Section 1629 Descendants has
six sequences. And under the provisions of Section 1630, paragraph 2, each of
them is entitled to inherit the following.
(1) the deceased
(2) Parents
(3) brothers and sisters
(4) The same father or mother.
(5) grandparents grandmother
(6) Uncle Aunt
The living spouse is a heir
apparent. Subject to the special provisions of Section 1635
Section 1630, as long as a
heir is still alive. Or have successors instead of missing, as the case may be
in a certain order. As specified in Section 1629, heirs who are in descending
order shall not be entitled to inheritance of the deceased.
However, the provisions of the
preceding paragraph shall not apply in the particular case in which a successor
has lived or has successors, as the case may be. And parents are still alive.
In such a case, the parents are divided as if they were the children's heirs.
Section 1631. During the
succession of different levels. The children of the most intimate inheritance
only have the inheritance. The successors in the next floor will inherit the
inheritance instead.
Section 1632 Under the
provisions of Section 1629, the final separation of the inheritance of the
heirs of the heirs shall be in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this
Chapter.
Section 1633 of the same
hierarchy. In one order As stated in Section 1629, it is preferable to receive
the same share. If, in a single order, there is a sole heir, the heir is
entitled to all share.
Section 1634. Between the
successors of inheritance in the share of one line. In accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 2, Chapter 4, the inheritance shall be granted.
(1) If there are dissenters
The deceased's closest son is the only one who has the right to inherit. The
descendants of the next floor will inherit the inheritance instead.
(2) Successors in the same
class receive equal share.
(3) If one of the class has
one successor The descendant is entitled to all share.
Section 1635. Sequence and
share of spouses who are alive in the inheritance of the deceased. To be as
follows.
(1) If there is a descendant
under section 1629 (1) who is still alive or has a successor, as the case may
be The surviving spouse I have a right to share as if he is a child heir.
(2) If the heirs under Section
1629 (3) and their heirs are still alive or have their heirs If there is no
heir under Section 1629 (1), but heirs under Section 1629 (2), as the case may
be, the surviving spouse shall have the right to inherit half.
(3) If there is a heir under
Section 1629 (4) or (6) and the heirs are still alive. Or have a successor. Or
have a heir under Section 1629 (5), as the case may be, a spouse who is still
alive. There are two inheritance rights in the third.
(4) If there is no heir
specified in Section 1629, the surviving spouse is entitled to all of the
inheritance.
Section 1636. If the estate
has a lawful wife before the Civil and Commercial Code, many people still live.
All of them have the same inheritance and inheritance rights as defined in
Section 1635, but each of them has the right to inherit half of the royalties.
Section 1637. If any spouse is
still living as a beneficiary under the life insurance contract The spouse is
entitled to receive the entire amount agreed with the insurer. But must take a
premium. It is only possible to prove that it is higher than the amount that
the deceased will pay as a premium. According to their income or status,
usually the former spouse of the other party. Or Marital Property, as the case
may be.
Nevertheless The amount of
insurance premiums to be returned in accordance with the above provisions shall
not exceed the amount of money paid by the insurer.
Section 1638 When both spouses
invest money in contracting. And according to the contract, both parties must
be paid yearly while living together. And when one party dies. The survivors
will still be paid the following year. The living I need to repay the old one.
Or Marital Property, as the case may be. I have the original money. Or use Marital
Property to invest. The money will have to pay the same or Marital Property.
The amount paid by the annuity will be used to increase the extra. The payer
will pay the annuity to the surviving spouse.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2947/2560.
The petitioner has been appointed as
the trustee of A. By court order, the petitioner prosecutes several inheritance
cases. The petitioner has not inherited from his successor. It can not manage
the inheritance and share the legacy. When the share of A's inheritance is
still waiting for the relevant case. A person acting as a trustee must act as a
representative of the heirs in order to carry out various acts of inheritance.
The inheritance of A. Include inheritance in the inherited company to the heir
when a death in accordance with Section 1599 paragraph one is the inheritance
of inheritance. The petitioner has the authority and responsibility under the
provisions of the law governing the inheritance is another matter that must be
considered separately. The inheritance of the inheritance does not allow the
claimant as a trustee to act on the inheritance instead of the heir. Especially
when there is no share of inheritance. Every successor of A's inheritance is
included in the inheritance, which remains in the name of A. The applicant as a
trustee would prefer to use the inheritance rights instead of the heirs. The
general authority to maintain the interests of the estate. The petitioner, as
the trustee, authorizes the attending shareholders to vote and cast their
votes. It is in the margin of power of the petitioner. The objection claims
that the petitioner has exercised his inheritance rights to the heirs, thereby
violating the rights of the heirs. The chairman of the meeting has ruled that
the plaintiff's claimant as the trustee of Meeting attendance It does not have
the right to vote to reduce shareholder rights. The shares in the legacy of A.
There is no voting power, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1182 requires
all shareholders have the right to vote at the shareholders' meeting. The
resolution of the shareholders' meeting, the disputes that do not provide the
proxy of the petitioner as the manager of the inheritance of A. have the right
to vote at the meeting. It violates the provisions of the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4483/2559.
