遗嘱有效要件研究

【作者】 魏小军；

【导师】 陈苇；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 遗嘱继承制度是继承法的重要内容之一，遗嘱有效要件作为判断遗嘱是否有效的依据，在遗嘱制度中居于核心地位。我国现行法中的遗嘱有效要件是在计划经济时代颁布的1985年《继承法》的基础上建立起来的，它适应了我国20世纪80年代的社会生活需要。但随着时代的发展，尤其是进入21世纪以后，我国人民的人均财富拥有量大幅增长，民众以遗嘱处分其死亡后财产的行为也越来越多，而现行立法存在某些缺陷，已经难以满足社会生活需要。与此同时，我国民法典制定工作正在紧锣密鼓地进行，遗嘱制度将被纳入其继承编中。当前国内学界从宏观上对遗嘱有效要件展开的研究不多，目前尚没有见到以此为题的博士论文或专著，以此为题的学术论文也不多见。对遗嘱有效要件展开系统性研究，有利于深化遗嘱继承理论，为我国民法典继承编的制定提供有益的借鉴，并为我国司法实践中遗嘱问题的解决提供理论指导。本文由引言、正文和结论三部分组成，约20万字。引言交待了选题背景及意义、研究方法及本文结构。正文由五章组成：第一章“遗嘱有效要件概述”，本章分为三节，第一节“遗嘱有效要件解说”，对遗嘱要件的语义渊源进行考察，阐明遗嘱成立要件、生效要件和有效要件之区别，再在此基础上对遗嘱有效要件的涵义作出阐释。第二节“遗嘱有效要件的意义”，从考察遗嘱的意义及其局限性入手，分析遗嘱有效要件的意义。遗嘱的意义主要包括：有利于对人性的尊重、有利于资源的合理配置、有利于激发社会创造力和有利于培养尊老风尚。但遗嘱也存在一些局限性，主要可以归纳为：心智能力较弱的人可能会误用遗嘱；遗嘱人滥用遗嘱自由可能会损害家庭利益或降低遗产的利用效果；遗嘱意思查明中的困难，可能会引发争端，增加法院负担。遗嘱有效要件的意义就在于克服遗嘱的局限性，具体来说主要包括以下三个方面：有利于保障遗嘱的真实性、有利于维护家庭生活的正常进行和有利于保护社会公共利益。第三节“遗嘱有效要件的分类”，将遗嘱有效要件分为实质要件和形式要件两类，并对每一类的具体内容作出了阐述。实质要件主要包括关于遗嘱能力的要求、关于意思表示真实的要求、关于遗嘱受益人资格的要求和关于遗属保留份的要求，同时还包括一些其他实质要件。形式要件则主要包括遗嘱订立方式和遗嘱参与人资格两个方面，同时形式要件的严格性也是应有之义。此外，文中还对形式要件应该被归入遗嘱成立要件还是有效要件进行了较为细致的辨析，认为遗嘱形式要件应当被归入遗嘱有效要件。第二章“两大法系国家法律中遗嘱有效要件的历史渊源”，本章分为两节，第一节“罗马法中的遗嘱有效要件”，首先从实质要件和形式要件两个方面进行考察，然后作出综合评析。在古罗马，遗嘱人、遗嘱受益人除必须达到一定年龄和精神健康程度外，还须符合一系列社会关系条件，否则便没有相应资格。这是当时等级社会的反映，实际上是将国家政策附加到遗嘱实质要件上，使其成为贯彻有关政治目标的工具。此外，要求遗嘱中必须指定继承人，同时必须提到所有当然继承人，否则遗嘱无效；遗嘱人处分遗产时不得侵害近亲属享有的义务份权利，否则该近亲属有权请求撤销该遗嘱，或者提出义务份追补之诉，这些措施都限制了遗嘱自由，为被继承人的近亲属提供了一定的保障。在遗嘱形式要件方面，早期遗嘱必须在正式场合公开遗嘱内容，甚至需要经过审议和表决，具有浓厚的公共色彩；但后期遗嘱形式逐渐简化，越来越突出遗嘱形式的证明作用。遗嘱须按照特定语言格式订立也是罗马遗嘱法的重要特征，但这一特征到帝政后期也逐渐淡化。此外，遗嘱有效要件的严格性从帝政时期起便受到了较大的挑战：对军役特有产的处分可享受一定的实质要件豁免权，军人订立遗嘱可获得较为充分的形式要件豁免权，这些豁免权的授予一定程度上体现了鼓励从军的政策，在客观上也起到了推动遗嘱有效要件简化的效果。第二节“中世纪至近代法律中的遗嘱有效要件”分中世纪初期和中世纪中期至近代两个阶段进行考察。中世纪初期法律中的遗嘱有效要件整体上比较零散，属于日尔曼习惯法和罗马法的混合法。中世纪中期的教会法规定，遗嘱可在1名教士和2至3名证人面前订立，并且即使不符合形式要件但确证为遗嘱人真实意愿的也可承认其效力。欧洲大陆将在1名教士和2至3名证人面前订立遗嘱的方式世俗化产生了公证遗嘱，加上其部分地区固有的自书遗嘱，形成了大陆法系国家遗嘱形式要件中的普通方式。在英格兰，在教会法的影响下抛弃了罗马法的遗嘱形式要件，而后经由1677年《防止欺诈法》和1837年《遗嘱法》的改革，重新强化了遗嘱形式要件，形成了英美法系国家的主要遗嘱方式——经见证的遗嘱。与此同时，从日尔曼习惯法中催生了法国式的特留份，德国在继受罗马法后形成德国式的特留份，由此确立了大陆法系在遗属保留份方面的基本模式。英格兰则在12-14世纪逐渐形成了限制遗嘱自由的寡妇份，从而确立了以生存配偶为中心的遗属保留份模式。第三章“现代两大法系国家法律中的遗嘱有效要件”，本章分为两节，第一节“现代大陆法系国家法律中的遗嘱有效要件”选取法国、德国、意大利、瑞士和日本等五国法律中的遗嘱有效要件进行考察。第二节“现代英美法系国家法律中的遗嘱有效要件”选取英国、美国和澳大利亚三个国家法律中的遗嘱有效要件进行考察。对每个国家法律中的遗嘱有效要件，都分别从实质要件和形式要件两方面进行阐释和研究，其中实质要件分为遗嘱能力、意思表示真实、遗嘱受益人资格、遗属保留份及其他实质要件五个方面，形式要件则主要从普通遗嘱和特别遗嘱两个方面入手。第四章“现代两大法系国家法律中遗嘱有效要件之评析”，本章分为两节，第一节“遗嘱实质要件评析”分别从遗嘱能力、意思表示真实、遗嘱受益人资格和遗属保留份四个方面进行评析。笔者认为，在遗嘱能力方面，传统理论关于遗嘱能力只有“有遗嘱能力”和“无遗嘱能力”两种、“遗嘱只能亲自为之”(不得代理)的观点，不符合当前的立法实际。遗嘱能力的“有”、“无”二分模式简单明了，但过于僵硬；在“有”、“无”之外加上“限制遗嘱能力”更能体现个案公正。大陆法系国家立法普遍反对遗嘱代理，部分英美法区域则允许特定情形下为无遗嘱能力人指定遗嘱代理人，二者各有利弊。遗嘱能力的确定因素主要包括年龄和精神状况，整体上说，对遗嘱能力的要求应当低于对交易能力的要求。在意思表示真实方面，只有部分国家立法有明确的关于意思表示真实的概括性规定。多数国家在关于受益人资格、遗嘱方式等其它遗嘱有效要件中都含有了保障遗嘱人意思表示真实的目的。在遗属受益人资格方面，多数国家的规定主要集中于以下方面：未成年人的监护人不得成为该未成年人的遗嘱受益人，部分遗嘱参与人不得成为其所参与遗嘱的受益人，另外还规定与无遗嘱受益人资格人有特殊关系的人(中间人)也不得从上述遗嘱中受益。多数国家规定，丧失继承资格的人具有遗嘱受益人资格；但也有部分立法禁止这类人从相应遗嘱中获益。在遗属保留份方面，大陆法系的特留份的主要优点是标准明确，对家庭的维护比较有力；主要缺点是过于僵硬，没有照顾到实际需要。英国式遗属供养的主要优点，在于能较好地做到具体情况具体分析，主要缺点则是标准过于模糊。法国和意大利的生存配偶特别权利，对维护不能享受特留份权利保护的生存配偶的生活具有较大意义。美国的遗属保留份类别较多，其鲜明特点是强调对生存配偶的保护。美国的可选择份额权利人限于生存配偶，其权利内容接近大陆法系的特留份，通常与夫妻分别财产制相配套。美国的宅园份和动产先取份具有标准明确，对遗嘱自由限制不大的优点，值得借鉴。第二节“遗嘱形式要件评析”分别从遗嘱订立方式、遗嘱参与人资格和遗嘱形式要件的严格性三个方面进行评析。笔者认为，遗嘱订立方式的关键问题是方式分类。两大法系国家对遗嘱方式的分类从表面上看都是分为普通遗嘱和特别遗嘱，但其内涵相差很大。大陆法系主要国家的普通遗嘱基本上可以归为两类：公证人参与的遗嘱和自书遗嘱；其特别遗嘱则主要是对公证遗嘱的变通，由与公证人员地位相当的人来替代公证人员的角色，另外还允许特定情形下仅由普通证人出席。