an heir and had no right to inherit from the deceased’s estate.