Both plaintiffs sued to split the
ownership of land dispute that the land is owned by both plaintiff and
defendant 2 and 2 defendant that the land dispute is used as the establishment
of the fire business of the defendant and the defendant. 2, as a private, no
obligation to redeem the mortgage and share ownership in the land. The land
dispute is not the defendant's first, but the Court of First Instance to issue
a dispute that the land disputes are the property of the store to be brought
for liquidation or ownership of the property between the plaintiff and the
other owners. It's not right. And the Court of Appeal 6 ruled that the land is
the property of the Mon to invest in the stock of the defendant as a hearing
that the land of the defendant is not like it. The problem is to determine
whether the two defendants must redeem the mortgage land disputes and divide
the ownership of the two plaintiffs or whether the ownership of the land
disputes are derived from the compromise agreement. The compromise agreement is
a collective agreement on the land of 8 plots of land and shares in the mall,
the defendant with the shares in the company R. For other land plots registered
mortgage, provided that the defendant's money to mortgage 1 redemption. And
transfer to the named heir. The land disputes, which at the time of the
compromise agreement, is the mortgage of the defendant's debts to the bank
before. There is no mention of mortgage redemption. Only specify the ownership
portion of each owner. The hearing included the fact that the disputed land was
the site of a mill and other buildings that had been used since the start of
the business to the present. And the debt that the mortgage dispute is insured,
it is the defendant that a lender from the bank to use in business. When the
owner included in the land disputes is the shareholder in the mall, the
defendant 1, with the equity portion of the shares, so that the owner of the
ownership of the land is intended to use the land dispute is the place to operate
the mill and use. To secure the debt of the defendant 1 for the benefit of the
business of the first defendant if the land will be divided to the owner of the
property. None at this time would not be in accordance with the intention also
affect the operations of the department not to venture further. The court has
ruled that there is no reason to stop the store, which will damage the
partnership, which owns all the land. Even a single owner. They have the right
to call for dividends. But it is called to be divided in a time that is not
opportune, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1363, paragraph
three, it is considered that it is not a reasonable opportunity that the
plaintiffs, which owns the ownership of the land disputes. And a partner in the
mall, the defendant will call for a division of property.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1762-1763/2559.
Section 42 of the Revenue Code states
that "the following types of income shall be exempted from calculation for
income tax purposes: (9) Sale of movable property. Or movable property acquired
without commercial purpose or profit ... "The Company shall have the
objective to trade in profits to be shared among shareholders. The stock is
therefore considered to be acquired by commercial or profit. Revenue from the
sale of shares is therefore subject to income tax assessment. Unless it proves
that the stock was acquired without commercial intent or profit. When the
inheritance passed The company was incorporated and the land and buildings were
transferred to the Company. Both plaintiffs and seven other heirs are
shareholders, after which another company was incorporated. Subsequently, the
plaintiffs agreed to transfer their shares in both companies to the Company
with the inheritance of the inheritors and heirs established the company and
divided the shares to both plaintiffs and other heirs. It is the preservation
of the income derived from the business to the heirs of the shareholders who
hold the two companies. And share of the plaintiff with the heirs. It is expected
that the value of this property will increase more and more, so it is
considered that the acquisition of both companies is a matter of trade, profit
and not the establishment of the company without benefit or profit. To share
with the shareholders. It can not be heard that the plaintiffs obtained shares
of the company without commercial or profit under Section 42 (9)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15721/2558.
According to the memoirs do not
inherit the two plaintiffs both defendants and A. The words to the land
officials are important. The land dispute is the name of the owner of the
property of the husband of WAC has filed a request for inheritance of this plot
of land, both plaintiffs, both defendants and his heirs do not wish to inherit
the land. The transfer of the land to the two defendants as follows: not to
take the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1612, 1613
because of the removal. Fecundity must be taking its part by not specific to
any person to heirs. According to the provisions of Section 850, 852 and 1750,
paragraph two of the plaintiff, who is the descendant of the WT, has no right
to sue the land dispute from the two defendants.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10756/2558.
The plaintiff filed a petition to
seize the land dispute, claiming that the property of the T., Which was handed
over to the defendant and the defendant defendant claims that the defendant has
no title holder. Do not own the ownership. The plaintiff has no power to seize
the land dispute. The defendant did not deny that property dispute is not
legacy property of T. So listen to the fact. Defendant is a lawyer of the Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 1629 (1) has the right to inherit land disputes
under Section 1599 paragraph one. It is necessary to make the inheritance of T.
to his heirs under Section 1719 and to be liable to his heirs under Section
1720. Although Land Dispensation as the manager of the estate will be listed as
a change of name of the officer. Mounting debts forced the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10692/2558.
Legitimacy cases are different types
of cases. Laws are separate and separate in the law enforcement. The lawsuit
regarding the inheritance is five years, according to Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1733, paragraph two, the case is under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1754, the second and third defendants are not inheritors, but heirs.
And the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. It is a legacy. The age of 1754, while the
plaintiff sued the defendant, the first, which is a trustee. The claim may
divide the inheritance of the plaintiff from the second and third defendants,
which is the heir to the case on the management of the inheritance. Section
193/9 states that "any claim. If not within the legal period. Section
193/14 stipulates that "the age of stumbling stops in the following cases:
(1) ... any act of unreasonableness shall implicitly demonstrate that the
condition of the debt According to the claim ... "and Section 193/15, paragraph
one," When the age of stumbling stops. The second paragraph states that
"when the age of the interruption ceases, the age of the new age
begins." The plaintiff demanded the inheritance of the defendant. No. 2
and No. 3, which is in force under Section 1754, and is in force under Section
193/9, Section 193/14 and Section 193/15, with the fact that at the death of
the day. On July 27, 1994, the Court of Appeal established the Legislature's
estate on July 18, 2538, so the age of inheritance ceased in accordance with
Section 193/14. The second and third defendants as the heirs of the state on
September 28, 2538 without transfer to the plaintiff, a heir. But from the
testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff also owns property inherited by
the House, which is part of the legacy of the dispute. It is the case that the
defendants 2 and 3 acted without any doubt that implicitly implies that the
plaintiff still possesses the inheritance, which causes the age to stop
stumbling under Section 193/14, but when there. The fact that MPs mortgage
redemption by MPs have notified the mortgagee banks. The bank does not provide
the land use certificate to the plaintiff. And the transfer of their own land
to the defendants 2 and 3 of the circumstances of the defendants 2 and 3, the
defendant is not intended to inherit the plaintiff from the date the bank
informed the plaintiff no later than day. Therefore, the possession of the
plaintiff's property, which causes the age of stumble to cease, is not
considered the plaintiff's possession of the inheritance is not divided. But
that day. The new counting began on that day, according to Section 193/15,
paragraph two, the plaintiff filed the case for more than one year. Section
1754, paragraph one shall be terminated.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9277/2558.