英美法系多数国家的普通遗嘱只有见证遗嘱一种，另有部分国家在此之外还承认自书遗嘱；其特别遗嘱一般指军人或海员订立的遗嘱，无须遵守普通遗嘱形式要件。就遗嘱见证人资格而言，主要是否定以下人的遗嘱见证人资格：未成年人、精神病人、遗嘱受益人及其利害关系人、被继承人的近亲属、公证人的关系人、有生理缺陷的人等。传统理论认为，遗嘱是要式法律行为，形式要件必须严格遵守。但从20世纪后期开始，英美法系的许多国家开始规定遗嘱形式要件豁免制度，根据这一豁免制度，如果某一文件能够证明确实表达了被继承人的最后意愿，即使不符合遗嘱形式要件，仍然认定有效。这一立法动向还扩散到加拿大魁北克省于20世纪90年代制定的民法典当中，同时在俄罗斯民法典中也有体现。第五章“我国法律中遗嘱有效要件的发展及完善”，本章分为三节，第一节“我国法律中遗嘱有效要件的历史演变”，笔者阐明，我国古代法中的遗嘱有效要件的特点是实质要件苛严，形式要件宽松。我国近代法律变迁中的遗嘱有效要件，整体上则是以变法图强为出发点的，主要规则都移植于大陆法系国家的相关立法，但同时结合我国现实作了适度变通。中华人民共和国成立后，法律文件中的遗嘱有效要件一直比较零散，其基本精神是，在实质要件方面主要强调对家庭成员中弱者的扶助，同时突出男女平等政策；在形式要件方面，整体上比较宽松，与我国传统法中的风格接近。这些零散的规范，加上其间完成的多份法律草案，为1985年《继承法》相关制度的设置奠定了基础。第二节“我国当前法律中的遗嘱有效要件及其不足”，我国现行继承法及相关司法解释对遗嘱实质要件和形式要件作了规定，但仍有某些不足之处。遗嘱实质要件的不足主要包括：在遗嘱能力方面，对遗嘱能力的要求过于严格，关于遗嘱人的精神病状况认定的要求不合理；在遗嘱受益人资格方面，不允许丧失继承权者成为遗嘱受益人不尽合理，解决遗嘱参与人与受益人身份冲突问题的规范存在一定缺陷(具体包括防止遗嘱见证人与受益人身份重合的措施不合适，对公证人及其近亲属的遗嘱受益人资格规定有缺失，对中间人的规定不妥当)；在遗属保留份方面，权利人范围过小，权利人相互是否存在顺序不明确，份额过于概括，未能反映亲属关系的亲疏程度，没有明确规定胎儿的必留份权利。形式要件的不足主要包括：就遗嘱订立方式而言，有关自书遗嘱的司法解释不妥当，对公证遗嘱的规定过于简单，代书遗嘱规范不能适应社会需要，录音遗嘱规范有隐患，特别遗嘱规定不合理，赋予公证遗嘱优先于其他遗嘱形式的效力缺乏合理性；就遗嘱形式要件的严格性而言，我国的规定过于僵硬。第三节“完善我国遗嘱有效要件立法的思考”，笔者借鉴前述两大法系国家的遗嘱有效要件的立法经验，结合我国实际，就我国遗嘱实质要件和形式要件立法的完善提出了自己的建议。对实质要件立法完善的建议主要包括：授予限制民事行为能力人以限制遗嘱能力，但其处分标的仅限于生活用品和学习用品；承认丧失继承权人的遗嘱受益人资格；本着尽可能不使遗嘱无效的原则解决遗嘱受益人与见证人因身份重合而产生的冲突；通过下列途径对我国的必留份制度进行完善：将必留份定性为受扶养权利在被继承人死后的延续，以扶养条件作为判断必留份权利能否存在的标准，规定确定必留份数额的参考因素，设置必留份最高限额，规定生存配偶对原住房享有的居住权及其适用条件，规定生存配偶及未成年子女的生活用品先取份权利，规定必留份权利人对侵害其必留份权利的遗嘱的撤销权。对形式要件立法完善的建议主要包括：充实公证遗嘱规范，增设密封遗嘱，完善自书遗嘱规范，增设可涵盖代书遗嘱的证人遗嘱；将录音遗嘱并入特别遗嘱并规定其处分遗产的数额限制；适度缓和遗嘱形式要件的严格性。结论，本部分归纳了本文的主要创新：第一，首次对遗嘱有效要件理论展开较为全面、系统的研究，在一定程度上填补了此方面理论研究的空白。在理论上阐述了遗嘱有效要件与遗嘱之间的关系，认为遗嘱有效要件是用来克服遗嘱局限性的工具。第二，首次对两大法系国家法律中遗嘱有效要件进行较为全面的考察阐释，分析其异同及各自利弊所在。并据此指出传统理论存在的一些问题：传统理论关于遗嘱能力只有“有遗嘱能力”和“无遗嘱能力”两种、“遗嘱只能亲自为之”的观点，已经为当前部分国家立法所突破。国外有立法例明确规定了限制遗嘱能力的情形，另有立法例允许在特定情形下为无遗嘱能力人指定遗嘱代理人。第三，系统地对我国古代法律中的遗嘱有效要件进行整理，并认为我国古代法中的遗嘱有效要件，偏重于实质要件，其形式要件则缺乏严格性。第四，在对我国现行立法的不足进行研究分析的基础上，借鉴国外立法经验，并结合我国实际，提出了完善立法的建议。对实质要件立法完善的建议主要包括：授予限制民事行为能力人以限制遗嘱能力，但其处分标的仅限于生活用品和学习用品；承认丧失继承权者的遗嘱受益人资格；本着尽可能不使遗嘱无效的原则解决遗嘱受益人与见证人因身份重合而产生的冲突；通过下列途径对我国的必留份制度进行完善：将必留份定性为受扶养权利在被继承人死后的延续，以扶养条件作为判断必留份权利能否存在的标准，规定确定必留份数额的参考因素，设置必留份最高限额，规定生存配偶对原住房享有的居住权及其适用条件，规定生存配偶及未成年子女的生活用品先取份权利，规定必留份权利人对侵害其必留份权利的遗嘱的撤销权。对形式要件立法完善的建议主要包括：充实公证遗嘱规范，增设密封遗嘱，完善自书遗嘱规范，增设可涵盖代书遗嘱的证人遗嘱；将录音遗嘱并入特别遗嘱并规定其处分遗产的数额限制；适度缓和遗嘱形式要件的严格性。更多还原

【Abstract】 The testate succession system is an important part in the whole system of successionlaw. As the basis for determining the effect of wills, the effective requirements have beenregarded as the core of the testate succession system. The rules in force about the effectiverequirement had been made in the Succession Law 1985. These rules suited to the sociallife of 1980s’. With the development of economy and society, the properties owned by theChinese people have increased greatly. The number of people who dispose of his or herestate by will after death has also increased gradually. But, the defects of the law in forcemade the relevant rules difficult to fit for the social needs. Meanwhile, the making ofChinese Civil Code has been in progress. The testate succession system will be includedinto the Volume Succession. In fact, the local studies on the effective requirements of willsfrom a macroscopical perspective were still little. There is no doctoral dissertation on thistheme also. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the systemic study on this theme. Thisstudy will be useful to making the Civil Code and deepening the relevant theories of willsand providing the guideline for judicial practice.The dissertation is formed by three parts: the introduction, the text and the conclusion.In the first part, the introduction outlines the background, the present status quo and thesignificance of the research. The text comprised of five chapters:Chapter one "The Outline of valid requirement of the testament" is divided into threesections. Section one "The definition of valid requirement of the testament" reviewswording origin of the requirement of the testament, which differs from the establishmentrequirement, operation requirement and valid requirement, and on the basis of this the paperexplains the meaning of valid requirement of the testament. Section two "the significanceof valid requirement of the testament" starts from the review of the significance of thetestament and its limit to analyze the significance of valid requirement of the testament,mainly including the favor of humanity respect, reasonable allocation of resources and theinspiration of social creativity and the cultivation of respecting the old. But somerestrictions exist in the testament, which can be concluded as people with inferior mentalitymaybe misapply the testament; testator which abuses the freedom of making the will maybeimpairing family interests or depressing the effect of using the legacy; the difficulty infinding out testament intention maybe bringing the conflict and increasing judicial burden. The significance of valid requirements of testament rests with getting over the limit of thewill, including concretely three aspects: first is the favor of safeguarding the truthfulness ofthe testament; second is the favor of maintaining regular process of family life; third is thefavor of protecting social public interests. Section three "The Classification of ValidRequirements of Testament" differs the substantial requirement from formal requirementand discusses the content of every category. The substantial requirement includes mostlythe requirement of testamentary capacity, the requirement of genuine intention, thequalification requirement of testament beneficiary, the requirement of portion for familyand some other substantial requirements. As for the formal requirements, it includes twoaspects, namely the manner of making the will and the qualification of testamentparticipator, and at the same time the rigid of formal requirement is contained. Furthermorethe paper thinks that the formal requirement of testament should be classified into the validrequirement of it after discriminating particularly the classification of the formalrequirement.Chapter two "The Historical Origin of Valid Requirement of Testament in Two FaimlyLaw" is divided into two sections. Section one "The Valid Requirement of Testament inRoman Law" firstly reviews from the substantial requirement and the formal requirement,then comments on it synthetically. In Roman law, besides certain age and mental degree,the testator and the beneficiary should also meet with a series of conditions of socialrelation, otherwise not qualified. Under