{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-379860",
  "citation": "Res. 01957-2025 Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Indignidad para heredar por agresión patrimonial del descendiente al causante",
  "title_en": "Unworthiness to inherit due to descendant's patrimonial aggression against the decedent",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte analiza la institución de la indignidad para suceder (artículo 523 del Código Civil) en un caso donde un hijo agredió patrimonialmente a su padre, aprovechándose de sus bienes. La sentencia repasa la naturaleza moral de esta figura, que excluye de la herencia a quien incurre en conductas gravemente reprochables contra el causante. Destaca que, si bien la norma enumera causales específicas (atentado contra la vida, lesiones, ofensas graves), el catálogo no es taxativo: conductas de extrema gravedad moral no previstas expresamente pueden constituir indignidad si encajan en el espíritu de la ley. La Sala considera que la agresión patrimonial deliberada de un hijo contra su padre, con el fin de lucrar del haber sucesorio, configura una clara causal de indignidad. Señala, además, que la reforma de 2019 (Ley 9777) incorporó como causal el inducir al causante, mediante engaño o abuso de vulnerabilidad, a realizar actos de disposición perjudiciales, revelando la intención legislativa de proteger el patrimonio del causante frente a la mala fe de los herederos, incluso mediante actos fraudulentos posteriores a la muerte.",
  "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court examines the institution of unworthiness to inherit (Article 523 of the Civil Code) in a case where a son committed patrimonial aggression against his father, taking advantage of his assets. The ruling reviews the moral nature of this figure, which excludes from inheritance those who engage in seriously reprehensible conduct against the decedent. It emphasizes that, while the norm lists specific grounds (attempt on life, injury, serious offense), the catalog is not exhaustive: conduct of extreme moral gravity not expressly provided for may constitute unworthiness if it fits the spirit of the law. The Court finds that the deliberate patrimonial aggression of a son against his father, aimed at profiting from the estate, constitutes a clear ground for unworthiness. It also notes that the 2019 reform (Law 9777) added as a ground inducing the decedent, through deceit or abuse of vulnerability, to perform harmful acts of disposition, revealing the legislative intent to protect the decedent's estate against heirs' bad faith, including fraudulent acts after death.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "date": "2025",
  "year": "2025",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "indignidad para heredar",
    "Art. 523 Código Civil",
    "haber sucesorio",
    "de cuius",
    "ingratitud",
    "Ley 9777"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 523",
      "law": "Código Civil"
    },
    {
      "article": null,
      "law": "Ley 9777"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 45.1",
      "law": "Código Procesal Civil"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "indignidad para heredar",
    "artículo 523 Código Civil",
    "Derecho de Sucesiones",
    "agresión patrimonial",
    "causales de indignidad",
    "Ley 9777",
    "sucesión testamentaria y legítima",
    "protección de la persona adulta mayor"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "unworthiness to inherit",
    "article 523 Civil Code",
    "inheritance law",
    "patrimonial aggression",
    "grounds for unworthiness",
    "Law 9777",
    "testamentary and legitimate succession",
    "elderly person protection"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Es así como, la agresión patrimonial que se le ocasionó al fallecido por parte de su propio hijo, con la consecuencia de aprovecharse para el futuro de los bienes del haber sucesorio, se considera como una clara causal de indignidad. Véase que incluso, en la reforma que se hizo al artículo 523 del Código de Trabajo (no aplicable al caso ya que su vigencia es posterior), se incluyó lo siguiente: “Quien, mediante engaño, abuso de poder o coacción o, valiéndose de un estado especial de vulnerabilidad de la persona, haya inducido al causante a realizar actos de disposición sobre sus bienes, derechos o recursos económicos, de forma que importe efectos jurídicos perjudiciales para sí o sus dependientes directos” (Así reformado por el artículo 1° de la Ley para actualizar las causales de indignidad para heredar, N° 9777 del 12 de noviembre de 2019). De lo anterior resulta notorio que la intención del legislador siempre fue velar por el bienestar patrimonial del causante ante la mala fe de sus herederos, incluyéndose los actos fraudulentos luego de su muerte.",