In the case before the lawsuit
against the heirs of Police Lieutenant Colonel to share the legacy. And share
the estate. The Court of First Instance has the final judgment in the
compromise agreement and the case. The judgment is binding. The method of
sharing the inheritance will be completely completed by the compromise
agreement or not. How is that the couple in the case must go to the prosecution
in the class. Yes, bring a new lawsuit. When the legacy auction is enforced
under a compromise agreement in the original case. If not, the plaintiff, the
successor of the MPs to argue in the enforcement class in the case. The
plaintiff sued no new lawsuit. The plaintiff sued the inheritance under the
contract of inheritance, so it sued the same reason before the case. Forbidding
to disassociate again. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff was sued by the Civil
and Commercial Code Section 148. The plaintiff claimed that there are other
properties that are not agreed in the compromise agreement. So I filed for the
inheritance. The inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1600,
1602 is the acquisition of the same. It is not acquired by the right to each
property as a separate right. The issue is the same as before. The plaintiff
sued in the said section. The lawsuit was repeatedly prohibited by the Civil
Code Section 148 as well.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6667/2558.
Judgment of the court that the five
defendants share the estate of the plaintiff to the heirs together. The
plaintiff and the five defendants as the heirs and owners, including all the
property is divided between the owners together. The sale of the property and
then sold the money is divided according to Section 1364, paragraph one, but
when no such action. Only the plaintiff negotiated with the defendant, 5 heirs
who have the right to receive one share without the defendant, the fifth was
assigned by another heir to negotiate with the plaintiff. I can not hear that
the owner can not agree to split the property. Cause of the inheritance to the
auction under Section 1364, paragraph two, when it can not be considered that
the enforcement of the plaintiff's judgment is in accordance with the order of
division of property. Therefore, the legalization of inheritance must be
revoked.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6308/2558.
Although the verdict set the
four defendants as the estate manager divided the property into nine plaintiffs
and three petitioners in accordance with the ratio divided by the judgment.
However, when the plaintiff 5 as a collective owner, which is entitled to share
in the estate of every plot of the dead, the other does not consent. The
division of the four defendants can not be done with the consent of all the
owners. The case is a division of property. Not a legal act that the plaintiff
will hold a verdict of intention to represent the four defendants in the
division of the plaintiff's fifth estate as a creditor under the judgment,
therefore, have the right to request the enforcement of the Enforcement Officer
to enforce the inheritance. Auction When the plaintiff 5 requested to enforce
the case, and the Enforcement Officer has seized all property within ten years
from the date of the final judgment under the Civil Procedure Code Section 271,
but the enforcement has not been completed. Enforcement Officer shall have the
power to execute the case until it is completed. The deadline for the execution
of the case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1776/2558.
The testimony of the person to the true
origin of the land sale contract is why the name of the defendant is the
transferee. It is not a proof to enforce the contract between the buyer and the
seller. It is not an additional proof, truncated, or altered text in the
document. It is not prohibited by the Civil Code Section 94 of the death of the
defendant jointly borrow money to buy land with townhouses. Before the marriage
registration and help with debt repayment, the bank joined the original
partnership. However, the ownership of land with townhouses does not appear to
have agreed otherwise. It is the ownership of the death of the defendant in
half, so when the land with the townhouse is the property that the defendant
died before the marriage. It is a private property of the death to the
defendant by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1471 (1) The death of the
defendant together with the defendant in the purchase of the first marriage.
Land with townhouse to mortgage debt. Then there is a debt payment until the
mortgage is registered with the name of the defendant after the marriage. It is
only the debt repayment process with the defendant. Can not make land with
townhouse, which is a private property of the deceased with the defendant
before the marriage must become a sinus. Land with townhouses is a legacy of
the dead half. There is no legal provision requiring the court to establish a
trustee to identify the estate of the deceased. The defendant filed a request
without specifying another 5 plots in the estate. It is not considered as an
obscure legacy. As a result, the defendant must be disposed of the inheritance
of the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1578/2558.
According to Section 1562, "Any
person who sued his or her own civil case or a criminal case. But when that
person or his close relative requests In this case, the plaintiff is the
descendant who has the right of inheritance of the sergeant, the death of the
lieutenant-general, the father of the plaintiff's father, who died before the
deceased. And the right to demand that the defendant, the plaintiff as the
plaintiff as the estate of the deceased, arranged the inheritance to the
plaintiff's civil rights. But the plaintiff sued the defendant to the penalty
under Section 1, Section 352, 353, 354 in order to be the first defendant to
the penalty. It is the defendant's request to be liable to the plaintiff in a
criminal case. The trustee who is guilty of the offense under the provisions of
the law and must be punished by criminal law shall be punished in private. Due
to the criminal nature of the lawsuit, the lawsuit does not impose penalties as
a trustee, as well as liability as a civilian inheritor. The lawsuit between
the plaintiff and the defendant is a provocation. The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the plaintiff. Section 1562,
the plaintiff has no power to sue the defendant. The power of lawsuit is a
lawsuit against the defendant. There are no doubts. The Supreme Court has
raised its own diagnosis under Section 195 paragraph two of Section 225.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1276/2558.
The plaintiff has the right of
inheritance of the plaintiff since the registration of the plaintiff was
adopted by the deceased wife, who is the wife of the law of the consent of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is considered a successor. The son of the law of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627 when the death before the death of the
father. The property is a disputed land, which is private property. The spouse
is a heir apparent under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1629, paragraph
two, and has the right of inheritance of MPs under Section 1635, even if the
consent of the defendant is a trustee and not interfere with the estate. But
when it does not appear that the intention to waive the inheritance under
Section 1612 BC, is still legally entitled to legally abolished the legacy of
the death of the estate without sharing the estate. The plaintiff, who is the
descendant of the inheritance of the plaintiff as a legal successor son. The
right to sue the defendant as a manager of the estate of the land dispute as a
legacy of the MP in the fall to the defendant is the estate of the MPA, which
is obliged to share the inheritance of the heirs. People, including spouses who
were alive while the brigade died. The defendant as the estate transfer manager
property dispute three legally converted. The only thing that can be shared is
the unlawful inheritance. The defendant did not have ownership of the land. And
it is considered that the ownership of the registered land in the land is only
the possession of the dispute instead of all other descendants of all.