this instance the provision in fact imposes statepolicy on the substantial requirement of testament, which make it as the tool ofimplementing related political goals. Moreover the condition requires the appointment ofheir and the mention of all certain heirs, or else the will is not valid; when the testatordisposes the legacy, he cannot impair the right of obligatory portion which is owned byimmediate family, otherwise the immediate family has the right of requesting the removalof the testament or putting forward the appeal of remedying the obligatory portion. Allthese measures limit the freedom of making the will, which provides with certainguarantees for the immediate family of the ancestor. Regarding with the formal requirementof the testament, the content of early testament should be made publicly in officialoccasions, even the testament is required to pass the consideration and the vote, which hasthe dense public tint. However in the late stage the formality of testament is simplified, andthe proving function is more explicit. As an important character in Roman inheritance law,the testament should be made according to specific language format, but the character isalso gradually weakened in the late stage of Emperor Politics. Furthermore the rigid of valid requirement of testament is challenged from the stage of Emperor Politics: thedisposal of special estate of military service can be entitled with certain immunity right ofsubstantial requirement, and swordsman can obtain more plenty of immunity right offormal requirement when he makes the will, which embodies the policy of encouragingjoining the army in certain degree and objectively advances the effect of simplifying thevalid requirement of testament. Section two "The Valid Requirement in law from MiddleAges to Modern Times" reviews it during two stages, one is early middle ages, and theother is from metaphase of middle ages to modern times. In the early middle ages validrequirement in law is relatively scattered on the whole, and it belongs to the mixed lawwhich is comprised of unwritten law and Roman law. In the metaphase of middle ages, thecanon law prescribes that the testament can be made on the presence of one clergyman andtwo or three witnesses, and even if it falls short of formal requirement, it still can beassured of the testator’s genuine will, the force may be acknowledged. In European land,notarization testament which is produced the profanity of above manner by plus its inherentholographic wills formed the general manner of formal requirements in civil law countries.Because of the impact of canon law, England abandoned the formal requirement oftestament in Roman law, and through the reform of 1677 Statue of Fraud and 1837 Will Actstrengthened formal requirement again, and lastly formed the main manner in common lawcountries. Simultaneously it produced the compulsory portion in French style fromunwritten law, and after succeeding from Roman law, the compulsory portion in Germanstyle is formed, so the essential model is established in the aspect of compulsory portion incivil law. From 12A.D. to 14 A.D. it gradually formed the dower portion which limited thefreedom of testament in England, and the basic style in America is settled. However themainland in the British