1
Keywords
Civil Law, Will Inheritance, Conditional Will, Will Obligations, Legal Obligations, Support Obligations, Hierarchical Comparison
2
Basic Case Facts
The deceased Gu Moumou was the spouse of Shen Mou1, and they had seven children: Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, Gu Jia E, Gu Yi B, Gu Jia D, and Gu Jia F. Shen Mou1 passed away on May 14, 1996; Gu Moumou died on December 15, 2017. At the time of their deaths, both of their parents had predeceased them.Gu Jia F died on October 4, 2013, and was married to Shen Mou2, with no children.Third party Gu Jia G is the daughter of Gu Jia D.
On June 1, 2018, the respondents Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, and Gu Jia C jointly filed a lawsuit in the Xuhui District People’s Court of Shanghai,requesting that the two-thirds share of the property located at *** Room, Guan Sheng Yuan Road, Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as *** Room) belonging to the deceased Gu Moumou be equally inherited by the three plaintiffs and defendant Gu Jia D; they requested that the inheritance be in the form of joint ownership without actual division of the property.
The first-instance court found that the property rights of *** Room were registered in 2000 under the names of Gu Jia F and Gu Bing (joint ownership), and were later changed on May 25, 2009, to include Gu Jia F, Gu Bing, and Gu Moumou (joint ownership). After Gu Jia F’s death, their spouse Shen Mou2 filed a lawsuit for division of property and inheritance disputes in the first-instance court. On July 22, 2016, the first-instance court issued civil judgment (2015) Xu Min Yi (Civil) No. 9796, determining and ruling thatthe property rights of *** Room were held by Gu Jia F, Gu Bing, and Gu Moumou, each enjoying one-third; the one-third property share of Gu Jia F in *** Room belongs to Gu Moumou. Gu Moumou and others appealed, and the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court issued civil judgment (2016) Hu 01 Min Zhong 9259 on October 27, 2016, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. Currently, the property rights of *** Room have not been changed. Gu Jia D incurred expenses of RMB 59,559.20 for Gu Moumou’s funeral (the same currency applies below).
During the first-instance court proceedings, Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, and Gu Jia C provided a copy of the notarized will dated August 8, 2009, and a lawyer’s witness certificate dated August 11, 2009, which mainly stated thatthe property rights in *** Room owned by Gu Moumou would be inherited by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D; Gu Moumou would keep the bank deposits for their own use for future living expenses, and if insufficient, the six children (grandchildren) would share the burden according to the property shares.Lawyers Xu and Pan were entrusted by Gu Moumou to witness the authenticity of the notarized will dated August 8, 2009.
During the first-instance court proceedings, witness Cai testified that they were neighbors of Gu Moumou. One day in 2009, they went to Gu Moumou’s *** Room at Gu Moumou’s request to notarize the disputed will, which mainly stated that the *** Room would be inherited by four children, although the witness could not recall which four children. The notarized will was signed by Gu Moumou and witnessed by Cai and Gu Moumou’s caregiver. Later, due to concerns about the validity of the notarized will, witness Cai invited two lawyers to witness the will the day after it was made. After inquiring about relevant matters, the two lawyers issued relevant documents confirming the validity of the disputed notarized will. One of the lawyers, Xu, also testified in court.It was confirmed that the witnesses present at the making of the disputed will included Gu Moumou, Cai, Gu Moumou’s caregiver, the witness, and their lawyer assistant Pan. The remaining evidence corroborated the testimony of Cai. During the first-instance court proceedings, Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, and Gu Jia C stated thatthey were unable to contact the will witnesses Li (Gu Moumou’s caregiver) and Pan (Xu’s lawyer assistant) to testify.
During the first-instance court proceedings, Gu Jia D stated that Gu Moumou had borrowed money from them,with all loans documented (the content was written by Gu Jia D), specifically: first, a loan of RMB 36,000 on January 5, 2013; second, a loan of RMB 52,000 on October 3, 2014; third, a loan of RMB 63,000 on November 20, 2015; fourth, a loan of RMB 55,000 on July 10, 2016. These funds were all paid in cash by Gu Jia D to Gu Moumou for caregiver and medical expenses.Additionally, Gu Jia D paid a total of RMB 84,387 for litigation fees and RMB 948 for purchasing albumin, which were also cash payments to Gu Moumou but without written loan documentation.
