Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased made a holographic will leaving all property exclusively to the defendant and stating that the other grandchildren were not entitled to inherit.The deceased later added wording at the end of the will concerning shares in ABN Amro and ZICO, but did not sign the additional wording. Seven statutory heirs therefore brought an action seeking division of the estate, arguing that the will was unenforceable.The Supreme Court held that the additional wording did not comply with the formal requirements for a will under Section 1656 of the Civil and Commercial Code and was therefore unenforceable only to the extent of that addition.However, the invalidity of the additional wording did not render the principal provisions of the will void. The original wording still clearly expressed the deceased’s intention to leave all property to the defendant, while the later addition merely provided further details concerning certain assets.Accordingly, the main provisions of the will remained valid and enforceable, and the invalid addition did not affect the defendant’s entitlement under the original will.

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased made a will stating that, upon death, all property then owned or thereafter acquired would pass to the plaintiff. However, another provision of the will specifically referred to certain land and buildings as being left to the plaintiff. A dispute therefore arose as to whether the will transferred the entire estate or only the specifically identified property.The Supreme Court held that, when the will was read as a whole, it was clear that the deceased intended to leave all property exclusively to the plaintiff. The specific reference to the land and buildings merely identified part of the estate and did not limit the scope of the general disposition. Accordingly, the disputed land passed to the plaintiff under the will.The Court further held that a limitation defense not raised by the defendant at the appellate stage could not later be relied upon as a ground of appeal to the Supreme Court. In addition, because the defendant had already transferred the disputed land to a third party and could no longer return it to the plaintiff, the defendant was required to pay its value together with interest as provided by law.This judgment confirms that a will must be interpreted from its wording as a whole and in accordance with the testator’s true intention. Where the will clearly expresses an intention to leave the entire estate to one beneficiary, the additional identification of particular assets does not restrict that beneficiary’s rights. The beneficiary is therefore entitled to the entire estate in accordance with the testator’s expressed wishes.

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased made two wills. The first will appointed the petitioner as estate administrator, while the later will appointed the objector as estate administrator. The objector therefore argued that the later will had revoked the earlier will and that the petitioner was no longer entitled to be appointed.The Supreme Court held that, although the deceased had made more than one will, the property covered by each will consisted of different portions of the estate. The provisions of the two wills were therefore not inconsistent, and there was no basis for concluding that the later will revoked the appointment of the estate administrator under the earlier will.The petitioner was also an heir and a beneficiary under the will and was therefore entitled to petition the court for appointment as an estate administrator.Considering the deceased’s intention that the two individuals separately manage different portions of the estate, the Court appointed both the petitioner and the objector as estate administrators, with each having authority to administer the property falling within the scope of the respective will.This judgment confirms that a later will does not automatically revoke an earlier will. Where the provisions of the two wills are not inconsistent and relate to different parts of the estate, both wills may remain effective together. The Court will interpret them primarily in accordance with the testator’s true intention.

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased made a will leaving the land and all other property to the petitioner. As a result, the deceased’s child was not entitled to inherit under the will. However, the child was later appointed as estate administrator and, acting in that capacity, transferred the estate land into his own name before mortgaging it to a third party.The Supreme Court held that, although an estate administrator has authority to manage estate property, that authority must be exercised for the benefit of the estate and the testamentary beneficiary. The administrator may not enter into a transaction that benefits himself and conflicts with his fiduciary duties.The transfer of the land into the administrator’s own name was therefore prohibited and void. It was treated as though the transfer had never occurred, and ownership of the land remained with the testamentary beneficiary in accordance with the deceased’s intention.Since the estate administrator was not the true owner of the land, he had no right to mortgage it. Even if the mortgagee claimed to have accepted the mortgage in good faith, that could not make the mortgage binding on the true owner.This judgment confirms that an estate administrator is responsible for administering estate property and does not become the owner of that property merely by virtue of the appointment. Where the administrator uses that authority for personal benefit in a manner that conflicts with the rights of the testamentary beneficiary, the transaction has no legal effect, and the court will protect the beneficiary’s rights in accordance with the testator’s true intention

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased opened a bank account in the name of “Mr. Jirachot for Master Wannathorn” and later made a will leaving the money in that account to another person.The Supreme Court held that, under Section 1646 of the Civil and Commercial Code, a will may govern only the testator’s own property upon death. Once the deceased opened the account for Master Wannathorn, ownership of the deposited funds passed to Master Wannathorn when the bank accepted the money into the account.Although the deceased still retained authority to withdraw money from the account under the arrangement with the bank, that authority amounted only to a power to manage the funds and did not make the deceased the owner of the money.Accordingly, the deceased had no right to dispose of those funds by will. The testamentary provision concerning the money in the account was therefore void and unenforceable.This judgment confirms the important principle that a will can operate only over property owned by the testator. If ownership of the property already belongs to another person, even an express provision in the will cannot transfer that property, because a testator cannot dispose of rights that the testator does not own.