discarded the tradition by 1837 Will Act until another set of systemof compulsory portion of testament is formed in the firs half of 20th century. Thus the coreframe of valid requirement of testament in two family law basically formed.Chapter three "The Valid Requirements of Testament in Two Family Law" is dividedinto two sections. Section one "The Valid Requirements of Testament in Civil LawCountries" selects France, Germany, Italia, Swiss and Japan for reviewing the validrequirements of testament. Section two "The Valid Requirements of Testament in CommonLaw Countries" selects British, America and Australia for the same thing. The paperexplains the valid requirements of testament from two aspects including substantialrequirement and formal requirement in every country’s law.Chapter four "The Analysis of Valid Requirement of Testament in Modern Two Family Law" is divided into two sections. Section one "The Analysis of Substantial Requirement ofTestament" respectively analyzes it from four aspects including testamentary capacity,manifest of genuine meaning, qualification of testament beneficiary and portion of family.With respect to the traditional theory about testamentary capacity there are two kinds,namely "yes" and "no", and the will can only be made by oneself, however these ideas donot accord with present legislative practice. The two-cent model is simple but too rigid; sothe addition of "the limit of testamentary capacity" can quarantee to show the justice ofsingle case. In civil law countries, the legislation generally opposes proxy testament, and insome common law regions, it can be allowed to appoint proxy in making the will ofincapable testamentary people. Compared with each other, these two manners have someadvantages and disadvantages. The confirmation factors of testamentary capacity mainlyinclude age and mental condition, and on the whole the requirement of testamentarycapacity should be under the requirement of trade capacity. In the aspect of manifest ofgenuine meaning only in some countries the legislation outlines it expressly, and mostcountries have the real intention of protecting manifest of genuine meaning of testator inthe valid requirement concemed with qualification of beneficiary and the manner of makingthe will. With regard to the qualification of beneficiary, the provisions in most countriesfocus on some aspects hereinafter: the guardian cannot become the beneficiary of testamentof the minor, and some participators making the will cannot become the beneficiary, inaddition the man in special relation to qualified beneficiary without testament cannotbenefited from the will also. Most countries require that people losing the qualification ofinheritance has the qualification of benefit from the testament; however some legislationforbid such type of people benefit from according testament. With respect to portion offamily about testament, the main advantage of the compulsory in civil law lies on expressstandard for robustly defending the family; on the other hand the main disadvantage is toorigid to consider practical demands. The main merit of supplying remaining family ofBritish style rests with adjusting to specific instance, and too ambiguous standard is themain defect. In France and Italia, it has great