Defendant can not raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754
to fight the plaintiff, who is entitled to inheritance of the MP in the fall,
the plaintiff's case is not terminated.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13706/2557.
The plaintiff and the defendant made
a memorandum on the management of the inheritance of the heirs of the family
that the defendant alone will be liable for the existing liabilities with the
bank. The descendants consent to the land and buildings to the ownership of the
defendant. And to the motorcycle business Co., Ltd. with all the existing debt
on such business, the defendant is solely responsible. The business of the
defendant. The agreement is a sharing of inheritance and debt to settle one of
the existing disputes, with each other waiving the same. It is a compromise
agreement under Section 850 when the defendant completed the debt to the bank.
The defendant shall have the right to land according to the memorandum. The
plaintiff's original complaint is that. The plaintiff as the successor of the
monk asked to share the inheritance of the defendant as the estate manager of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff sold the land title deed No. 39247, which is the
inheritance of the e. To outsiders at the price of 1,113,900 baht and has
shared some of the heirs, except for the defendant with some heirs have not
received a share. The defendant filed a lawsuit to divide the property to the
plaintiff and the successor of each of the defendants in the same amount of the
defendant's claim to the plaintiff's share of the estate is a title deed no.
39247, the plaintiff sold and said in the lawsuit. I have not divided the
defendant. The defendant filed a lawsuit to share the same property that the
plaintiff said in the original. It is a counterclaim against the original
lawsuit. I would like to finish the same case. Defendant must not be separated
into a separate case under Civil Code Section 177 paragraph three.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13705/2557.
As the estate manager of the
registration of the transfer of land dispute as their own personal. It does not
appear that R. announced his descendants all that no intention to take
possession of the property instead of the successor to the private ownership as
a sole owner. It is considered that the possession of land dispute as a legacy
of the successor of the other heirs and representatives of the heirs to share
the estate until the death. When the defendant 1 to 4 possession of the land
dispute, then from the r. It must be considered defendants 1 to 4, occupying
the land dispute, instead of the heirs of the same fate, and the land of
another conversion does not appear to have been shared. Heir Show that the
inheritance of FR must also be shared with the heirs. The inheritance
management of the FR has not finished. Age prohibits the heirs filed within
five years. Since the management of the estate has not begun, according to
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, so the plaintiff as a
land dispute will have the right to follow up the land disputes to bring the
heirs to the plaintiff's case is not Expire.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11631/2557.
Defendant 2 is a trustee of the
California Court of Appeals. United States The inheritance of the deceased in
the United States. Even later, the Court of First Instance will order the
plaintiff and the defendant to be the estate of the deceased together in
Thailand. The amount of $ 2,800,000 that the six defendants received due to
sharing the estate of the deceased in foreign countries. that Not the money
that the six defendants have the liability to pay the dead while the dead are
dead. It is not debt owed to the property inherited by the estate manager or
heir to the estate under Section 1736, paragraph two, but if the inheritance of
the deceased to the six defendants and share. And then each occupied as a
section under Section 1599, paragraph one and 1750, paragraph one of the
creditors of the estate will use the right to claim debt before or after
sharing. It's a legacy we can all do. But when the inheritance. A creditor may
call one of his heirs pay no more than the inheritance he has received. In such
cases. Any successor who pays debts to the creditors of the inheritance exceeds
the portion he or she must take to repay the debt. The descendant has the right
to recruit other heirs under Section 1738, paragraph two, so that Bank A. Bank
or any of the estate will claim to pay off the money that the six defendants
have inherited the inheritance. It is the right of the creditors of the estate
to claim any six or all of the defendants. However, as long as the lender of
inheritance has not been paid, the heirs who have inherited the inheritance
will claim that the inheritance management has been completed as a lien against
the inheritance debtors, not only and still be liable to the lender of
inheritance only. The inheritance of that heir is received under Section 1601
and 1738, paragraph two, when the plaintiff did not appear to pay the debt to
any of the creditors of the estate. The plaintiff as the descendant of the
deceased has no power to sue for recourse to the money that the six defendants
or other heirs have the share of such property under Section 1738, paragraph
two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7844/2557.
The three plaintiffs and the
defendants are the same successor of the same property. Like to get equal share
of inheritance. They have rights and duties related to inheritance management
that are not shared until the inheritance is completed. It can be considered
that the plaintiffs and the third defendant in the land dispute as well as the
defendant as the estate manager of the transfer of land dispute to the
defendant 2 solely without the consent. From every heir The misconduct of the
estate manager under Section 1719, so the three plaintiffs as the heirs, the
stakeholders and the right to inherit property will file a share of the estate,
the defendant transferred to the second defendant. The sole defendant from the
defendant in Section 1745 under Section 1363, when the plaintiff sued the third
defendant as a manager of the estate to transfer the land dispute to the second
defendant, but only the defendant. Which one is correct It is a case of
inheritance management. The mandatory age under Section 1733 paragraph two is
not enforceable under Section 1754, paragraph one, and Section 1755.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7068/2557.
Section 1613 provides that the
inheritance will be done only partially or do not have conditions or time. Compromise
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant stated. The defendant agreed
to share the estate of four houses, which were planted on the land leased from
the temple and another 10,000 baht to the plaintiff, the plaintiff accepted the
share. Not one of the defendants pleaded for property. The fact is that in
addition to the four houses, there are also seven houses, which are planted on
land leased from the temple and land disputes, which is another legacy. But the
contract does not mention it. If the inheritance is a partial renunciation. It
can not be assumed that the compromise agreement divides the inheritance as a
legacy. And the plaintiff did not waive the right to land disputes. However,
the fact is that. After the defendant filed a request to transfer the estate 7
houses, then filed a request to register the transfer of property legacy
dispute. The plaintiff's intention to consent to the defendant to transfer the
property of the land disputes to the land. Such a situation is a compromise agreement
for the right of inheritance under Section 1612 at the end and Section 850. The
plaintiff has no right to sue for land disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4264/2557.
