Taiwan Abolishes the Forced Heirship Rights of Siblings: A Landmark Reform to the Civil Code
Taiwan Abolishes the Forced Heirship Rights of Siblings: A Landmark Reform to the Civil Code
Understanding Taiwan's New Inheritance Rules and Their Impact on Estate Planning, Wills, and Cross-Border Successions
On July 28, 2026, Taiwan's Legislative Yuan passed a landmark amendment to the Civil Code by abolishing the mandatory reserved portion (commonly referred to as "forced heirship") for siblings. The amendment represents one of the most significant changes to Taiwan's inheritance law in recent years and reflects a broader policy shift toward greater testamentary freedom.
However, the new law has also generated considerable misunderstanding. Many media reports have suggested that siblings will no longer inherit from each other. That is not what the amendment provides.
The reform abolishes only the forced heirship protection previously granted to siblings. It does not remove siblings from Taiwan's statutory order of succession. Consequently, individuals who do not execute a valid will may still have their estates inherited by their siblings under Taiwan's intestate succession rules.
The amendment is particularly important for childless individuals, married couples without descendants, overseas Taiwanese, foreign nationals owning assets in Taiwan, and anyone involved in cross-border estate planning.
Legislative Yuan Abolishes the Forced Heirship Rights of Siblings | CNA News Video
Taiwan's Legislative Yuan has passed a landmark amendment to the Civil Code, granting individuals greater freedom in planning the distribution of their estates. On July 28, 2026, the Legislative Yuan approved an amendment abolishing the forced heirship rights previously granted to siblings.
Legal professionals have emphasized, however, that the amendment abolishes only the forced heirship protection, not the statutory inheritance rights of siblings. Accordingly, if a person dies without a valid will, siblings may still inherit under Taiwan's intestate succession rules.
(Source: Central News Agency (CNA) YouTube Channel)
A Fundamental Difference Between Taiwan and Common Law Jurisdictions
Before discussing the amendment itself, it is important for international readers to understand a fundamental feature of Taiwanese inheritance law.
Many common law jurisdictions, including the United States, generally recognize a high degree of testamentary freedom. Subject to certain statutory protections (such as elective share rules for surviving spouses in some states or family provision legislation in certain jurisdictions), individuals are generally free to decide how their property should be distributed after death.
Taiwan follows a different legal tradition.
Taiwan's Civil Code is based on the continental civil law system, under which certain close family members are protected by statutory forced heirship rules. These rules reserve a minimum portion of an estate for specified heirs, regardless of what a will may provide.
In other words, a valid will alone has never been sufficient to completely override the inheritance rights of certain statutory heirs in Taiwan.
Prior to this amendment, those protected heirs included:
- the surviving spouse;
- descendants;
- parents;
- siblings; and
- grandparents.
If a will attempted to completely disinherit one of these protected heirs, that heir could, under certain circumstances, seek to recover his or her statutory reserved portion from the beneficiaries designated in the will.
For many foreign clients, this comes as a surprise because it differs significantly from the traditional common law concept that "the will governs."
The recent amendment narrows this limitation by removing siblings from the list of protected heirs, thereby expanding—but not eliminating—the principle of testamentary freedom in Taiwan.
What Exactly Has Changed?
Before the amendment, Article 1223 of the Civil Code provided that siblings were entitled to a reserved portion equal to one-third of their statutory inheritance share.
This meant that even if a person expressly stated in a valid will that no part of his or her estate should pass to a sibling, that sibling could still challenge the distribution and claim the statutory reserved portion.
Following the amendment, this protection has been abolished.
If all legal requirements for a valid will are satisfied, siblings will no longer be entitled to assert a forced heirship claim merely because they are statutory heirs.
This significantly increases the ability of an individual to distribute his or her estate according to personal wishes.
For example, a person may now choose to leave his or her entire estate to:
- a surviving spouse;
- a long-term partner;
- a close friend;
- a caregiver;
- a charitable organization; or
- any other designated beneficiary,
without a sibling later asserting a statutory reserved portion—provided that no other protected forced-heirship rights are infringed.
What Has NOT Changed?
Perhaps the most important point—and the one most frequently misunderstood—is that the amendment does not abolish siblings' inheritance rights altogether.
The statutory order of succession under Article 1138 of the Civil Code remains unchanged.
Where there are no descendants, no surviving parents, and no valid will directing otherwise, siblings continue to rank as statutory heirs.