  "excerpt_en": "Thus, the patrimonial aggression caused to the deceased by his own son, with the consequence of profiting in the future from the assets of the estate, is considered a clear ground for unworthiness. Indeed, even in the reform made to article 523 of the Labor Code (inapplicable to the case as it took effect later), the following was included: 'Whoever, through deceit, abuse of power or coercion, or taking advantage of a special state of vulnerability of the person, has induced the decedent to perform acts of disposition over his assets, rights or economic resources, in a way that entails harmful legal effects for himself or his direct dependents' (As amended by article 1 of the Law to Update the Grounds for Unworthiness to Inherit, No. 9777 of November 12, 2019). From the foregoing, it is clear that the legislator's intention was always to safeguard the decedent's patrimonial well-being against the bad faith of his heirs, including fraudulent acts after his death.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Court upheld the declaration of unworthiness to inherit based on patrimonial aggression by the heir against the decedent.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte confirmó la declaración de indignidad para heredar basada en agresión patrimonial del heredero contra el causante."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "… the patrimonial aggression caused to the deceased by his own son, with the consequence of profiting in the future from the assets of the estate, is considered a clear ground for unworthiness.",
      "quote_es": "… la agresión patrimonial que se le ocasionó al fallecido por parte de su propio hijo, con la consecuencia de aprovecharse para el futuro de los bienes del haber sucesorio, se considera como una clara causal de indignidad."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "… the legislator's intention was always to safeguard the decedent's patrimonial well-being against the bad faith of his heirs, including fraudulent acts after his death.",
      "quote_es": "… la intención del legislador siempre fue velar por el bienestar patrimonial del causante ante la mala fe de sus herederos, incluyéndose los actos fraudulentos luego de su muerte."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-379860",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "norm_num": "",
      "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica",
      "tipo_norma": "",
      "norm_fecha": ""
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-43655",
      "norm_num": "7935",
      "norm_name": "Ley Integral para la Persona Adulta Mayor",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "25/10/1999"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-81360",
      "norm_num": "9342",
      "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil — Inversión de la Carga de la Prueba en Materia Ambiental",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "03/02/2016"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"III.- [...] Es preciso recordar que en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, las sentencias penales firmes vinculan a la jurisdicción en lo que respecta a la existencia del hecho delictivo y a la responsabilidad penal del condenado. Así, la sentencia penal viene a constituir un elemento probatorio documental para acreditar la existencia de la indignidad del demandado, esto según lo indicado en el numeral 45.1 del Código Procesal Civil que indica que “Los documentos públicos y los privados admitidos, tácita o expresamente, se presumen auténticos y válidos mientras no se pruebe lo contrario. Los documentos recibidos o conservados por medios tecnológicos y los que los despachos judiciales emitan como copias de originales almacenados por estos mismos medios gozarán de la validez y eficacia del documento físico original, siempre que quede garantizada su autenticidad, integridad y conservación, así como el cumplimiento de los requisitos exigidos por la ley”. Debe resaltarse que la indignidad para heredar es una institución jurídica tradicional del Derecho de Sucesiones que tiene por finalidad excluir de la herencia a aquellas personas que han incurrido en conductas gravemente reprochables contra el causante. En Costa Rica, esta figura se encuentra regulada en el artículo 523 del Código Civil. Ahora, la redacción original del artículo incorporó causales inspiradas en el Código Napoleónico y el Derecho Romano, tales como el atentado contra la vida del causante, la acusación calumniosa y la negativa a brindarle alimentos si estaba legalmente obligado. Dichas casuales reflejan un criterio ético-moral, que no puede heredar quien ha obrado con ingratitud o violencia contra quien le legó su patrimonio. Estas disposiciones se mantuvieron sin cambios significativos hasta la reforma del año 2019 (Ley 9777). Ahora, según los términos de ese canon, “Son indignos de recibir por sucesión testamentaria o legítima: /1- Quien dé muerte o atente contra la vida del causante, sus padres, consorte, hijos, les ocasione lesiones o cometa agresiones físicas, agresiones sexuales o alguna ofensa grave contra estas personas, su honra o su