The plaintiff sued the court after
the defendant was a manager. It appears that to date, over 13 years, the
defendant did not share the inheritance legacy and inheritance outside the
will, including the fruits of the estate to the plaintiff and his heirs. The
plaintiff had previously told the defendant to divide the estate several times.
But the defendant ignored. To enforce the defendant in his personal capacity
and as the estate manager of the Senate, the estate is in the filing of the
request to the plaintiff. Defendant Land and commercial buildings as legacy,
the plaintiff, the defendant and his descendants all agreed to make a legacy
sharing agreement on July 25, 2536 after the contract. Plaintiffs and other
heirs do not care to take possession of inheritance in their own part. The
defendant took possession of himself continuously to the present. The right to
inheritance is completely to the defendant. The plaintiff lost the right to
inherit all of the property by the age. Show that the defendant as a trustee. I
did not register the name of the plaintiff as a successor. The inheritance
management has not ended. The claim of the plaintiff is not terminated
according to Section 1733 paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1533/2557.
The age of the lawsuit filed under
Section 1754 is the case where the heirs do not have possession of the
inheritance lawsuit for inheritance as the right to inherit the law. If the inheritance
is not shared and the heir still possesses the inheritance or another heir is
inherited. In this case, the heirs can sue for the inheritance under Section
1748, not under the provisions of Section 1754, because there is no law
enforcing the heirs who do not own inheritance property, but other heirs
possession, must file for inheritance. The other heirs to replace in 1 year and
the heirs have inherited some of the heirs instead of other heirs. If you have
not changed the intention of possession. It is considered a possession instead.
When the defendant 2 and 3, the right to inherit the school property as a
plaintiff instead. And did not intend to change the possession. Even the
plaintiff sued the inheritance over 10 years since the estate died. The case
will not expire. The age of inheritance under Section 1754 may not be enforced.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12752/2056.
It is only the occupation of the
deceased and the petitioner. The identity of the deceased is genuine and does
not entail a legacy that must be shared. The building of the school, which was
planted on the land, according to documents Ror. 6 or c. 4. The petitioner as a
heir is transferred. The petitioner's meeting to set up a foundation or
register a school as a juristic person, as the deceased had spoken before the
death, it can not be considered as a verbal doctrine under Section 1663 because
there is no special circumstances. The terms of the law. So it is not held that
the claimant of the estate has not finished. When the opposing party filed the
petition to withdraw the petitioner after the estate was completed. It is
prohibited under Section 1727.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9317/2556.
The opposition filed a
petition to withdraw the applicant as a trustee under Section 1727 paragraph
one of the only reason. The petitioner does not share the estate of the
deceased in a timely manner, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1732 states that "the trustee must manage his duties and report the
statement and share the inheritance within one year from date. It is stated in
Section 1728 "that the estate manager is responsible for managing the
inheritance within one year. Failure to do so may result in the removal of the
trustee from the estate. The applicant is obliged to share the inheritance to
the heir within one year. The opposition filed a petition to withdraw the
petitioner from the estate before the one year due to the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1732, which still does not hold that the petitioner is not
responsible for sharing the estate to. The heir within the time prescribed by
law will cause the withdrawal of the applicant as a trustee under Section 1727,
and will be considered a petitioner under Section 1713 (2), which will. Author
The trustee is not so well on the objections filed requests. There is no reason
to request. To be considered as a dispute or the right to use the right of
civil suit. Section 55. The objection is not entitled to petition to withdraw
the petitioner from the estate of the deceased and set the objection to the
trustee. Deceased Even later, during the hearing, the petitioner does not share
the inheritance, it is a later event that will be considered as the cause of
the request.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8055/2013.
The inheritance received from the
estate of the Bank is the property of the Bank of Thailand. The estate
administrator has sold the estate to distribute the money to his heirs for a
period of time and receive the share of the inheritance. If you have received a
share of the inheritance of the Bank, then you have specified the same amount
of money separately from the money received from the estate of the Bank for the
money and other funds that are available. Not ah A private property is a property
of a particular type, such as a prior testament to raising the money to the
plaintiff. As a testament to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1651 (2),
not later on, I made a second testament to raise the same amount to the
defendant. The text of both testimonials indicates that the money is in the
hands of the heirs, so that the heirs of the will do not show any intention in
the will. The case must be in accordance with Section 1697, which shall be
deemed to have been revoked by the will. The plaintiff has no right to inherit
the property because the plaintiff's rights have been canceled.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6343/2556.
The three plaintiffs sued. The
plaintiff is the son of MP, who is a descendant of the inheritance. D. The
death of property d. The inheritance of the other MPs and other heirs of the MP
until the death before the defendant. The estate of the three plaintiffs, who
are the descendants of the MPs, is the owner of the property in the estate of
D. But the defendant did not divide the inheritance of the three plaintiffs.
The third plaintiff's claim to be damaged. If the facts are met by the
indictment. Defendant is obliged to share the property to the three plaintiffs,
regardless of whether the defendant is the estate of the MPs or not, the
defendant does not share the property to the plaintiffs, the three are in
dispute, the plaintiffs are in the three. The plaintiff has the power to sue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
22788/2555.
When the plaintiff never occupied
the estate dispute, which is not shared between the heirs. It is not a case of
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748 that the plaintiff will use the
right to claim to share the property even after the age of inheritance. The
plaintiff filed a lawsuit 10 years after the death of her husband. Must be
prohibited from filing under Section 1754 paragraph and the right to
inheritance will fall to the defendant, the successor of the successor of the
inheritance. The defendant requested to be the successor of the estate to have
the power to change the registration documents to complete the right to
property dispute disputes legacy. For the benefit of the plaintiff, which terminated
the right to prosecute the estate by the provisions of the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1754. And although the defendant will testify that the reason for
the transfer of land dispute is the name of the defendant for convenience. In
dividing the inheritance of his heirs, it is not considered that the intention
to pay the benefits of age under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/24,
the plaintiff can not take advantage of Section 193. / 24 Section 1748 claim,
the defendant claimed to divide the estate passed on the age of the estate
under section 1754 then the defendant shall be entitled to raise the age of the
Mayan heritage prosecution under Section 193/10.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
18893/2555.
