การเรียกร้องมรดกไทยหลังผ่านไปหนึ่งปี: คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 284/2569

ปรับปรุงล่าสุดเมื่อ 28 กันยายน 2569

ศาลฎีกา Decision (Dika) No. 284/2569, published in late July 2026, answers a question our firm hears constantly from heirs: “It has been more than a year, is it too late to claim my Thai inheritance?” The Court’s answer: not when the กองมรดก administrator has been dealing with estate property for her own benefit. This article explains the decision, the one-year prescription rule in Section 1754 of the ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์, and the powerful exception in Section 1748 that kept the heirs’ claim alive more than two decades after the deceased passed away.

ข้อเท็จจริงตามคำพิพากษาฎีกาที่ 284/2569: ผู้จัดการมรดกที่ครอบครองที่ดินไว้

The deceased, Mr. Perm, died in December 1993. He had seven children, three of whom died before him, two of them leaving descendants who inherit in their place. One of the children, Ms. Anong, was appointed estate administrator by the court in 1994 and took the land into her name as administrator in 1995. Twenty years later, in July 2015, instead of distributing the disputed plot among the heirs as the law requires, she registered it in her own name personally. From there, the land moved through a chain of การยกทรัพย์สินให้ transfers and ended in the hands of the defendant, himself one of the heirs, who subdivided the land and sold part of it for 3,000,000 baht.

The other heirs sued, asking the court to order the land back into the estate and to recover the sale proceeds. The defendant raised two classic defences: first, that the claim was time-barred under Section 1754 of the Civil and Commercial Code (the one-year ระยะเวลาการสั่งยา for inheritance claims); and on their side the heirs asked the court to exclude the defendant from the inheritance altogether under Section 1605 for concealing or misappropriating estate property, which the trial court and the Court of Appeal did.

The chain of transfers

ขั้นตอน	โอนย้าย	Legal character
1	Mr. Perm dies (1993); land devolves on 7 heirs	Succession opens, CCC Section 1599
2	Ms. Anong, estate administrator, registers the land in her own name	Administration act, not a distribution
3	Ms. Anong transfers the land by gift to Ms. Saovalak	Gratuitous transfer of estate property
4	After the defendant files a criminal complaint against both women, Ms. Saovalak transfers the land to the defendant (an heir), registered as a gift (2018)	Gratuitous transfer of estate property
5	Defendant subdivides and sells part of the land for THB 3,000,000	Disposal of estate property

กฎหนึ่งปี: ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ มาตรา 1754

Section 1754 CCC bars an action concerning inheritance brought by an heir more than one year after the death, or after the heir knew (or ought to have known) of the death, with an absolute outer limit of ten years from the death. On paper, a claim filed decades after a 1993 death looks hopeless. Estate administrators, and people who receive property from them, frequently rely on this section to shut heirs out.

ข้อยกเว้นที่ช่วยชีวิตทายาท: มาตรา 1748

The Supreme Court held the claim was ไม่ time-barred. Under Section 1748 CCC, an heir who is in possession of estate property that has not yet been distributed may demand partition of that property even after the one-year period in Section 1754 has expired. The key legal move in Dika 284/2569 is this: when an estate administrator registers estate land in her own name and passes it around by gift instead of distributing it to the heirs, the administration of the estate is not lawfully completed, and the property is still treated as undistributed estate property. The administrator holds it, in effect, on behalf of all the heirs, so the prescription clock in Section 1754 does not defeat the co-heirs’ right to demand their shares.

The Court also relied on Section 1719 (the administrator’s rights and duties to administer and distribute the estate): an administrator appointed by the court holds estate land on behalf of the other heirs, so a transfer to herself personally is not a good-faith distribution and does not complete the administration. Because the land and the sale money were still undistributed estate property under administration, the heirs could sue for partition although the one-year period had passed.