memoria, siempre que las conductas sean debidamente comprobadas (…)”. Tal y como ya lo ha indicado esta Sala en otras ocasiones, la causal de indignidad prevista en el numeral 523 inciso 1) y las otras que contempla ese artículo, prevén la exclusión de un heredero de una sucesión sobre todo por razones morales, de acuerdo con las cuales se estima que el heredero: “... no es merecedor de obtener el beneficio patrimonial que le produciría la sucesión” (MESSINEO (Francesco). Manual de Derecho Civil y Comercial, tomo VII, Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América, Buenos Aires, 1956, p. 45). Para ese mismo autor: “... la indignidad para suceder, o sea, para recibir por sucesión ... es una especie de incompatibilidad moral, en que el sucesor posible viene a encontrarse, por hecho suyo propio, respecto del de cuius, y en virtud de la cual puede ser excluido de la sucesión” ( op. cit., p. 44). En ese mismo sentido, don Alberto Brenes Córdoba considera que: “... este es un castigo que se impone al que falta de un modo grave a las consideraciones debidas a su benefactor, o le ofende con hechos reveladores de odio u otra pasión malsana. La indignidad, las más de las veces, no es otra cosa que la ingratitud, castigada por la ley civil” (BRENES CÓRDOBA (Alberto) Tratado de los Bienes, primera edición, Editorial Costa Rica, 1963, pp. 243); y Albaladejo García, la define como la “tacha con que la ley marca a las personas que han cometido determinados actos especialmente reprensibles, en virtud de la que su autor queda inhabilitado para suceder al causante que los padeció, a menos que éste lo rehabilite” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA, Curso de Derecho Civil, T. V, Derecho de Sucesiones, Bosch, Barcelona, 1989, pp. 82). Además, se colige que lo que se castiga es una conducta ofensiva para el causante y a su honra, que puede darse en vida o después de la muerte. Así lo analiza don Francisco Luis Vargas Soto: “La ofensa también puede haberse cometido en contra la memoria del causante. Esto es, puede haber acontecido con posterioridad a la muerte del de cujus, y sin embargo a pesar de tal circunstancia debe sí ser motivo suficiente para que se excluya de la ofensa al ofensor, pues la ingratitud es manifiesta en el heredero que estando por recibir parte del caudal hereditario de aquel lo ande difamando, y ello debe admitirse basado en el principio que no es dable distinguir donde la ley no distingue: el Código no dice si la ofensa se cometió en vida o luego de muerto el causante” (VARGAS SOTO (Francisco) Manual de Derecho Sucesorio Costarricense, Editorial Juricentro, 2010, pp.86). Ahora, si bien el numeral 523 ibídem es claro al definir las causales específicas de indignidad, esto no excluye la posibilidad de incluir otros hechos o conductas que, si bien no están comprendidos en dicho precepto, por su gravedad o inmoralidad social constituirían comportamientos merecedores de la declaración judicial de indignidad para suceder. Así, Albaladejo García se refiere a “conductas repugnantes no singularmente contempladas por la ley, que siendo moralmente tanto y más malas que las que sí, aunque no las prevea su letra, quepan, sin embargo, de algún modo, razonablemente en su espíritu; porque no hay que olvidar que por mucho que se predique la interpretación restrictiva, ello no excluye de apreciar como causa de indignidad algún hecho de tal índole que mereciendo serlo, aunque no aparezca singularizado en el catálogo legal, quepa incluirlo en alguno de sus conceptos” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA. Comentario al artículo 756 CC. Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones forales. Edersa, Madrid, 1987, pp. 11-12). Es así como, la agresión patrimonial que se le ocasionó al fallecido por parte de su propio hijo, con la consecuencia de aprovecharse para el futuro de los bienes del haber sucesorio, se considera como una clara causal de indignidad. Véase que incluso, en la reforma que se hizo al artículo 523 del Código de Trabajo (no aplicable al caso ya que su vigencia es posterior), se incluyó lo siguiente: “Quien, mediante engaño, abuso de poder o coacción o, valiéndose de un estado especial de vulnerabilidad de la persona, haya inducido al causante a realizar actos de disposición sobre sus bienes, derechos o recursos económicos, de forma que importe efectos jurídicos perjudiciales para sí o sus dependientes directos” (Así reformado por el artículo 1° de la Ley para actualizar las causales de indignidad para heredar, N° 9777 del 12 de noviembre de 2019). De lo anterior resulta notorio que la intención del legislador siempre fue velar por el bienestar patrimonial del causante ante la mala fe de sus herederos, incluyéndose los actos fraudulentos luego de su muerte.\"",
