Mandatory share in inheritance prevails over the will: The Supreme Court recognized inheritance certificates as invalid

On July 15, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Civil Cassation Court, considered case No. 694/1492/24 regarding the dispute over the right of an adult disabled child to a mandatory share in the inheritance, the proper way to protect such a right, and the possibility of reclaiming inherited property after its alienation.

The ruling is important for inheritance practice because the Court clearly distinguished cases of amending the certificate of inheritance rights from cases where the proper way to protect rights is to declare such a certificate invalid.

Circumstances of the case

After the death of the plaintiff’s mother, the inheritance was opened according to the will, under which all property was bequeathed to the testator’s grandchildren.

The deceased’s son timely submitted an application to accept the inheritance and claimed that he was a person with a Group III disability, and therefore had the right to a mandatory share in the inheritance.

Despite this, the notary issued certificates of inheritance rights to the heirs under the will for a land plot, after which they alienated it to a third party under a sale agreement.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding partial invalidation of the certificates of inheritance rights, cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights, and recovery of his rightful 1/4 share of the land plot.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim, considering the fact of disability at the time of inheritance opening unproven. The appellate court established that the plaintiff had the right to a mandatory share, but concluded that the proper way to protect this right was to amend the certificate of inheritance rights, not to declare it invalid.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the right to a mandatory share is a restriction on testamentary freedom established directly by law to protect a certain circle of the testator’s closest disabled relatives.

This right arises not at the moment of issuing the certificate of inheritance rights nor at the moment of submitting a disability document to the notary, but directly from the law provided the circumstances stipulated in Article 1241 of the Civil Code of Ukraine exist as of the day the inheritance is opened.

The Court emphasized that a disability certificate does not create disability nor give rise to the right to a mandatory share, but confirms a legal fact that existed during the relevant period.

The Supreme Court indicated that the right to a mandatory share arises directly from the law if the circumstances established by Article 1241 of the Civil Code of Ukraine exist on the day the inheritance is opened. It does not depend on the will of the testator or other heirs and does not arise only from the moment of issuing the certificate of inheritance rights.

Separately, the Supreme Court stated that the absence of a certificate of inheritance rights does not deprive an heir of the right to inheritance, and therefore failure to obtain such a certificate does not affect the scope of his inheritance rights and does not grant other heirs the right to dispose of his share of the inheritance.

Notary’s duties and proper method of protection

The Supreme Court pointed out that the phrase "verifies the circle of persons" imposes an active duty on the notary to clarify relevant circumstances before issuing the certificate of inheritance rights.

The Court noted that after the postal item was returned, the notary did not receive from the plaintiff a statement of refusal to accept the inheritance, nor did the notary take sufficient actions aimed at obtaining information and documents to verify the plaintiff’s status.

The mere return of the sent letter could not be a sufficient legal basis for issuing certificates of inheritance rights exclusively to the heirs under the will.

The Supreme Court also noted that the invalidity of the certificate is caused by certain "defects" that existed at the time of its issuance (in particular, the person to whom the certificate was issued had no right to inherit, nullity of the will).

Thus, the grounds for invalidity of the certificate as a document must exist at the time of its issuance.

Regarding the method of judicial protection, the Supreme Court stated that amending the certificate of inheritance rights involves correcting a previously lawfully executed distribution of inheritance among heirs due to circumstances that arose after its issuance, whereas declaring the certificate invalid applies if a legal defect existed at the time of issuance that affected the legality of issuing the certificate and resulted in violation of the plaintiff’s rights.

The Court emphasized that at the time of issuing the certificates, the plaintiff already had the right to a mandatory share in the inheritance, and the insufficiency of information in the inheritance case regarding this right indicates a violation of the procedure for distributing the inheritance and issuing certificates of inheritance rights.

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that under these circumstances, the proper way to protect the rights is to declare the certificates of inheritance rights under the will invalid in part concerning the mandatory share in the inheritance belonging to the plaintiff.

Regarding the claim for recovery of property, the Court stated that an heir who accepted immovable property into inheritance has the right to reclaim this property from unlawful possession by others even before its state registration, based on the grounds provided by Article 387 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not examine the objections of the final acquirer of the land plot, did not investigate his good faith and the proportionality of possible interference with his ownership rights, so these circumstances require a new appellate review.

Thus, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new hearing.

The Court confirmed that if the rights of an heir entitled to a mandatory share at the time of issuing the certificate were violated during the inheritance process, the proper way to protect such rights may be to declare the certificate invalid, and an heir who accepted the inheritance is not deprived of the right to demand recovery of inherited property from unlawful possession by others.

Additionally, read more about how the Ministry of Justice changed the procedure for certifying transactions: now notaries will verify whether the principal is alive.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.