论文部分内容阅读
从本案中《遗言》的文义来看,被继承人罗某英将涉案房屋产权遗留给四儿子简甲的意思表示是清晰明确的,其关于三女简丁有居住权、未经同意不能出租或出售等只是遗嘱附有的义务,系对继承人所有权的限制,而不是对所有权的否定。仅根据《遗言》中有对继承人所有权附有限制条件而否认被继承人罗某英通过遗嘱方式将涉案房屋的产权给予简甲的意愿、不确认《遗言》的效力,进而适用法定继承处理遗产,显然与罗某英立遗嘱的内心真意不符。简甲诉请继承涉案房屋全部产权份额有理,应予支持。
Judging from the literary meaning of the “last words” in the present case, the illegality of the property inherited by the deceased, Lu Mouying, to the fourth son Jane Jiayi is clear and clear. His claim that the three daughters have a dwelling right can not be rented without the consent Or sale is only the will of a will, a restriction of ownership of the heir, not a negation of ownership. According to the “last words” there are restrictions on the ownership of heirs and denied the will of the deceased Luomouying property will be involved in the case will be given a simple will, does not confirm the “last words” effect, and then apply the statutory succession to deal with heritage, Obviously inconsistent with the innermost intention of Luomou’s Will. Jane J, please inherit the ownership of all the property involved in the case is reasonable and should be supported.