Section 1726 states that "if
the estate has many people. The act of inheritance must take up the majority
... if the same voice. When interested parties request. The court is the
referee. "The fact that. The plaintiff and the defendant are jointly
managed by the court order. The lawsuit is the power of one of the estate under
Section 1736, paragraph two, so the plaintiff alone can not file alone. Even
the actions of the defendant will be antagonistic and damage to the property.
Because the plaintiff can file a lawsuit to the court for a lawsuit to sue or
request the court to remove the defendant from the estate as a civil case under
Section 1727, paragraph one, in addition, the plaintiff may exercise the right
to be sued. As personal to the defendant, the liability of inheritance under
Section 1733, paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
16312/2555.
When the opposing party has a
dispute about the estate and the petitioner is claiming the property from the
petitioner, the trustee who will give the son of the objection to the trustee
together with the petitioner may not participate. The management of the estate.
The power of the estate manager in the case of two people. Management must be
carried out together. If the two parties, then the case may not be the majority
of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1726, and one can not handle it. It
is expedient to call on the trustee to be the sole trustee, but not to damage
the opposing party who is the heir. Inheritance with registered evidence to a
person who is not a heir who has the right to inherit without the consent of
all heirs. Will need to seek permission from the court first.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
16057/2555.
This case, in addition to the
plaintiff sued to the defendant to get rid of all the inheritance of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff sued all inheritance from the plaintiff's plaintiff.
The case is in compliance with Civil Code Section 142 (2). The lower court both
judge the defendant to divide the inheritance of the plaintiff to the plaintiff.
It is not judged over the application of the plaintiff. Even the defendant will
not have to fight that the three land disputes converted into a surname
acquired between the defendant to eat a husband and wife, but the judge to
divide the inheritance to the rightful heirs. To consider each property as a
sin property as well. The diagnosis of ownership of the three plots of land as
a personal property of the Rama or a Marital Property. between the defendant
and the defendant is in the issue of the case. For the first settlement of the
land was acquired after the marriage and the defendant, according to the Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 1474 is presumed to be Marital Property.
Defendants have the right to land one half. The remaining half must be shared
to all his heirs, but it appears that the defendant transferred the land to the
Court before the Court of First Instance. Can not judge the land to the
plaintiff as a heir. The defendant's money received from the sale of the estate
is to be shared with the heirs of each of the plaintiffs are entitled to the
sale of land as a descendant after the break.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15039/2555.
Singers and dissidents are the heirs
and the children of the deceased. The singer was appointed as the deceased's
estate manager. The landlord disagreed with the land before the inheritance,
living alone, until his death and was appointed governor. The possession of the
land dispute of the petitioner is the possession of the intention to seize it.
And no law says that. Any one heir possesses a single inheritance is clearly
considered to be a replacement for another heir. And when the inheritance died.
The objection has never landed dispute and never requested to divide
inheritance within the age of inheritance 1 year under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1754 paragraph one. The objection has recently sought to divide
the estate after the applicant has been appointed as a trustee. Over a year,
therefore, the claim of the objection to claim the petitioner is prohibited
under Section 1754, paragraph one. Because of this, the estate dispute is the
property of the singer completely. And the petitioner filed a request for
inheritance after the death of nearly 3 years, not specified in the petition to
bring the land disputes to the heirs, it is just that the petitioner has the
power to change the registration. Only For the benefit of the objection and the
other heirs who have the right to sue for inheritance by the age of under
Section 1754, paragraph one, but any claim that the petitioner is a manager can
not hold that the petitioner. According to Section 193/24, the inheritance of
the claimant mentioned above is not a substitute for the other heirs, and
instead of those who oppose it. The right to inherit it by age. So it is not
possible for the objections to be the heirs or the stakeholders to file an
objection to the inheritance. And asked to set up a trustee under Section 1713.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1397 - 1399/2551.
As a heir apparent in the same
fatherhood under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629 (4), unless the
law does not require that. The same father must be the lawful son of the same
father. To interpret that law. Brothers and sisters, the same father must be
the lawful son of the same father, the result will become. The same father and
mother can only be obtained when the marriage between the father and the mother
ends. This is an interpretation that makes law enforcement narrower than the
legal provisions of the law. And not the purpose of the provisions that give
the heirship as a relative. The closest closest is in the order of inheritance
and cut off the relative. In the next order not to have the property of the
deceased under Section 1630. Both brothers are together have the provision of
rights and obligations, such as the right to duty. The father and son are
lawful, therefore, the heirship of a brother in law is the same. When the first
and the deceased are the same father, even if the deceased is the unlawful
child of the father, then the first and the deceased are the same father, the
first one is the descendant of the father. Section 1629 (4) when the deceased,
there is no heir in the other order, higher than the 1st applicant, the
claimant has the right to inherit the deceased. The objection is only the son
of the monk, the uncle of the dead by the heirs of the prosecutor in Section
1629 (6), when the first candidate, who is the 4th inferior heir. So, there is
no right of inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1630,
paragraph one, so that the opposition has no right to property, so the three
petitioners have the right to request the court to set the claimant to be the
administrator. Of the caller death The objection has no such right under
Section 1713.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1854/2551.
The objections to eating my
husband and wife with the mother of the deceased after the enforcement of the
Civil and Commercial Code No. 5 without marriage registration, so even the
objections will support the deceased, which makes the deceased child
illegitimate. The objection accepted by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1627, but the effect of such provisions only to the child is considered a
successor. Like a legitimate son, he has the right to inherit his father. This
has resulted in the unlawful father being the lawful father. The right of
inheritance of a child as a heir of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1629. No objection is not the heirs of the deceased or the stakeholder in the
estate of the deceased will have the right to object to the request for
inheritance, or to request. The court set itself a manager. The legacy of the
dead.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6391 - 6392/2550.