Accordingly, if an individual dies intestate (without a valid will), the estate will still be distributed according to Taiwan's statutory succession rules, and siblings may inherit exactly as before.
The amendment therefore removes only one protection: the statutory minimum share that siblings could previously demand despite the existence of a will.
It does not remove siblings from the legal order of succession.
This distinction is crucial. Many people have interpreted the headlines to mean that siblings have lost all inheritance rights. However, they have not. Rather, the amendment gives individuals greater freedom to exclude siblings—but only if they take the necessary legal step of executing a valid will.
A Will Is Now More Important Than Ever
One of the most significant practical consequences of this reform is that the effectiveness of the new law depends largely upon whether a valid will exists.
Without a will, the amendment may have little practical effect.
Suppose an unmarried individual has no children and both parents have already passed away. Although he has had no relationship with his siblings for decades, he never executes a will because he believes the new law automatically prevents them from inheriting.
After his death, his estate would still be distributed under Taiwan's intestate succession rules.
His siblings could therefore inherit the estate—not because they retain a forced heirship right, but because they remain statutory heirs.
This is perhaps the greatest misconception surrounding the amendment.
The reform expands testamentary freedom, but it does not replace the statutory succession regime.
Individuals who wish to determine who ultimately receives their assets must still prepare a legally valid will.
Who Will Be Most Affected?
The amendment primarily benefits two groups.
The first group consists of single individuals without children, particularly those whose parents have already passed away.
Many such individuals wish to leave their estates to a close friend, long-term caregiver, charitable organization, or unmarried partner rather than to estranged siblings.
Under the previous law, siblings could still claim a statutory reserved portion.
That restriction will disappear once the amendment takes effect.
The second group consists of married couples without children.
Many childless couples naturally expect that, when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse should receive the entire estate.
Under Taiwan's previous forced heirship rules, siblings could complicate this objective by asserting their reserved portion in certain circumstances.
The amendment makes it substantially easier for childless couples to achieve this result through properly drafted wills.
However, as discussed below, a simple will leaving "everything to my spouse" is not always sufficient.
Childless Couples Should Consider Contingency Planning
Although the amendment significantly strengthens testamentary freedom, it also highlights the importance of careful estate planning.
Many childless spouses assume that a will stating:
"I leave all of my property to my spouse."
is sufficient.
In practice, however, this may not always achieve the intended result.
What if the designated spouse dies first?
What if both spouses die in the same accident?
What if it is impossible to determine which spouse survived the other?
In these situations, the will may fail to address what should happen next, and part or all of the estate may ultimately pass under Taiwan's statutory succession rules.
Accordingly, childless couples should consider including contingency provisions in their wills, such as:
- naming substitute beneficiaries if the primary beneficiary predeceases the testator;
- specifying who should inherit if both spouses die simultaneously;
- determining the ultimate destination of family assets after the death of the surviving spouse; and
- considering whether the surviving spouse should receive only ownership of the property or also lifetime rights of residence or use in appropriate circumstances.
A properly drafted will should anticipate foreseeable contingencies rather than merely identify the first intended beneficiary.
The Rights of Children Have Not Changed
Another common misunderstanding concerns inheritances from parents.
Some people have incorrectly assumed that abolishing siblings' forced heirship means parents may now freely disinherit one child in favor of another.
That is incorrect.
When a parent dies, the children inherit as descendants, not as siblings.
Although the children are siblings in relation to one another, their legal status in their parent's estate is that of lineal descendants, whose forced heirship rights remain fully protected under Taiwan's Civil Code.
Accordingly, if a parent attempts to leave the entire estate to only one child, the other children may still assert their own forced heirship rights.
The recent amendment affects only the inheritance rights of the deceased person's siblings.
It does not diminish the statutory protection afforded to children inheriting from their parents.
The Amendment Does Not Take Effect Immediately
Another point that deserves attention is timing.
The amendment does not become effective immediately upon passage by the Legislative Yuan.
Instead, the amended provisions will enter into force six months after promulgation by the President.
This transitional period may have important legal consequences.
As a general rule, the applicable inheritance law is determined by the date on which succession commences, which is ordinarily the date of the deceased person's death.
Consequently:
- A person who dies before the amendment becomes effective will generally remain subject to the previous law.
- A person who dies after the amendment takes effect will generally be governed by the amended provisions, even if the will itself was executed years earlier.