  "body_en_text": "III.- [...] It is necessary to recall that in the Costa Rican legal system, final criminal judgments bind the jurisdiction with respect to the existence of the criminal act and the criminal responsibility of the convicted person. Thus, the criminal judgment becomes documentary evidence to prove the existence of the unworthiness to inherit (indignidad) of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of article 45.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), which states that “Public documents and admitted private documents, tacitly or expressly, are presumed authentic and valid until proven otherwise. Documents received or preserved by technological means and those that judicial offices issue as copies of originals stored by these same means shall enjoy the validity and effectiveness of the original physical document, provided that their authenticity, integrity, and preservation are guaranteed, as well as compliance with the requirements demanded by law”. It should be emphasized that unworthiness to inherit (indignidad para heredar) is a traditional legal institution of Inheritance Law (Derecho de Sucesiones) whose purpose is to exclude from the inheritance those persons who have engaged in seriously reprehensible conduct against the deceased (causante). In Costa Rica, this concept is regulated in Article 523 of the Civil Code (Código Civil). Now, the original wording of the article incorporated grounds inspired by the Napoleonic Code and Roman Law, such as the attempt against the life of the deceased, slanderous accusation, and the refusal to provide support if legally obliged. These grounds reflect an ethical-moral criterion, that one who has acted with ingratitude or violence against the person who bequeathed their estate cannot inherit. These provisions remained without significant changes until the reform of the year 2019 (Ley 9777). Now, according to the terms of that canon, “The following are unworthy to receive by testate or intestate succession: /1- Whoever causes the death of or attempts against the life of the deceased, their parents, spouse, children, causes them injuries, or commits physical aggression, sexual aggression, or some serious offense against these persons, their honor, or their memory, provided that the conduct is duly proven (…)”. As this Chamber has already indicated on other occasions, the ground for unworthiness provided for in article 523, subsection 1) and the others contemplated in that article, provide for the exclusion of an heir from a succession above all for moral reasons, according to which the heir is considered: “... not deserving of obtaining the patrimonial benefit that the succession would produce for him” (MESSINEO (Francesco). Manual de Derecho Civil y Comercial, tomo VII, Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América, Buenos Aires, 1956, p. 45). According to that same author: “... unworthiness to succeed, that is, to receive by succession ... is a kind of moral incompatibility, in which the potential successor finds himself, by his own act, with respect to the de cuius, and by virtue of which he can be excluded from the succession” (op. cit., p. 44). In that same sense, Mr. Alberto Brenes Córdoba considers that: “... this is a punishment imposed on one who gravely fails in the consideration owed to their benefactor, or offends them with acts revealing hatred or another malicious passion. Unworthiness, most of the time, is nothing other than ingratitude, punished by civil law” (BRENES CÓRDOBA (Alberto) Tratado de los Bienes, primera edición, Editorial Costa Rica, 1963, pp. 243); and Albaladejo García defines it as the “taint with which the law marks persons who have committed certain particularly reprehensible acts, by virtue of which the perpetrator is disqualified from succeeding the deceased who suffered them, unless the latter rehabilitates him” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA, Curso de Derecho Civil, T. V, Derecho de Sucesiones, Bosch, Barcelona, 1989, pp. 82). Furthermore, it is inferred that what is punished is conduct offensive to the deceased and their honor, which can occur during life or after death. This is how Mr. Francisco Luis Vargas Soto analyzes it: “The offense may also have been committed against the memory of the deceased. That is, it may have occurred after the death of the de cuius, and nevertheless, despite such circumstance, it must indeed be sufficient reason to exclude the offender from the offense, since ingratitude is manifest in the heir who, being about to receive part of the hereditary estate of the former, goes about defaming him, and this must be admitted based on the principle that one cannot distinguish where the law does not distinguish: the Code does not say whether the offense was committed during the life or after the death of the deceased” (VARGAS SOTO (Francisco) Manual de Derecho Sucesorio Costarricense, Editorial Juricentro, 2010, pp.86). Now, although article 523 ibidem is clear in defining the specific grounds for unworthiness, this does not exclude the possibility of including other acts or conduct that, although not included in said precept, by their gravity or social immorality would constitute behaviors deserving of a judicial declaration of unworthiness to succeed. Thus, Albaladejo García refers to “repugnant conduct not specifically contemplated by the law, which being morally as bad and worse than those that are, although not provided for in its letter, nevertheless fit, in some reasonable way, within its spirit; because one must not forget that however much restrictive interpretation is advocated, this does not exclude appreciating as a cause of unworthiness some act of such nature that, deserving to be one, even if it does not appear specified in the legal catalog, may be included in some of its concepts” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA. Comentario al artículo 756 CC. Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones forales. Edersa, Madrid, 1987, pp. 11-12). It is thus that the patrimonial aggression caused to the deceased by their own son, with the consequence of taking future advantage of the assets of the hereditary estate, is considered a clear ground for unworthiness. Note that even in the reform made to Article 523 of the Labor Code (not applicable to the case as its effectiveness is subsequent), the following was included: “Whoever, through deceit, abuse of power, or coercion, or taking advantage of a special state of vulnerability of the person, has induced the deceased to carry out acts of disposition over their property, rights, or economic resources, in a way that entails harmful legal effects for themselves or their direct dependents” (Thus reformed by Article 1 of the Law to Update the Grounds for Unworthiness to Inherit, N° 9777 of November 12, 2019). From the foregoing, it is evident that the legislator's intention has always been to ensure the patrimonial well-being of the deceased (causante) in the face of the bad faith of their heirs, including fraudulent acts after their death.\n\n...is a kind of moral incompatibility, in which the possible successor finds themselves, through their own doing, with respect to the de cuius, and by virtue of which they may be excluded from the succession” (op. cit., p. 44). In that same vein, don Alberto Brenes Córdoba considers that: “... this is a punishment imposed on one who gravely fails in the consideration owed to their benefactor, or offends them with acts revealing hatred or another unhealthy passion. Indignity (indignidad), more often than not, is nothing other than ingratitude, punished by civil law” (BRENES CÓRDOBA (Alberto) Tratado de los Bienes, first edition, Editorial Costa Rica, 1963, pp. 243); and Albaladejo García defines it as the “taint with which the law marks persons who have committed certain especially reprehensible acts, by virtue of which the perpetrator is disqualified from succeeding the de cuius who suffered them, unless the latter rehabilitates them” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA, Curso de Derecho Civil, T. V, Derecho de Sucesiones, Bosch, Barcelona, 1989, pp. 82). Furthermore, it is inferred that what is punished is conduct offensive to the de cuius and to their honor, which may occur during life or after death. Thus analyzes don Francisco Luis Vargas Soto: “The offense may also have been committed against the memory of the de cuius. That is, it may have occurred after the death of the de cuius, and yet despite such circumstance it should indeed be sufficient reason to exclude the offender from the succession, for the ingratitude is manifest in the heir who, being about to receive part of the hereditary estate of the former, goes about defaming them, and this must be admitted based on the principle that one must not distinguish where the law does not distinguish: the Code does not say whether the offense was committed during life or after the death of the de cuius” (VARGAS SOTO (Francisco) Manual de Derecho Sucesorio Costarricense, Editorial Juricentro, 2010, pp.86). Now, although numeral 523 ibidem is clear in defining the specific grounds for indignity (indignidad), this does not exclude the possibility of including other acts or conducts that, although not comprised within said precept, due to their gravity or social immorality would constitute behaviors deserving of a judicial declaration of indignity to succeed. Thus, Albaladejo García refers to “repugnant conduct not singularly contemplated by law, which being morally as bad as, and even worse than, those that are, although the letter of the law does not provide for them, may nevertheless, in some reasonable way, fit within its spirit; for one must not forget that however much restrictive interpretation is advocated, this does not exclude appreciating as a cause of indignity some act of such a nature that, meriting it, even if it does not appear singled out in the legal catalog, may be included in one of its concepts” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA. Comentario al artículo 756 CC. Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones forales. Edersa, Madrid, 1987, pp. 11-12). It is thus that the patrimonial aggression inflicted upon the deceased by their own child, with the consequence of taking advantage in the future of the assets of the hereditary estate, is considered a clear ground for indignity.