My son wrote a notarized will before his death and left all his inheritance to his wife. Can a mother inherit?

1. When the decedent dies, if his children are incapacitated and unable to express their wishes, that is, they have not given up inheritance. The legal relationship of inheritance is formed from the date of death of the decedent;

2. The law of succession stipulates that the will should reserve the necessary share of the inheritance for the heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of income. Even if the decedent leaves a will, it is invalid if the contents of the will violate the law;

3. The "Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate" cannot be used as the basis of real estate ownership.

Brief introduction of the case The defendant Duan and the plaintiff Jiang are mother and daughter, and the plaintiff Jiang and the defendant Jiang are brother and sister. Jiang Molian, the husband of the defendant Duan, died of illness in June 198 1. At that time, his daughters Hai Jiang and Jiang Mei were only three and one years old respectively, and his son Jiang was only a few months pregnant.

The disputed house is located in Ziyuan County. When the land was registered as 1990, the defendant Duan handled the collective land construction land use certificate. The registration number is Jian (1990). 80 1 14035. The land user is a section, the land category is residential land, and the land area is 6035.

On July 4th, 20 15, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court, demanding to inherit the legacy left by Jiang Molian. During the trial, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the lawsuit on the grounds of alleviating family conflicts, and the court ruled on September 6, 20 15 that the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the lawsuit. 20 15 15122 October, the plaintiff, Jiang meimou, filed a lawsuit with the court on the grounds of dividing the property, demanding that a quarter of the houses involved be divided.

The court of first instance held that when the plaintiff's father Jiang Moulian died of illness in June 198 1, the plaintiff Jiang Momei was only one year old and had no capacity for civil conduct, so she could not say whether to inherit her father's inheritance. According to the provisions of Article 25 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the plaintiff shall be deemed to have accepted the inheritance.

At the time of land registration in 1990, the defendant Duan handled the Land Use Certificate for Collective Land Construction, and the registration number was Jian (1990) Zi No.80 1 14035, and the land user was Duan. At this point, the plaintiff's right to the disputed house was violated because the plaintiff

By the time the plaintiff got married, the plaintiff and the defendant separated and lived in another family. However, the plaintiff is an adult with full capacity for civil conduct and should claim the infringed civil rights, but the plaintiff does not. In 2009, the defendant moved to a new house to build a new house, and the plaintiff took the children back to the disputed house. The plaintiff still has no claim to the disputed house. Later, due to the intensification of contradictions between the two parties, the plaintiff moved out of the disputed house in April 20 15, and then filed a lawsuit in court to claim rights.

Article 135 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the limitation period for requesting the people's court to protect civil rights is two years, unless otherwise provided by law.

Article 137 stipulates that the limitation of action shall be counted from the time when one knows or should know that one's rights have been infringed. However, if more than 20 years have passed since the right was infringed, the people's court will not protect it. Under special circumstances, the people's court may extend the limitation of action. (Hint: the statute of limitations has been revised. )

From the time when the plaintiff knew that his rights had been infringed to the time when he brought a lawsuit to the court, the limitation period of action exceeded both the general limitation period of two years and the longest limitation period of twenty years, and he lost the right to win the case, so he did not support his claim.

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 135th and 137th of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it is decided that:

Reject the plaintiff's claim. 550 yuan, the acceptance fee of this case, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The appellant claimed that the appellant Jiang Momei refused to accept the judgment of first instance. The appeal claimed that the court of first instance held in the judgment that "when the plaintiff's father Jiang Moulian died of illness in June 198 1, the plaintiff Jiang Momei was only one year old and was a minor ... According to the provisions of Article 25 of the Law of State Succession of People's Republic of China (PRC), it should be regarded as the plaintiff's acceptance of the inheritance".

According to the reply of the Supreme People's Court (1987) MinchuziNo. 12, "If the heirs have not given up the inheritance, according to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the disputed house belongs to all the heirs. Therefore, between them, the property inherited by the appellant and the appellee is * * * *. After the appellant and the appellee accepted the inheritance, they did not divide the inherited property. Even if Duan registered the land use right in his own name 1990, the property should be recognized as the property of the appellant and the appellee according to law.

Since the cause of this case is a property division dispute, the disputed house should be divided reasonably. However, the judgment made in the first instance ignored the provisions of laws and regulations and was obviously wrong.

When the appellee applied for the Certificate for the Use of Collective Construction LandNo. 1990, the appellant was only ten years old. As a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, he could not claim his rights. The land use nature of the disputed house in this case is rural homestead. According to the registration method at that time, the application was made by the head of household. The land use right belongs to family members, and the appellant himself has one. The appellee is only the head of the household. The appellant took the children back to the disputed house in 2009 and lived there until April 20 15. The appellant moved out of the disputed house because of the contradiction between the appellant and the appellee. On June 20 15, the appellant filed a civil lawsuit with no statute of limitations. Therefore, it is wrong to apply the law in the first instance.