The Xuhui District People’s Court of Shanghai issued civil judgment (2018) Hu 0104 Min Chu 12469 on November 14, 2018: 1. The two-thirds share of the property located at *** Room, Guan Sheng Yuan Road, Shanghai, belonging to the deceased Gu Moumou, shall be equally inherited by the plaintiffs Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and defendants Gu Jia E, Gu Yi B, Gu Jia D; 2. Plaintiffs Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and defendants Gu Jia E, Gu Yi B shall pay defendant Gu Jia D the funeral expenses of RMB 9,926.53 within ten days from the date the judgment takes effect. The case acceptance fee was halved, totaling RMB 9,600, to be borne by plaintiffs Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C each bearing RMB 1,600, and defendants Gu Jia E, Gu Yi B, Gu Jia D each bearing RMB 1,600.
Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, and Gu Jia C were dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed, requesting: to revoke the original judgment and rule in favor of the appellants’ first-instance claims. Gu Jia D was also dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed, requesting: 1. To revoke the first item of the original judgment and rule that the two-thirds share of the property belonging to the deceased Gu Moumou be equally inherited by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D; 2. To deduct Gu Jia D’s claims against Gu Moumou totaling 267,000 RMB from Gu Moumou’s estate, which includes 13 loans.
The Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court, upon review, found thatthe text of the disputed notarized will, the notary, and witness testimonies corroborate each other, proving that when the notarized will was established on August 8, 2009, there were two witnesses, Cai and Li, present, and that the notarized will expressed Gu Moumou’s true intentions and met the legal requirements for notarized wills.Therefore, it was determined that the notarized will made by Gu Moumou on August 8, 2009, was legal and valid. The first-instance court’s determination was incorrect and was corrected. Furthermore,regarding Gu Jia D’s claims for loans and other expenses, due to the large amounts involved, Gu Jia D did not provide evidence of the cash payments or loan documentation for other expenses, thus the court did not support Gu Jia D’s claims.The first-instance court’s determination was correct and was upheld. The Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court issued civil judgment (2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong 395 on February 28, 2019: 1. Uphold the second item of the civil judgment (2018) Hu 0104 Min Chu 12469 of the Xuhui District People’s Court; 2. Revoke the first item of the civil judgment (2018) Hu 0104 Min Chu 12469 of the Xuhui District People’s Court; 3. The two-thirds share of the property located at *** Room, Guan Sheng Yuan Road, Shanghai, belonging to the deceased Gu Moumou, shall be equally inherited by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D. The first-instance case acceptance fee totaled RMB 9,600, to be borne by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D, each bearing RMB 1,600. The second-instance case acceptance fee totaled RMB 12,800, to be borne by appellants Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, Gu Jia D, each bearing RMB 2,133, and respondents Gu Jia E, Gu Yi B each bearing RMB 2,134.
Gu Jia E and Gu Yi B were dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment and applied for retrial to the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court. On August 27, 2019, the court issued civil ruling (2019) Hu 01 Min Shen 344, rejecting the retrial application of Gu Jia E and Gu Yi B.
Gu Yi B was dissatisfied and applied for a protest to the procuratorial organ.The Shanghai People’s Procuratorate filed a protest with the Shanghai High People’s Court on the grounds of incorrect subject for bearing funeral expenses.The Shanghai High People’s Court supported this and ordered a retrial.The Shanghai High People’s Court, upon review, found that the disputed will was valid and should fully respect the testator’s wishes, allowing the four will heirs to inherit the property while sharing the funeral expenses.The original first and second-instance judgments applied the law incorrectly and should be corrected. The Shanghai High People’s Court issued civil judgment (2020) Hu Min Zai 11 on September 18, 2020: 1. Uphold the second and third items of the civil judgment (2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong 395 of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court; 2. Revoke the first item of the civil judgment (2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong 395 of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court; 3. Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C shall pay Gu Jia D the funeral expenses of RMB 14,889.8 within ten days from the date this judgment takes effect. The first-instance case acceptance fee of RMB 9,600 shall be borne by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D, each bearing RMB 2,400. The second-instance case acceptance fee of RMB 12,800 shall be borne by Gu Jia A, Gu Jia B, Gu Jia C, and Gu Jia D, each bearing RMB 3,200.