During the Supreme Court's
consideration Opponents 1 and 3 submitted a statement that the petitioner The
first and third objections were agreed upon by the first objectionant as the
sole deceased trustee. However, the agreement has been agreed upon on a few
issues. There are issues that the court must consider the facts in the rhetoric
and then diagnosed. The right and the property of the person who will be the
legal administrator before. The Supreme Court can not be ruled in accordance
with the compromise agreement, the fact is that the first objection is an
illegitimate child, the father approved by the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1627 is deemed to be the deceased. Like a lawful son. The objection to
the heirs under Section 1629 (1) has the right to apply for the estate of the
deceased under Section 1713, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4276 - 4277/2550.
The lawyer of the deceased is
the descendant of the person who has a vested interest in the estate of the
deceased. The Court of First Instance has ordered the applicant to be the
estate of the deceased, so it is appropriate. The objection was not married to
the dead, so it is not lawful husband. The death of a deceased person will not
be accepted by the deceased. Lost in the legacy of the deceased. In addition,
the petitioner's objection confirmed that the land disputes and buildings on.
Dispute land belongs to the one who opposes. So when the dissenter is not a
stakeholder in the estate of the dead, the objection is. No right to request
the court to withdraw the petitioner from the estate of the deceased. Disputed
land and buildings on disputed land. I do not have the right to set up a
trustee of the deceased. Disputed land with buildings will be the property of
the objections. The objection must be prosecuted in part from this case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1625/2550.
Opponent 1 did not register
the marriage with the second protester, the mother of the deceased. And I do
not live with my husband husband before the enforcement of Civil and Commercial
Code 5, which is enforced. The use of the provisions of Part 5 of the Civil and
Commercial Code BE 2477, the first objection to the father is unlawful of the
dead. Although the deceased is an illegitimate child, the first objection has
already been certified by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627, but the
effect of the law is only to be considered dead person who is the deceased.
Just like a legitimate child is entitled to inherit the father. This has
resulted in the unlawful father being a legitimate father. The inheritance of
the child as a heir in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629, when the
first objection is not the heirs or stakeholders in the estate of the deceased.
There is no right to object or request the court to set himself as the estate
manager of the deceased and can not argue that the will is a false or
ineffective testament.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2434/2549.
The plaintiff is the son of
the deceased, so he is a descendant of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1629 (1) is entitled to the inheritance of Mrs. Assumption is only the same
father and mother with her as a heir. The next step is not to inherit the
property of Mrs. Plc. Section 1630, paragraph one, so when the defendant is not
a heir who has the right to inherit. And the plaintiff sued this case to
retrieve the inheritance from the defendant occupier. The case is not a claim
on the estate. The defendant can not extend the inheritance of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one to cut the plaintiff. The
plaintiff sued not to terminate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
603/2549.
Although the plaintiffs'
estate sharing agreement is forbidden to prosecute. There is no evidence in the
signature of the party that is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1750, paragraph two, but the plaintiffs both filed a lawsuit against
the estate of the two plots. Defendant is exercising the right of the plaintiff
to inherit the property, which is entitled to inherit from the defendant as the
defendant is the estate of the plaintiff, both plaintiffs are the legitimate
heirs of the inheritance is entitled to. Divide the inheritance with other
heirs in both land plots of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629, Section
1725, Section 1357.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2696/2548.
Defendant 1 is not the heir of
the deceased and has no authority to handle the dead body, but the defendant is
living with me husband and wife for more than 10 years by the dead to the same
as the defendant. 1 It is counted as a defendant to a request to the court to
appoint another person to be the funeral dead body if the defendant that the
plaintiff is a child who is lawful and is. The drug is justified by the
benefits. Most legacies The authority to handle the funeral of the deceased is
not appropriate to be a funeral director under Section 1649, paragraph two, the
defendant filed a suit to defend the case enough that the defendant has filed a
request under the Chapter. Therefore, when the dead body has been buried in the
Islamic death of the dead. The need to bring dead bodies to the funeral. The
plaintiff has no authority to deliver dead bodies to the plaintiff to handle
the funeral.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2671/2548.
The defendant, who is a joint
trustee, entered into a compromise agreement in court. Share estate legacy and
the defendant withdraw from being a trustee. The court will judge by then. When
it appears that the plaintiff did not give consent, neither signed the
contract. The plaintiff is not bound by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
145. In both cases, the defendant and the defendant misconstrued the
inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1719, so the plaintiff as
a legal successor, stakeholders and rights. Inheritance Sue filed the estate to
the defendant was able to get under Section 1745, Section 1363.
Section 1613 provides that the
inheritance. To do so only partially or to do without the condition or the time
limit, to allow the defendant to divide the property to the defendant so that
the defendant is free of inheritance and will not interfere with other legacy
property. It is prohibited by law. So I do not know how to take a legacy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2733/2548.
The dead have no children and
wife. The parents of the deceased passed away, and the legacy of the deceased
fell. The same father and mother with the dead, including the LLP under Section
1629 (3), when the deceased later without sharing the inheritance will be
received. The successor, however, appears to have passed away before the
inheritance of the plaintiff will be given to the petitioner and f. The
successor of the inheritance under Section 1639, the petitioner has a vested
interest in the estate. And when Notes failure to manage the estate, the
petitioner shall have the right to request a trustee under section 1713 (2).
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4734/2548.
Save the back of the marriage
certificate. Officials have recorded the words that the objectionant and the
deceased provided that both spouses The parties are voluntary and willing to
register the marriage. Both the objection and the dead have signed as evidence.
The registrar has done the same day and same time with the marriage registry in
front. The objection and the dead give the words and the conditions of the law.
In the case of marriage registration with the consent of both parties is legal.
The defect that the deceased person did not sign at the front of the marriage
certificate. The signature of the applicant has not yet been registered. Is not
complete and void
The registration of adoption
under Section 1583 (former) and 1585 (former) of the Family Registration Act,
1935, Section 22 requires the consent of the parent. Not forced The consent
must be made in writing or be signed by the parent of consent. However, when
the fact is that the mother of the girl A. and the boyfriends consented to the
registration of the girl. And the boy MP is adopted, even if the mother is not
signed in the adoption register. Adoption of the deceased is in line with the
law.
