Succession

The Supreme Court (TS) has resolved a fairly typical conflict in inheritances regarding what happens when a heir "renounces" and the will stated that, if someone was missing, their descendants (what is called vulgar substitution). In this case, the deceased had made a will clearly separating the different parts of the inheritance. On one hand, she left the thirds of improvement and free disposition to her two living children , in equal parts. And, on the other hand, she regulated the strict legitimacy naming those two children as heirs and also three grandchildren (children of a third child who had already passed away), also in equal parts . Furthermore, in the will she added vulgar substitution for all the called, in favor of their respective descendants.

When the deceased passes away and the succession opens, the two living children renounce purely and simply to the inheritance. From there arises the discussion, should their children (the grandchildren of the deceased) take their place in all parts of the inheritance, including the strict legitime, or only in some? The accountant-partitioner understood that it was not the same for everyone , in improvement and free disposition the descendants would enter by substitution, but in the strict legitime no ; there, the share of the renouncers had to pass to the other legitimaries (in this case, to the grandchildren of the deceased son).

The TS confirms that way of distributing. Although as a general rule vulgar substitution can work if someone repudiates (renounces), the strict legitime has a special regime and "more rigid", if a child renounces that part, their descendants do not become therefore legitimaries of the grandfather, and the renounced share is distributed among the other existing heirs when the succession opens. In contrast, in the thirds of improvement and free disposition, the vulgar substitution operates as the testator had foreseen.

In inheritance disputes, our professionals can advise you in the defense of your claims and rights.