The Provincial Court of Madrid has confirmed that a donation of property made by a mother in favor of one of her daughters must be reduced to respect the legitimate rights of the rest of the heirs. Justice clarifies that it is not enough for the testator to say in her will that she had already given amounts during her lifetime to the rest of the forced heirs to cover their strict legitimate interests, but those payments must be proven.
According to the ruling of December 1, 2025, the case began after several heirs claimed against a donation of real estate made by the deceased, in favor of her daughter through a notarial deed. The plaintiffs understood that this donation harmed their legitimate rights, that is, the minimum part of the inheritance that the law reserves for certain family members.
David Jiménez, expert inheritance lawyer, clarifies whether you can claim the money taken from your parents’ account from your brother
A caregiver is left with the inheritance of an elderly man with cognitive impairment: she took over his house and became the universal heir according to the will
The Court of First Instance No. 74 of Madrid agreed with them and declared the donation inoffitious. This means that the donation was not necessarily completely annulled, but it had to be reduced by the necessary part so that the other heirs could receive the legitimate amount that corresponded to them. Despite this, the defendants appealed, alleging that the sentence was not sufficiently motivated and that a phrase included in the deceased’s will had not been taken into account, in which she stated that while she was alive she had given amounts to her daughters that, according to her, covered her strict legitimate rights.
The Court clarifies that it is not enough to say in the will that the heirs have already received
The Provincial Court of Madrid recalled that the legitimate is a protected part of the inheritance. Article 813 of the Civil Code establishes that the testator cannot deprive the heirs of their legitimate inheritance except in cases expressly provided for by law. Simply put, a person can distribute part of their assets however they want, but they cannot leave those who have the right to it without the minimum legal share.
The ruling also cited article 1035 of the Civil Code, which establishes that the forced heir who participates with other heirs must bring to the estate the assets or values that he would have received from the deceased during his lifetime by donation or other gratuitous title. This is done to correctly calculate the legitimes and then divide the inheritance.
Furthermore, article 1036 of the Civil Code allows the donor to exclude collation when expressly provided for. Collation is the operation by which what an heir received during life is taken into account to prevent him from collecting twice: first through the donation and then in the hereditary distribution. But this dispensation has a limit, if the donation harms the legitimate rights of other heirs, it may have to be reduced.
The key to the case was in the phrase in the will in which the mother said that she had already given amounts to her daughters to cover their legacies. The appellants argued that, since this statement existed, it was up to the plaintiffs to prove that they had not received those amounts.
However, the Court rejected this argument. According to the court, the burden of proof did not work that way. According to article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law, whoever intends to benefit from a fact must prove it. Therefore, if the defendants wanted to maintain that the other heirs had already received during their lifetime what was legitimately theirs, they were the ones who had to prove it.
The Court considered that the payment of the legitime cannot be considered proven just because the mother left it written in the will. For this statement to have effects against other legitimate parties, it must be accompanied by evidence: documents, supporting documents, transfers, receipts, deeds or other elements that prove that these deliveries really existed.
The court warned that accepting the opposite would in practice allow certain heirs to be left without legitimate rights without complying with the rules of disinheritance. That is, it would be enough for a person to say in their will that they have already paid an heir to deprive them of their minimum share, without expressing a legal cause for disinheritance or proving it.
For this reason, the Court recalled that disinheritance can only be done for the reasons provided by law and that, if it is discussed, it is up to the heirs to prove that this cause is true. Applying that same logic, if it is stated that the legitimate amount was already paid while he was alive, it must also be proven.
The Court came to the conclusion that it had not been proven that the mother had given sufficient amounts while alive to cover the strict legitimate needs of the brothers. For all this, it reduced the portion necessary to respect the legitimate rights of the other heirs.
However, the sentence was not final and an appeal was possible against it if cassational interest was proven.