The short answer

  • A will takes precedence over statutory succession. Article 1123 of the Civil Code of the PRC provides that once succession opens the estate is dealt with by statutory succession, and where there is a will, by testamentary succession or legacy; Article 1133 provides that a natural person may make a will designating one or several of the statutory heirs to inherit personal property. So “the flat and the savings all to the son, nothing to the daughters” is not in itself unlawful.
  • “I did most of the caregiving” is not a ground for setting a will aside. The rule in Article 1130 — a larger share where an heir provided the main support, no share or a smaller share where an heir did not — governs statutory succession; it has no role while the will stands.
  • Adult children who can support themselves fall outside the reserved share. Article 1141 requires only that a necessary share be reserved for an heir who lacks both the ability to work and any source of income.
  • A will can be overturned on specific defects, not on unfairness: a defect in form, no capacity for civil conduct when the will was made, fraud or duress, forgery or alteration, disposing of property that was not the testator’s, forfeiture of the right to inherit through abandonment or serious abuse of the deceased, or a will with attached obligations that are not performed.
  • In this kind of case the most common opening is usually not “favouritism” but title to the property: if the flat was community property of the spouses, the mother could dispose only of her own half, and the other half passes by statutory succession.

The facts: thirty years of care, and no mention of her in the will

According to public reporting as relayed in the source material, a mother in her later years was cared for by two daughters for about thirty years, while the son took little part. After she died she left a will giving a flat and RMB 650,000 in cash entirely to the son. The two daughters sued. After investigation the court ordered the three children to inherit jointly, with the two daughters taking somewhat more.

One point needs to be made. The source material gives no case number, does not identify the court, and does not state the court’s reasoning. Whether the court found the will invalid, partly invalid, or relied on some other basis cannot be seen from the material available. The discussion below therefore does not endorse that judgment; it sets out the routes the law leaves open in this kind of dispute — which is what a lawyer actually has to assess when taking the case.

1. Freedom of testation is real: the law allows a will to leave nothing

Many people react first that this is grossly unfair and that a court ought to step in. But the starting point of inheritance law is not fairness; it is party autonomy. Article 1133 of the Civil Code of the PRC puts it plainly: a natural person may dispose of personal property by will, may designate one or several of the statutory heirs to take it, and may also leave it to the State, to a collective, or to persons outside the statutory heirs.

In other words, a parent is entirely free to leave property to one child out of preference, out of traditional thinking, or even out of a fit of temper. The law does not ask about motive; it asks only whether the will was made genuinely, clear-headedly and of the testator’s own will.

2. Why “I did most of the caregiving” does not by itself turn the result around

Article 1130 of the Civil Code provides that heirs in the same order take in equal shares in general; where an heir provided the main support to the deceased or lived with the deceased, that heir “may take a larger share” on division; and where an heir had the capacity and the means to support the deceased but did not, that heir “shall take no share or a smaller share”.

That provision is useful, but its setting is statutory succession. Where the will is valid the estate follows the will, and Article 1130 never gets on stage. A great many daughters lose these cases precisely because they make “I gave the most” their only ground of claim — the court may feel for them, but sympathy is not a basis for judgment.

There is one exception: where the will disposes of only part of the property. Suppose the will mentions only the flat and the RMB 650,000, while savings, wealth-management products, vehicles and shareholdings remain in the mother’s name; that part still passes by statutory succession under Article 1154(5). Article 4 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (I) on the Inheritance Part of the Civil Code also makes clear that an heir who takes under the will may still take, under Article 1130, the part of the estate that the will did not dispose of. Only then does the larger-or-smaller-share rule come back to the table.

3. The six grounds that can actually invalidate a will

To set a will aside you have to attack specific points. Each of the following has a corresponding provision, and without one of them a claim is very hard to win.