significance for protecting the life of survivingspouse who cannot have the right of compulsory portion to entitle with special rights. Manykinds of portion of family exist in America, and the brilliant character is to protectsurviving spouse. The right of elective share can only be entitled to surviving spouse inAmerica, and the content of it is close to the compulsory portion in civil law, whichgenerally coordinates with the system of respective estate of husband and wife. America’shomestead allowance and personal property set-aside has the advantage of definite standard and minor strict with the freedom of testament, which is deserved to be used for reference.Section two "The Analysis of Formal Requirement of Testament" deals with the mannerof making the will, the qualification of testament participator and the strictness of testament.The key point concerned with the manner of making the will is the classification of themanner. On the surface the classification of the manner of making the will is divided intogeneral testament and special testament both in two families law, however the difference ofthe meaning is too large. In most civil law countries, general testament can essentially beclassified into two kinds: notarial wills and holographic wills; and special wills is theversatility of notarial wills, in which people with equivalent status substitutes for notary,additionally which allows for appearance of general witness under specific conditions. Inmost regions of common law, there is only one kind of testament, namely attested wills.Besides, some regions recognize also holographic wills; and special wills generally meansthe testament made by armyman and seaman, which does not need to comply with formalrequirements of general testament. As for the qualification of the witness of testament, theprimary thing is to deny people the qualification of eyewitness hereinafter: the minor,mental patient, the beneficiary of testament and the interest, the akin to ancestor, peoplewith relation to notary, people with physical deficiency and so on. Traditional theory thinksthat the will is formal legal conduct so formal requirement should be complied strictly.However from the beginning of late 20A.D., many regions in common law begin to set upthe immunity system of formal requirements of testament, and according to it if certaindocument can prove expressly last will of ancestor the will is determined to be valid even ifit is not consistent with formal requirement of testament. The trend in legislation alsoextends to Quebec in Canada and is expressed in Civil Code regulated in 1990’s andcontemporarily in Russian Civil Code.Chapter five "The Development and Perfection of Valid Requirement of Testament inOur Country’s Law" is divided into three sections. Section one is "The HistoricalEvolvement of Valid Requirement of Testament in Our Country". In our country’s ancientlaw, the character of valid requirement of testament rests with rigid substantial requirementand liberal formal requirement. On the whole, the valid requirement of testament in themodern evolvement begins with law reform for prosperity, so main rules migrate fromrelated legislation in civil law countries combined with our country’s reality. After the PRChas been established, there