The Cuenca Provincial Court overturned Deprivation of the daughter Because the reason his father mentioned in the will was not proven. The conflict dates back to 2005, when Carlos Manuel Rosa (fictitious names) was disinherited according to Article 853.1 of the Civil Code, which allows this if the descendant, in this case his daughter, He mistreated his father—specifically, according to plaintiff, by depriving him of food without legitimate reason.
In a second will more than a decade later, on February 9, 2017, the deceased again formalized his last will and testament, reiterating the excommunication of Rosa and extends to grandchildren, His daughter’s sons are named for the same reason. On the same day he signed a statement in the notary’s office, in which he set out a series of facts with which he intended to justify his decision, although the notary himself warned that only a properly executed will would have succession effects.
Since the death of Carlos Manuel, the inheritance debate has moved to the courts and sparked a crisis Conflict between brothers. Florian (not his real name), the heir named in the will, defended the validity of the father’s decision throughout the judicial process.
After learning of her father’s decision, Rosa filed an ordinary lawsuit in the Court of First Instance and Education No. 1 of Cuenca in 2021 to challenge the disinheritance. The court rejected his claim in December 2024 and awarded him the costs of the operation. Right away, Rosa resume.
In this second case, the Regional Court recognized that the only reason reflected in the will was the refusal of maintenance and emphasized the relevant legal distinction between that reason and the reason. That of emotional abuse or abandonment. That is, the law stipulates that the reasons for deprivation of inheritance must be analyzed separately and the judge can decide whether one, the other, or both are present, but he cannot confuse them or take away their independence.
Regarding the first reason, the judicial decision concluded that it was not proven that the deceased requested any assistance from his daughter. Nor will he deny itThis is a prerequisite for deprivation of inheritance to be effective for this reason.
Thus, the appeal evaluation eliminated the universal heir institution that favored the son and allowed Rosa Access to strict legitimacy as a daughter. The court declares that there is no reason for disinheritance, does not impose costs in any of the cases and agrees to return the appeal deposit. This decision may be appealed before the Supreme Court within twenty days.
About The Author
