Section 1699
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าพินัยกรรม หรือข้อกำหนดในพินัยกรรม เกี่ยวกับทรัพย์สินรายใดเป็นอันไร้ผลด้วยประการใด ๆ ทรัพย์สินรายนั้นตกทอดแก่ทายาทโดยธรรมหรือได้แก่แผ่นดิน แล้วแต่กรณี
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
If a will or a clause in a will as regards any property has no effect for any reason whatsoever, such property devolves on the statutory heirs or the State as the case may be.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 1699 is part of Book 6 (Succession) of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. This entry is awaiting firm-authored commentary; the statutory text above is verbatim from the Office of the Council of State (OCS Krisdika) Thai source, with the English translation from the FAO/UN FAOLEX repository. Always rely on the Thai original for legal proceedings.
Why this matters in practice
For lawyers: §1699 operates as the default fallback rule for all cases of testamentary failure — whether the will is void in form, the legatee predeceased the testator (§1698), a condition failed, or a clause is against public policy (§1706). The property does not remain suspended; it immediately becomes intestate property. For clients: if a bequest in your will fails — for example because the intended recipient dies before you — that share will pass to your statutory heirs rather than to the surviving legatees, unless you have included a substitution clause.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 9599/2553 (2010)
A will that does not expressly name an heir as excluded does not constitute a statutory disinheritance under §1608; the heir retains rights unless §1699 applies because the testamentary clause itself fails.
The deceased's will disposed of all estate property to six named heirs but did not expressly disinherit the plaintiff. The court held this did not constitute a disinheritance under §1608 (which requires either an express named exclusion or a will that disposes of all assets with no benefit at all to the excluded heir); as the plaintiff was not entirely without benefit in the will, §1699 did not apply to eliminate their claim.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.