is comparatively scattered valid requirement of testament inlegal document, the essential spirit of which lies with the emphasis on assisting the weak inone family concerned with substantial requirement, and the emphasis on the policy of equality of men and women; regarding with formal requirement it is so liberal on the wholeas to be close with traditional law in our country. These scattered rules plus many law draftswhich is completed meantime make the basis of the establishment of related system in 1985Inheritance Act.Section two "Valid Requirements of Testament in Our Country’s Present Legislationand Its Disadvantages" deals with valid requirements of testament(including substantialrequirement and formal requirement) in our country’s present legislation, and analyzes itsdisadvantages. Although comprehensive in legislation, some limitations exist still.Concerned with substantial requirement, it includes too strict with testamentary capacity,irrational qualification of testament beneficiary which denies people losing heirdom astestament beneficiary and irrational rules which is designed to resolve the identity conflictbetween testament participator and beneficiary. Furthermore, with regard to portion offamily the bound of obligee is too small to rank expressly whether the obligee exists, andthe portion is so general that it can not reflect the degree of family relation and considerfetal interest. As for the disadvantages of formal requirement, there is improper judicialinterpretation of holographic wills, too simple provisions of notarial wills, uncomfortablewith social needs of allograph testament, weak provisions of record testament and irrationalprivileged wills, which makes it irrational to take notarial testament precedence of othertestament formality. Regarding with the rigid of formal requirement of testament it is toohard in our country’s regulations. Section three "The Legislative Consideration of PerfectOur Country’s Valid Requirement of Testament" states my own opinion. About how toperfect the legislation of substantial requirement main contents is hereinafter: the regulationof limited capable testator; the recognization of qualification of testament beneficiary whichdenies people losing heirdom as testament beneficiary, and under the condition of validwills the settlement of identity conflict between testament participator and beneficiary. Thepaper also thinks we should perfect the system of our country’s compulsory portion throughways below: define the right of compulsory portion as the extension of aliment afterancestor’s death, and make the condition of aliment as the standard of whether the right ofcompulsory exists, and regulate the referring factors of ensuring the amount of compulsoryportion, and setup the quota of compulsory portion from double points of view includingsingle obligee and collective oblige, and regulate the right of surviving spouse’sinhabitation in prior house and its applying conditions, and regulate the right of set-asideportion about life things of surviving spouse and the filial minor, and set up removal rightof oblige of compulsory portion which is being harmed by others. Concerning the legislative perfection of formal requirement, the dissertation thinks that it is necessary toenrich the