A 2019 will sought to disinherit four children and their descendants while naming the testator’s caregiver sole heir. On 4 May 2026, the Audiencia Provincial de Bizkaia ruled that the descendants retain a collective one-third share under Basque civil law, leaving the caregiver the other two-thirds.
The man, who had vecindad civil vizcaína, died in 2022. Three of his children and a granddaughter representing a fourth daughter who had died asked the court to annul the will and open an intestate succession. Alternatively, they claimed two-thirds of the estate. The caregiver accepted that the descendants were entitled to their legally reserved share.
In judgment 220/2026, the court rejected the claim of preterition. Preterition applies when a compulsory heir is omitted from a will; here, the father had named his children in order to exclude them. The parties accepted that the attempted disinheritance could not take effect, so the descendants remained entitled to their reserved share. Under Article 47 of Law 5/2015 on Basque Civil Law, that collective share is one-third of the estate. Article 48 allows a testator to allocate the reserved third among one or more descendants, excluding others from it within the statutory framework. By contrast, descendants generally have a compulsory two-thirds share under Spain’s common Civil Code. The Basque rules belong to a distinct civil-law tradition associated with the Fuero Nuevo de Bizkaia of 1526, which remains relevant to civil and inheritance matters.
The dispute is separate from the allegations in a school case involving families. In this inheritance case, the will remained effective for the rest of the estate, which included a home and money in bank accounts.
More than three months after the death, the caregiver’s lawyer told one daughter about it and offered the descendants their one-third share. They could receive their portions in cash to avoid co-owning the property. The caregiver commissioned a notarial deed setting out acceptance and division of the inheritance on that basis, but the family filed its claim before the document was sent. The judgment records the offer and preparation of the deed; it does not establish that the parties signed an agreement.
The family argued that the inoperative exclusion clauses meant it had partly won and should not pay the first-instance costs. The court said the caregiver had already recognised the descendants’ entitlement outside court, while their request to annul the entire will had failed. It found no sufficient legal uncertainty to waive costs, upheld the first-instance order and imposed the appeal costs on the family. The appeal deposit was also forfeited. The judgment stated that a cassation appeal could be brought before the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco.