For individuals currently reviewing or updating their estate plans, understanding the transition rules is therefore just as important as understanding the substance of the amendment itself.
Future Disputes May Shift From Forced Heirship to Will Validity
This amendment will likely change—not eliminate—inheritance litigation.
Previously, many disputes centered on whether a sibling's statutory reserved portion had been infringed.
Once siblings are no longer entitled to assert forced heirship claims, future litigation may instead focus on whether the will itself is legally valid.
Typical issues may include:
- whether the statutory formalities for executing the will were satisfied;
- whether the testator possessed testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed;
- whether the will resulted from fraud, coercion, undue influence, or manipulation;
- whether signatures or dates were forged or altered; and
- whether multiple inconsistent wills create uncertainty regarding the testator's final intentions.
In other words, the abolition of siblings' forced heirship is unlikely to reduce inheritance disputes altogether.
Rather, it may redirect litigation toward challenges to the validity and enforceability of wills.
This makes professionally prepared estate planning even more valuable than before.
Cross-Border Estate Planning: A Particularly Important Reform
The amendment is especially relevant for foreign nationals and overseas Taiwanese with assets in Taiwan.
Individuals living abroad often assume that a will validly executed in their home jurisdiction will automatically determine the distribution of their Taiwanese assets. However, such assumption can be dangerous.
Cross-border succession involving Taiwan may raise complex issues, including:
- which country's law governs the succession;
- whether a foreign will satisfies Taiwan's legal requirements;
- whether Taiwan will recognize and implement the foreign estate planning arrangement;
- whether separate probate or court procedures are required; and
- whether Taiwanese real property, bank accounts, shares, or other assets require additional legal formalities before they may be transferred.
Accordingly, foreign nationals who own assets in Taiwan, also Taiwanese nationals who own property in multiple jurisdictions, should not rely exclusively on estate planning prepared under another legal system.A coordinated international estate plan is often necessary to ensure that the deceased person's wishes can actually be carried out.
Our Comments
The abolition of siblings' forced heirship marks one of the most significant developments in Taiwan's inheritance law in recent decades. The amendment reflects changing social realities. Many siblings establish independent lives after adulthood and may have little or no economic dependence upon one another. In such circumstances, requiring a person to reserve part of his or her estate for estranged siblings has increasingly been viewed as an unnecessary restriction on testamentary freedom.
At the same time, the amendment should not be misunderstood as creating unlimited freedom of disposition. Taiwan has not abandoned its forced heirship system. The surviving spouse, descendants, parents, and grandparents continue to enjoy statutory reserved portion protection. Nor does the amendment eliminate intestate succession. Without a valid will, Taiwan's statutory succession rules continue to apply, and siblings may still inherit where they remain the applicable statutory heirs.
The amendment therefore creates an opportunity, but not an automatic solution. Individuals who wish to leave their assets to a spouse, long-term partner, caregiver, friend, or charitable organization should regard this legislative reform as a reminder to review their estate plans rather than assume that the law will accomplish those objectives automatically.
For foreign nationals, overseas Taiwanese, and families with assets in multiple jurisdictions, careful legal advice is particularly important.
Estate planning is rarely governed by the law of only one country. Differences between civil law and common law systems, private international law, recognition of foreign wills, and cross-border administration of estates may all significantly affect the ultimate distribution of assets.
The expansion of testamentary freedom is an important and welcome development. Nevertheless, testamentary freedom can only be realized through a legally valid, carefully drafted, and internationally coordinated estate plan. A well-prepared will remains the cornerstone of effective succession planning under Taiwanese law.
This article is provided solely for general informational purposes and is intended to help readers understand basic legal concepts under Taiwanese law. It does not constitute legal advice, legal opinions regarding any specific case, or create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and the author or this law firm.Every legal matter is unique. The applicable law, available evidence, procedural posture, and factual circumstances may differ significantly from one case to another. Even where similar legal issues arise, the appropriate legal analysis and strategy may vary depending on the specific facts. Accordingly, if you are involved in a legal dispute or require legal advice regarding a particular matter, you should consult a qualified attorney to obtain advice tailored to your individual circumstances.In addition, statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, and legal practice may change over time. This article reflects Taiwanese law and prevailing legal practice as of the date of publication (or the most recent update). Subsequent legislative amendments or developments in judicial practice may affect the accuracy or continuing applicability of the information contained herein. Readers are therefore encouraged to consult the latest legal authorities or seek professional legal advice before relying on this article.