ไม่มีการตัดมิให้รับมรดกตามมาตรา 1605 ข้อสังเกตด้วยความระมัดระวังทั้งสองฝ่าย

Interestingly, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court on one point in the defendant’s favour: he was ไม่ excluded from the succession under Section 1605, which strips an heir who fraudulently conceals or misappropriates estate property of his status as heir (entirely, or in proportion to what was taken). The reason was the defendant’s state of mind. He had obtained the land through the settlement of his own criminal complaint, nobody recorded that he was to hold it for all the heirs, and he understood that the administration was finished and the land was his. Section 1605 requires fraud or knowledge that the other heirs are being prejudiced, and that was not shown. The practical result: the defendant kept his own inheritance share, but had to (1) transfer the remaining land back into the estate for distribution, and (2) return 2,500,000 baht, five-sixths of the 3,000,000 baht sale proceeds, corresponding to the other heirs’ shares, to the estate.

ทำไมการตัดสินใจนี้จึงมีความสำคัญต่อชาวต่างชาติและครอบครัวข้ามชาติ

Our firm regularly acts for foreign heirs, children living abroad, foreign spouses of Thai nationals, and expats inheriting Thai assets. This decision matters to them for three reasons.

Distance invites self-dealing. When heirs live in Europe, North America or Australia, a locally appointed administrator (often a Thai relative) controls the paperwork at the สำนักงานที่ดิน. Heirs abroad frequently discover years later that estate land was quietly registered in the administrator’s name. Dika 284/2569 confirms that discovery years later is not necessarily fatal to a claim.

Gift transfers give no shelter. Each onward transfer of the plot in this case was a gift, and the Court treated the land as still undistributed estate property in the defendant’s hands. The part the defendant had sold to outside buyers stayed with them; he returned the sale money instead. Family members who receive estate land “for free” from an administrator should expect to give it back.

The one-year rule is not the end of the analysis. Many potential clients are wrongly told that Thai inheritance claims simply die after one year. The correct question is whether the estate was ever properly administered and distributed. If not, Section 1748 and the rules on undistributed estate property keep the door open. For the general framework, see our complete guide to inheritance law in Thailand for foreigners and our step-by-step guide to การจัดการมรดกและตั้งผู้จัดการมรดกในประเทศไทย.

บทเรียนภาคปฏิบัติสำหรับทายาทและผู้จัดการมรดก

If you are an heir

Obtain copies of the title deeds and check the current registered owner at the Land Office; do not rely on family assurances. If the administrator has registered estate property in his or her own name, demand distribution in writing and consult a lawyer promptly, while Section 1748 helped these heirs, litigation decades after the fact is far harder and more expensive than acting early. If there is no will, understand who inherits by law: our article on การเสียชีวิตโดยไม่ทำพินัยกรรมในประเทศไทย explains the six classes of ทายาทโดยธรรม.

If you are (or will appoint) an estate administrator

An administrator who transfers estate property to herself outside a lawful distribution is exposed to civil claims with no practical prescription shelter, removal by the court, and in serious cases criminal liability for misappropriation. Foreigners making a Thai will should also choose their executor with this case in mind, see our review of 10 คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาไทย ที่ชาวต่างชาติที่ทำพินัยกรรมควรรู้.

ตรวจทานครั้งล่าสุด: 28 กันยายน 2569 Supreme Court decision 284/2569 was read in Thai to its disposition, with Civil and Commercial Code sections 1599, 1605, 1719, 1745, 1748, 1754 and 1755. The published text of the judgment also cites a section 1784, which does not exist in the Code; this article does not rely on it. Statements about foreign heirs and criminal liability of administrators are general practice.

คำถามที่พบบ่อย

บทความนี้เขียนและตรวจสอบโดย Sebastien H. Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., who has practised law in Thailand since 2006. If you are an heir to a Thai estate, suspect an administrator is mishandling estate property, or need help planning your own Thai succession, ติดต่อ ThaiLawOnline สำหรับการปรึกษาเป็นภาษาอังกฤษหรือภาษาฝรั่งเศส.

ข้อจำกัดความรับผิดชอบ: บทความนี้เป็นข้อมูลทางกฎหมายทั่วไปที่อ้างอิงจากบทสรุปคำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่เผยแพร่ ไม่ใช่คำปรึกษาทางกฎหมาย ผลลัพธ์ขึ้นอยู่กับข้อเท็จจริงเฉพาะของแต่ละคดี โปรดปรึกษาทนายความไทยที่มีคุณสมบัติเหมาะสมเกี่ยวกับสถานการณ์ของคุณ.