Judgments of the Supreme Court

Search Results

1995 (O) 2468

Date of the judgment (decision)

1999.07.19

Case Number

1995 (O) 2468

Reporter

Minshu vol. 53, No. 6 at 1138

Title

Judgment upon the matters to be proved by a person who is invoking extinctive prescription of the restoration of inheritance in cases where, among the joint heirs, some are infringing upon the others' rights claiming that they are not joint heirs

Case name

claim for the return of unjust enrichment

Result

Judgment of the First Petty Bench, quashed and remanded

Court of the Prior Instance

Osaka High Court, Judgment of July 27, 1995

Summary of the judgment (decision)

A person who is invoking extinctive prescription of the restoration of inheritance in cases where, among the joint heirs, some are infringing upon the others' rights, claiming that they are not joint heirs, must prove that those joint heirs who are in infringement of the right to inheritance of the genuine heirs were not aware that there were other joint heirs and that there was a reasonable ground to believe so at the beginning of their infringement of the right to inheritance.

References

Article 884 of the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure Part II, Chapter 3, Section 1 General Provisions

Article 884 of the Civil Code
The right to claim restoration of the right of inheritance shall be extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised within five years from the time when the heir or his legal representative became aware of the facts constituting a violation of the right of inheritance. The same shall also apply if twenty years have elapsed from the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

Main text of the judgment (decision)

Part of the judgment of the original instance court in which the appellant to the Supreme Court has lost shall be quashed.
The above part shall be remanded to the Osaka High Court.

Reasons

Concerning the grounds for appeal by the representative for the appeal, TAKASHITA Yoshiki:
I. In the present case, the appellant to the Supreme Court who is one of the joint heirs to the late C, claims the return of unjust enrichment by other heirs and the heir of one of the joint heirs, the appellees to the Supreme Court, who disposed of the land which was owned by the late C and allocated the proceeds between themselves and thus infringed upon the right to inheritance of the appellant. Against this, the appellees argue that the claim by the appellant is a claim for the restoration of inheritance and this right was extinguished 20 years after the death of the late C.

II. Facts lawfully established by the original instance court are as follows:
1. C owned a piece of land at No.a, b-chome, c -cho, City of Ogaki, Gifu Prefecture (hereinafter, "the previous land"). This was made an object of the land re-distribution undertaking implemented by the City of Ogaki.
2. C died on September 24, 1955. C's heirs were his wife, D, legitimate children E and F, illegitimate children, the appellant, and the appellees, G, H, I and J.
D died on December 11, 1972. Her heir is the appellee K, who was her adopted child.
3. The City of Ogaki, in lieu of C's joint heirs, effected registration for the conservation of the titles of the previous land on February 27, 1976 on the basis of the Ordinance on the Redistribution of Land and Registration Article 2, item 4, ex officio. On this occasion, among the joint heirs, only the appellees K, G, E, and F were registered, and the appellant, I and J were missed out by error. The shares of the appellant, I and J were allocated among K (3/9), G, H (1/9 each), E and F (2/9 each) (hereinafter, "the Registration").
4. The previous land was replaced by new land by the decision of replacement of land of October 27,1976 with a piece of residential land at the same place, No.d (hereinafter, "the present land"). Subsequently, the share of E (2/9) was inherited by the appellee L, the share of F (2/9) by appellees B and M, 1/9 each and were accordingly registered.
5. The appellees sold the present land to N and one other on March 10, 1991 at 50,022,000 yen, completed the registration of transfer of title, and distributed the proceeds between themselves in accordance with the share on the register.

III. The original instance court ruled as follows, acknowledged that the right to restoreer inheritance had been extinguished by prescription, and dismissed the claim of the appellants to the Supreme Court.
1. In cases where some of a number of joint heirs possess and manage a part of the inherited assets which exceeds their share in the inheritance, claiming that this part also forms part of their share despite the fact that they are aware that this part belongs to other heirs, or where there is no reasonable ground to believe that they are entitled to this part, the heir who is in infringement is not entitled to invoke extinctive prescription of the right to the restoration of inheritance and reject the claim of exclusion of infringement addressed to him.
2. Whether the heir who is in infringement was aware or not that the infringed part belonged to other joint heirs, or whether there was a reasonable ground to believe that this formed part of his share shall be determined at the time of the infringement of the right to inheritance. In the present case, the infringement of the right to inheritance of the appellant shall be regarded to have started at the time of the registration of February 27, 1976.
3. There is no evidence to prove that the appellees were aware that the infringed part belonged to other joint heirs, nor any reasonable ground to believe that this part formed part of their share. On the contrary, taking into consideration that in the present case, the appellees had not done any positive act of infringement, but the infringement occurred as a result of the substitute registration by the City of Ogaki, and that there were complicated family circumstances involving C, it can be assumed that the appellees were not in bad faith or were negligent in this regard.