regulations of notarial wills, add sealed wills, perfect related judicialinterpretation of holographic wills, add witnessed wills which can include allograph wills,limit the amount of disposing legacy after record wills combined with privileged wills.The conclusion part summarizes the main opinion of this paper. Firstly, theauthor has made thorough and systematic research on the valid requirement for the firsttime, and has filled up the blank of theory research in some degree. The author hasexpounds the relation between the valid requirement and testament, and holds the view thatthe valid requirement is the tool used to overcome the limitation of testament.Secondly, it is the first time to review and explain the valid Requirement of Testamentin modern two family Law. The author has indicated some problems existing in thetraditional theory. With respect to the traditional theory about testamentary capacity thereare two kinds, namely "yes" and "no", and the will can only be made by oneself. Thesehave been broken through by some countries’ legislature. In foreign countries, somelegislature has stipulated the conditions of limited testament ability, some legislatures evenhas allowed testamentary incapacity to appoint the testamentary deputy.Thirdly, the author has tidied up the valid requirement of testament systematically, andthe valid requirement of testament laid particular stress on the substantial requirement, andthe formal requirement was not been regulated strictly.On the basis of analyzing the shortcomings of contemporary legislature of our country,using the legislature experience of foreign countries and combining the practice of China,the author has put forward the suggestions of legislature. About how to perfect thelegislation of substantial requirement main contents is hereinafter: the regulation of limitedcapable testator; the recognization of qualification of testament beneficiary which deniespeople losing heirdom as testament beneficiary, and under the condition of valid wills thesettlement of identity conflict between testament participator and beneficiary. The paperalso thinks we should perfect the system of our country’s compulsory portion through waysbelow: define the right of compulsory portion as the extension of aliment after ancestor’sdeath, and make the condition of aliment as the standard of whether the right of compulsoryexists, and regulate the referring factors of ensuring the amount of compulsory portion, andsetup the quota of compulsory portion from double points of view including single obligeeand collective oblige, and regulate the right of surviving spouse’s inhabitation in priorhouse and its applying conditions, and regulate the right of set-aside portion about life things of surviving spouse and the filial minor, and set up removal fight of oblige ofcompulsory portion which is being harmed by others. Concerning the legislative perfectionof formal requirement, the dissertation thinks that it is necessary to enrich the regulations ofnotarial wills, add sealed wills, perfect related criterion of holographic wills, add witnessedwills which can include allograph wills, limit the amount of disposing legacy after recordwills absorbed by privileged wills, and regulate the rigid of formal requirement oftestament.更多还原