A daughter gets rid of the 10,326.52 euros of pending community quotas left by her deceased parents, after demonstrating that she never accepted the inheritance or performed sufficient acts to be considered the heiress. The Provincial Court of Granada clarifies that only the reverie inheritance responds to debts until there is a formal acceptance of the inheritance, and rejects that simple appearance in a writing implies a tacit acceptance.
According to the sentence of April 2025, the problem arises when after the death of the parents, the daughter was called to the inheritance that included the debts of the neighborhood community. This, not being able to collect it, filed a law heiress.
You may be interested
María Cristina Clemente, notary: “You are not obliged to leave anything to your brothers and nephews in the will if you have no children”
Irene Gramage, expert lawyer in inheritances: “If you want to make a resignation in favor of a brother, you have to know that this resignation taxes as a donation”
The Court of First Instance No. 7 of Granada estimated the demand of the community and solidarily condemned both the inheritance and the daughter to pay the 10,326.52 euros claimed. Understands that the heiress had Accepted inheritance tacitly according to articles 999 and 1000.3 of the Civil Code, citing, for example, its intervention as a granting in a writing of assignment and transmission for the onerous basis after the death of the parents.
Appear in a writing does not imply a tacit acceptance of inheritance
The Provincial Hearing of Granada rejected this argument by considering that, according to articles 657, 659, 988, 989, 999 and 1000 of the Civil Code, which regulate the right of succession, the opening of the inheritance, the acquisition of the status of heir and the acceptance (express or tacit) of the inheritance and jurisprudence of the supreme court, the acquisition of the inheritance of inheritance, the acquisition of the inheritance is The call to inherit accepts the inheritance, and this acceptance can be express (in writing, in public or private document) or tacit, but in the latter case it must be derived from “clear, conclusive and sufficiently expressive acts of the will to accept”.
He also stressed that any action related to the patrimony of the deceased is not enough, only the acts that undoubtedly demonstrate the will to assume the heir condition, such as taking possession of the goods, having them or paying debts of the deceased, can be considered tacit acceptance.
After analyzing the evidence, he concluded that the only action attributed to the daughter is to have appeared in a writing of assignment and transmission after the death of her parents. However, the court understood that it does not imply, by itself, a clear and unequivocal act of acceptance of inheritance, or that the heiress assumed rights or debts as such.
Therefore, it cannot be considered that there would have been tacit or express acceptance, and the claim can only be directed against the inheritance, not against the daughter. This sentence was not firm and a appeal was filed against the Supreme Court.