Request the court of second instance to cancel (20 15) Zi Min Zi Chu No.488 civil judgment according to law, and change the judgment that one quarter of the house in this case belongs to the appellant according to law. The fees for accepting cases of first instance and second instance shall be borne by the appellee.

The court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the appellant Jiang Meimou's application exceeds the limitation of action of two years and whether he enjoys a quarter of the house left by his father.

We believe that the disputed house in this case is the house built by the appellant's father Jiang Molian and the appellee Duan Mou before their marriage, and it is Jiang Molian's personal property before marriage. Because Jiang Molian died after being married to the appellee Duan for more than four years, and Jiang Molian's parents died earlier than Jiang Molian, at that time, Jiang Molian's three children were under three years old and had no ability to express their wishes, that is, they did not give up inheritance. The legal relationship of inheritance has been formed since the death of the decedent Jiang Molian. Therefore, according to the law, the house legacy of Jiang Moulian after his death should be inherited by his wife Duan and his three-year-old eldest daughter Jiang, his one-year-old second daughter Jiang and his posthumous son Jiang.

The appellee Duan argued that her husband, Jiang Molian, had a will before his death, and all the property belonged to Duan on the premise that he could recruit a husband at home without remarriage after his death. At the same time, two cousins of Jiang Molian testified in court to prove the existence of the will.

According to Article 19 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "A will should reserve the necessary share of the inheritance for the heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of income", and the existing laws have rigid provisions on the share of the inheritance of the unborn fetus, so even if there is a will of the decedent Jiang Molian, it is against the law and should be confirmed invalid.

Although Duan Mou, the appellee, applied for the collective construction land use certificate on 1990, it belongs to a filing work carried out by the people's governments of counties in Guangxi for the land use registration survey after the promulgation of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, and it is generally required to apply for registration in the name of every household in rural Guangxi. Collective land construction land use certificate is not registered in the name of all * * * owners. It can only prove the construction land area, the building area and the four boundaries of the building, but can't reflect and reflect the floor and area of the building and the actual situation of the owner. Different from the real estate license, the collective land construction land use certificate cannot be used as the basis of real estate ownership.

When handling this certificate, the appellant was only ten years old and belonged to a person with limited capacity for civil conduct. As the mother, Duan, the appellee, only exercised the owner's right to apply for registration, which did not constitute an infringement of the appellant's property rights. The appellant lived in the disputed house in this case for 20 years from birth to marriage, and exercised the right to use the house he inherited from his father. After the marriage, the appellant returned the disputed house from 2009 to April 23, 20 15, and repaired the house to exercise the right to use the pipe industry.

The appellee Duan never presided over his children to divide the property of the disputed house. Before Duan asked the appellant to move out of the house, the appellant lived and used the disputed house for a long time, but Duan did not infringe and deprive the appellant of his rights, so the appellant did not claim his rights from Duan. After the appellee asked the appellant to move out of the disputed house, the appellant filed a lawsuit within three months. Therefore, there is no statute of limitations in this case.

Because the legal facts of inheritance have already been formed, the ownership of the houses involved has become * * * and * * *, and this case belongs to a property division dispute, so the property should be divided and distributed according to the legal number of heirs and inheritance share in the first order. Considering that the appellant's father Jiang Molian lived with his husband and wife for more than 4 years before his death, after Jiang Molian's death, the appellee Duan raised the appellant and his three children, and managed and repaired the disputed house for more than 30 years. He paid and contributed to the family's labor and pain, praised her for her excellent mother virtue of enduring humiliation and dragging her children, and separated. The appellant's request to allocate a quarter of the ownership of the house is unfair and unreasonable and cannot be fully supported. Our court will give one-sixth of the analysis share of the disputed house to the appellant as appropriate.

Jiang Haimou, the eldest daughter of the appellee Duan, made it clear in the case (20 15) Zi Min No.351tried by the People's Court of Ziyuan County that the disposal of the disputed house was decided by her mother, and if she gave a copy, there would be no dispute. Therefore, in this case, Jiang Haimou was not listed as a party in the first instance, and the court did not add him as a party. The procedure is legal.

To sum up, the court of first instance improperly handled the application of the law and the entity, and our court corrected it according to law. In accordance with the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Article 78 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:

1. Revoke the civil judgment of Zi Min Zi Chu No.488 of Ziyuan County People's Court of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (20 15);

2. Appellant Jiang Meimou enjoys one-sixth of the property right share of the house No.80 1 14035 of Ziyuan County Construction (1990);

Three. Rejected the appellant Jiang Meimou's other claims.

In this case, the court fees for the first and second trials totaled 1 100 yuan, which was borne by the appellant Jiang, 550 yuan; The appellee Duan and Jiang each bear 550 yuan.