3
Judgment Reasoning
The effective judgment of the court found that regarding the validity of the will in this case: the will was witnessed by Cai and Li, who were present and signed at the time of its establishment, and the next day, lawyers Xu and Pan confirmed the will. The facts of this case, apart from the disputed notarized will and the lawyer’s witness certificate, also included testimonies from Cai and Xu in the original first-instance proceedings, and the evidence can corroborate each other. The establishment of the disputed will reflects the true intentions of the testator and meets the legal requirements for notarized wills, thus the will is legal and valid. Regarding the sharing of funeral expenses: the law does not prohibit the testator from imposing obligations on the heirs through the will. However, according to the principles of rights and obligations consistency and fairness, the obligations of the heirs should be less than the benefits obtained from the inheritance. The heirs agree to bear the obligations of the will..The disputed will clearly states that the deceased’s “living expenses” should be paid from their own property first, and if insufficient, the six younger generations listed in the will should share the burden according to the property shares. There is currently no evidence proving that the deceased’s own property is sufficient to cover the funeral expenses, thus according to the will’s intent, the funeral expenses should be shared by the six heirs listed in the will. However, considering that Gu Jia F and Gu Bing did not receive any benefits from the will, and Gu Jia F died before the testator Gu Moumou, this part of the will does not apply to Gu Jia F and Gu Bing.
In summary, the disputed will is valid, and the testator’s wishes should be fully respected, allowing the four will heirs to inherit the property while sharing the funeral expenses.
4
Judgment Summary
1.China’s Inheritance Law recognizes conditional wills as an important way for citizens to dispose of their estates, affirming the status and role of conditional wills in the inheritance system. The notarized will in this case is a conditional will and is also a civil legal act with obligations. The imposition of this obligation is a unilateral expression of intent, requiring no negotiation with the other party, nor their consent; the other party only has the option to accept or reject it. The obligation is mandatory, and if the other party fails to fulfill the obligation, their rights may be revoked.
2. China’s Inheritance Law and others stipulate that adult children have the obligation to support their parents. The obligation to support parents is a legal obligation, but it is the parents’ freedom to specify which child will provide support in the will. Designating a caregiver does not exempt other children from their support obligations. In the case of the testator’s support obligations, there exists a situation where legal obligations and will obligations coexist. From the nature of the obligations, the obligations of the will should take precedence, while legal obligations serve as a supplementary fallback. According to the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Law, the will’s disposition of the estate takes precedence over the implied legal disposition rules. Therefore, only when the will heirs are unable to fulfill the support obligations, do the other legal heirs assume the support obligations. From the original intent of establishing the will system, the will system aims to reflect the testator’s wishes and protect their right to dispose of their property. From the content of the will in this case, the testator’s intention is not for all legal heirs to bear the support obligations. From the principle of rights and obligations consistency, the other two non-will heirs did not receive any inheritance benefits, and thus requiring them to bear the funeral expenses does not align with the principle of rights and obligations consistency. The obligations of the four will heirs are also clearly less than the inheritance benefits they enjoy.
5
Related Index
Articles 1122, 1127, 1134, 1135, 1137, 1138, 1139 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (the applicable law in this case is Article 3, Article 10, Article 17 of the Inheritance Law of the People’s Republic of China, effective from October 1, 1985)
First Instance: Civil Judgment (2018) Hu 0104 Min Chu 12469 of the Xuhui District People’s Court (November 14, 2018)
Second Instance: Civil Judgment (2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong 395 of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court (February 28, 2019)
Retrial Review: Civil Ruling (2019) Hu 01 Min Shen 344 of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court (August 27, 2019)
Retrial: Civil Judgment (2020) Hu Min Zai 11 of the Shanghai High People’s Court (September 18, 2020)
Source: People’s Court Case Database
【Copyright Statement】:
This article is reproduced from the internet, and the copyright belongs to the original author. It is for learning and reference only and is prohibited for commercial use. If there is any infringement, please contact for deletion!
|
Lawyer Li Dongfang, lawyer at Fujian Tianliang Law Firm, graduated from Fudan University Law School, obtained lawyer qualification in 2000, and has published several legal papers in national publications such as “Legal System and Society” and “New West” over more than 20 years of legal practice. In 2025, he authored the book “Company Law for Entrepreneurs” published by the Law Press, specializing in handling corporate legal affairs, tort compensation, contract disputes, divorce disputes, and criminal defense cases. ————————–—–————— For more information, please scan the QR code below
|