  • A defect in form. A self-written will (自书遗嘱) must be written, signed and dated in the testator’s own hand (Article 1134); a will written on the testator’s behalf (代书遗嘱) requires two or more witnesses to be present, one of whom writes it, with the testator, the writer and the other witnesses all signing (Article 1135); a printed will (打印遗嘱) requires two or more witnesses, and the testator and the witnesses must sign every page (Article 1136). One missing signature, one missing date, or a witness who is an heir or otherwise interested (Article 1140) can void the whole document.
  • No capacity at the time the will was made. Article 1143 provides that a will made by a person with no capacity for civil conduct, or with limited capacity for civil conduct, is void. Wills made when an elderly person is confused shortly before death, or in the middle or late stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are the most heavily contested.
  • Intent that was not genuine. The same article provides that a will made under fraud or duress is void, that a forged will is void, and that where a will has been altered, the altered content is void.
  • Disposing of property that was not the testator’s own. Article 1153 provides that, unless otherwise agreed, where property is owned jointly by spouses one half is first set aside for the surviving spouse on division of the estate and only the remainder forms the estate; where the estate forms part of family joint property, the shares of the other members must likewise be set aside first. A will is void to the extent that it disposes of another person’s share, and that part is dealt with by statutory succession (Article 1154(4)).
  • No necessary share for an heir who lacks both the ability to work and any source of income. Article 1141 requires a necessary share to be reserved for an heir who lacks both the ability to work and any source of income. Note that this is the only proportional limit that can be set against testamentary freedom, and the class it protects is narrow.
  • The heir’s own disqualification, or a failure to perform obligations attached to the will. Article 1125 provides that an heir who abandons the deceased, or seriously abuses the deceased, forfeits the right to inherit — and a gift to a person who has forfeited that right simply falls away. Separately, where a will attaches obligations such as support or funeral arrangements and the heir fails to perform them without justified reason, an interested person may ask the court to cancel that heir’s right to take that part of the estate (Article 1144).

4. The point most often missed: which property she actually had the right to dispose of

This is where these cases are most often won and lost in practice. The flat registered in an elderly person’s name is frequently not hers alone.

If the flat was bought after the couple married, it is community property of the spouses. If the father died first and the estate was never divided, one half of that flat is his estate; where the mother’s will says “the whole flat goes to the son”, the excess is a disposition of property she had no right to dispose of, that part is void, and it passes by statutory succession. Many clients fight only over whether the will is genuine and miss this easier route — the property certificate, the purchase contract and the payment records can all establish title.

The same applies to the RMB 650,000: if it was joint savings of the couple, or includes a share of relocation compensation belonging to other family members, the subtraction has to be made before the will is even discussed.

5. Before you sue, assemble these documents

  • The original will and evidence about its form: whether it is self-written, written by another person or printed; how many witnesses there were and how they are related to the heirs; whether every page carries a signature and a date.
  • The elderly person’s medical records and evidence of capacity: diagnoses, hospital records and medication around the time the will was made; witnesses who can speak to whether the testator was clear-headed or not.
  • Title documents: the property certificate, the purchase contract, payment records, the marriage registration and the death certificates, used to establish which assets form part of the estate and which do not.
  • Evidence of caregiving: medical receipts, care-worker contracts and transfer records, chat logs of day-to-day care and neighbours’ testimony, used to show the support given and the other side’s failure to support.
  • A sense of time: Article 188 of the Civil Code of the PRC sets the general limitation period at three years, running from the day the claimant knew or ought to have known that a right had been harmed and who the obligor was. Where an estate has gone undivided for years and the property has been occupied by one side, the earlier the claim the safer.

A closing note

The outcome in these cases almost never depends on who is more wronged. It depends on two things: whether the will holds up formally, and whether the boundaries of the estate can be drawn clearly. If you are facing something similar, do not rush to sue; putting the original will and the property documents in front of a lawyer is often more useful than drafting a claim first. You are welcome to contact Wang Xin: phone +86-186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

(This article is based on the Inheritance Part of the Civil Code and its judicial interpretations, read together with material from a publicly reported oral account. It is general legal analysis and does not constitute an opinion on how any particular case should be handled; the outcome of an individual case depends on the form of the will, title to the property and the evidence.)

Quick answers

Can a parent in China leave everything to one child and nothing to the others?
Yes, in principle. Article 1133 of the Civil Code of the PRC allows a person to dispose of personal property by will in favour of one or several statutory heirs, or of persons outside the statutory heirs. The only proportional limit is the reserved share for heirs who lack both the ability to work and any source of income.
Does caring for a parent for thirty years give a daughter a larger share?
Not where there is a valid will. Article 1130, which lets the heir who provided the main support take a larger share and requires an heir who could support but did not to take none or less, governs statutory succession. It applies only to property the will did not dispose of.
What is the time limit for challenging a will in China?
Three years is the general limitation period under Article 188 of the Civil Code of the PRC, running from the day the claimant knew or ought to have known that a right had been harmed and who the obligor was. Where an estate has gone undivided for years and one heir occupies the property, the earlier the claim the safer.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 伺候妈妈30年，遗嘱把房子和65万全给了儿子：遗嘱真能一分不给女儿吗？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.