The daughter and son are the
same status as the lawful child of the deceased under Section 1586 (original)
or 1598/28 (new) and considered as a descendant as a legitimate child under
Section 1627 is the successor to the rank of (1) under Section 1629, the
petitioner, the heir of the rank (3), is not entitled to the inheritance of the
deceased under Section 1630 paragraph one, the petitioner is not a descendant
and a beneficiary of the inheritance. deceased No power to request the
inheritance.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5279/2548.
Former lawsuit filed against
the plaintiff to revoke tax assessment. The case is a matter of dispute whether
the appraiser and appellant like it or not. And the issue that the court in the
case was the final verdict, then the MP died. In this case, even if the
plaintiff to bring the tax debt arrears in the case against the five defendants
to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's claim is based on the defendant. Debt
owed to the debt owed to the plaintiff has not been paid and the death. The
five defendants are heirs inheritance obligations to pay the debt by bringing.
The property handed over to the five defendants to pay the debt to the
plaintiff. The issue of the plaintiff's case in this case is that. The five
defendants, who are the descendants of the MPs, are obliged to pay the tax debt
of the plaintiff to the plaintiff or not. Which is different in the case
before. Although the five defendants were the successors of the dead, the
condition of the plaintiff's complaint in this case is that the plaintiff sued
the five defendants. The successor of the estate of the MPs in the debt owed to
the plaintiff is already plaintiff. The inheritance of the heirs, especially
the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1599 and Section 1600
is not a matter that the same couple settled again on the issue of the court.
Diagnosed by the same cause, it will be filed under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 148 of the Act on the establishment of tax court Section 29. The
plaintiff sued this case is not repeated.
Even the original lawsuit
against the plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the defendant is the defendant. As a
result, these tax debts are tax exempt. The Director-General of the plaintiff
has the power to order seizure or attachment and auction of property of the MPs
under Section 12 of the Revenue Code, without requiring the court to issue a
seized or ordered. But such provisions are just legal measures that empower the
Director General of the plaintiff. This is especially useful for tax collection
purposes. Must bring the case to court. The powers of the plenipotentiary of
the plaintiff, even if they have the same characteristics as the creditor's
right under the judgment. But it did not result in the plaintiff as a creditor,
tax pay back as a creditor, according to the judgment, and the plaintiff
brought the case to sue the five defendants as heirs who have the right to
inherit. It is to the liability of the five defendants liable to the plaintiff.
The claim arising by the judgment of the Supreme Court in accordance with
Section 193/32, so the plaintiff has the power to sue the five defendants in
this case.
The five defendants are as the
heirs and have the right. The inheritance of the plaintiff sued the lawsuit to
enforce the debt of the outstanding debts of the MP and the judgment of the
Supreme Court would have the effect of binding the plaintiff and the plaintiff
in the case in accordance with the law. Section 145, Section 1, paragraph 1 of
the Act on the establishment of the tax court, Section 29 S may not resurrect
the dispute with the plaintiff about the assessment. And the five defendants as
heirs and successors in the estate of the MPs have no right to dispute the
same. The plaintiff's defense of the five defendants is a fight against the
assessment of Evaluation Officer The five defendants have no right to fight the
plaintiff in this case. This is not the case.
When the five defendants are
descendants, the right of inheritance of MPs, which must be taken over the
property. Rights, duties and liability of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the
power to sue the five defendants, regardless of whether the estate of the MPs
have assets or not. How much? Or the five defendants as inheritors will inherit
it? And even if the plaintiff has the power to seize the property of the MPs to
repay some. And the amount of debt repayment of the MPs or not, as the five
defendants may argue in the enforcement class. The five defendants are liable
to repay the debt to the plaintiff does not exceed the legacy of inheritance
under Section 1601.
(First paragraph, 3/4 of the
Conference)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12456 - 12457/2547.
The heirs have 7 inheritance
rights. The inheritance between the heirs must be divided according to where
each person is entitled. The other heirs did not claim it. Other heirs will be
deemed not to inherit and will be divided by other heirs. The plaintiff and the
plaintiff 4 plaintiff and plaintiff jointly joined the plaintiff. The plaintiff
and plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7474/2547.
The petitioner filed a
petition for the replacement of the plaintiff. It is stated that the petitioner
is a mother to the plaintiff. The brothers and sisters of the same father and
mother are living. But can not contact. The petitioner is the fourth leading
heir when the petitioner is the 3rd leading heir. The applicant is not entitled
to the estate of the plaintiff under Section 1630 paragraph one, the petitioner
is not the heirs of the plaintiff, the death of the plaintiff to replace the
plaintiff under Section 42 paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3046/2539.
Both defendants made a
memorandum of agreement to divide the 1st plaintiff and take possession of the
dispute. The other defendant as well as the defendant will raise the age
according to the Civil Code. Commercial Section 1754 is not fighting his heirs.
The person who will be disqualified under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1605. Only the heirs of the inheritance, while the inheritance of
death. I have inheritors who inherit the plaintiff is 2. And only 3 m. Both
defendants are his wife and children. E. Inherit the part of e. Only (e. I can
not hold that both defendants are descendants who will be eliminated from the
inheritance of the three heirs have the same inheritance is 1441/3 square
meters, the second plaintiff is not. The right to divide the dispute over the
amount of 1661/2 square wah of the rights that the plaintiff will receive.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
241/2522.
Inheritance was registered as
the second defendant to be adopted, the second defendant has the same status as
the lawful child of the inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1586, 1627, when the inheritance passed without a will. Legacy is the
second defendant, the sole plaintiff, a brother, a parent and his inheritance,
have no right to inherit.
Before the inheritance of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff and the second defendant made a legacy. The
contract will be made to settle the dispute in the future. A compromise
agreement But it is a promise that the second defendant, who has the right to
inherit the inheritance, alone to pay the transfer of rights to receive. Some
legacy inheritance to the plaintiff. It is prohibited under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1619 does not apply.