IV. However, the above ruling of the original instance court III 3 cannot be upheld. The reasons are as follows:
1. In cases where one or several of the joint heirs, in relation to the part of the inherited assets exceeding his original share of the inheritance, denies the right to inheritance of legitimate heirs as apparent heirs and claims that this part is also his, possesses and manages this part and thus infringes upon the rights of the legitimate joint heirs, Article 884 of the Civil Code is still applicable. However, in cases where the joint heir who is in infringement of the right to inheritance of the legitimate joint heir is claiming that this part falls within his share despite the fact that he is aware that there are other joint heirs and that the part of inheritance which exceeds his original share belongs to the share of other joint heirs, or claims that this part also belongs to him and possesses and manages this part regardless of the fact that there is no reasonable ground to believe that this part belongs to him, it is not a situation where the system of the restoration of inheritance was intended to apply. Therefore, he is not entitled to refuse the claim for the elimination of infringement by the legitimate heirs by resorting to the extinctive prescription of the right to the restoration of inheritance (Supreme Court 1973 (O) No. 854, Judgment of the Supreme Court, Grand Bench, December 20, 1978, Minshu vol.32, No.9 at 1674).
2. Whether the joint heir who is in infringement of the right to inheritance of the legitimate heir was aware or not of the existence of other heirs, and whether or not there was a reasonable ground to lead him to believe that he had a right over the part exceeding his original share of inheritance shall be determined at the time of the beginning of the infringement of the right to inheritance.
Moreover, [Summary] the person who is invoking extinctive prescription of the restoration of inheritance must produce evidence and prove that the joint heir who is in infringement of the right to inheritance of the legitimate heirs was not aware that there were other joint heirs and that there was a reasonable ground to believe so (hereinafter, "the existence of good faith and reasonable grounds") at the beginning of the infringement of the right to inheritance. This has no bearing on whether the joint heir who is in infringement of the right to inheritance of the genuine heir was aware that the actual state of infringement was in existence, or whether there was a reasonable ground to believe that this was not the case.
3. If the above is applied to the present case,
(1) in order for the right to inheritance as provided for in Article 884 of the Civil Code to be regarded as having been infringed, there is no need to prove any intention to infringe on the part of the infringer, but an actual state of infringement assessed in an objective manner will suffice (Supreme Court, 1962 (O) No. 1258, Judgment of the Supreme Court, the First Petty Bench, February 27, 1964, Minshu vol.18, No.2, at 383). In the present case, the infringement of the right to inheritance of the appellant began at the time of the present Registration, by the City of Ogaki taking registration procedures.
Therefore, in order for the appellees to the Supreme Court to invoke extinctive prescription of the right to restoreer inheritance, the existence of good faith and the reasonable grounds at the time of the Registration on the part of the appellees K, G, H. E (in relation to the appellee L), and F (in relation to appellees B and M) respectively.
(2) The original instance court ruled that there was no bad faith or negligence on the part of the appellees to the Supreme Court, but it is obvious from the evidence that the appellant and the appellees G and H have the same parents, and that the appellee H was particularly close to the appellant. In the light of the above, bad faith or negligence as referred to in the judgment of the original instance court seem to mean bad faith or negligence in relation to the existence of the part infringing the right to inheritance in the Registration, i.e. awareness of the existence of the Registration, or an absence of a reasonable ground not to be aware of the existence of the Registration. This cannot be regarded as an appropriate ruling on the above good faith and the existence of reasonable grounds (the second instance court, in relation to the appellees G and H, merely determined whether or not they were aware of the Registration and whether or not there was a reasonable ground not to be aware of the Registration, and has not ruled on the existence of the above good faith and reasonable grounds. In relation to the appellee K, in the part regarding the claim for the breach of the good faith and fair dealing doctrine, the court has acknowledged that the appellee was not aware of the existence of the Registration, and was not aware of the exact status of the appellant, but has failed to determine whether or not there was a reasonable ground for the appellee to believe that he was not aware of the existence of the appellant who is a joint heir). Regarding the appellees B and M, the good faith and the existence of reasonable ground should have been determined in relation to the deceased E and F respectively, but the court has failed to do so.
(3) Thus, the ruling of the original instance court which acknowledged the reference to extinctive prescription by the appellees to the Supreme Court has erred in the interpretation and the application of Article 884 of the Civil Code, and it is obvious that this unlawfulness affects its conclusion. The arguments are with grounds on this point, and the part of the judgment of the original instance court in which the appellant has lost must be quashed. In order for the court to further examine and determine whether prerequisites for the appellees to invoke extinctive prescription of the right to restoreer inheritance, the above part shall be remanded to the original instance court.

As above, the justices unanimously rule as the main text of the judgment.

Presiding Judge

Justice ONO Mikio
Justice ENDO Mitsuo
Justice ISHIMA Kazutomo
Justice FUJII Masao
Justice OIDE Toshio

(Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University College, University of London)