\n\nSee that even in the reform made to Article 523 of the Labor Code (not applicable to the case since its effective date is later), the following was included: “Whoever, through deceit, abuse of power, or coercion, or taking advantage of a special state of vulnerability of the person, has induced the de cuius to perform acts of disposition regarding their property, rights, or economic resources, in such a way as to have legal effects detrimental to themselves or their direct dependents” (Thus reformed by Article 1° of the Law to Update the Grounds for Indignity to Inherit, No.° 9777 of November 12, 2019). From the foregoing, it is notorious that the legislator's intent was always to ensure the patrimonial well-being of the de cuius against the bad faith of their heirs, including fraudulent acts after their death.\"\n\n\"III.- [...] It is necessary to recall that in the Costa Rican legal system, final criminal judgments bind the jurisdiction with respect to the existence of the criminal act and the criminal liability of the convicted person. Thus, the criminal judgment becomes a documentary evidentiary element to prove the existence of the unworthiness (indignidad) of the defendant, pursuant to what is indicated in numeral 45.1 of the Código Procesal Civil which states that “Public and private documents admitted, tacitly or expressly, are presumed authentic and valid until the contrary is proven. Documents received or preserved by technological means and those that judicial offices issue as copies of originals stored by these same means shall enjoy the validity and efficacy of the original physical document, provided that their authenticity, integrity, and conservation are guaranteed, as well as compliance with the requirements demanded by law”. It should be highlighted that unworthiness to inherit (indignidad para heredar) is a traditional legal institution of Succession Law whose purpose is to exclude from the inheritance those persons who have engaged in gravely reprehensible conduct against the deceased (causante). In Costa Rica, this figure is regulated in Article 523 of the Código Civil. Now, the original wording of the article incorporated grounds (causales) inspired by the Napoleonic Code and Roman Law, such as the attempt against the life of the deceased, the slanderous accusation, and the refusal to provide support (alimentos) if legally obligated. These grounds reflect an ethical-moral criterion, that one cannot inherit who has acted with ingratitude or violence against the one who bequeathed their estate. These provisions remained without significant changes until the reform of the year 2019 (Ley 9777). Now, according to the terms of that canon, “The following are unworthy to receive by testamentary or intestate succession: /1- Whoever causes the death of or makes an attempt against the life of the deceased, their parents, spouse, children, causes them injuries or commits physical aggression (agresiones físicas), sexual aggression (agresiones sexuales) or some serious offense against these persons, their honor or their memory, provided that the conduct is duly proven (…)”. As this Chamber has already indicated on other occasions, the ground of unworthiness provided for in numeral 523 subsection 1) and the others contemplated in that article, provide for the exclusion of an heir from a succession (sucesión) above all for moral reasons, according to which it is deemed that the heir: “... is not deserving of obtaining the patrimonial benefit that the succession would produce for them” (MESSINEO (Francesco). Manual de Derecho Civil y Comercial, volume VII, Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América, Buenos Aires, 1956, p. 45). For that same author: “... unworthiness to succeed, that is, to receive by succession ... is a kind of moral incompatibility, in which the possible successor finds themselves, by their own doing, with respect to the de cuius, and by virtue of which they can be excluded from the succession” (op. cit., p. 44). In that same sense, don Alberto Brenes Córdoba considers that: “... this is a punishment imposed on one who gravely fails in the considerations due to their benefactor, or offends them with acts revealing hatred or another unhealthy passion.”\n\nIndignity, more often than not, is nothing other than ingratitude, punished by civil law” (BRENES CÓRDOBA (Alberto), *Tratado de los Bienes*, first edition, Editorial Costa Rica, 1963, pp. 243); and Albaladejo García defines it as the “stain with which the law marks persons who have committed certain especially reprehensible acts, by virtue of which the perpetrator is disqualified from succeeding the deceased who suffered them, unless the latter rehabilitates them” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA, *Curso de Derecho Civil, T. V, Derecho de Sucesiones*, Bosch, Barcelona, 1989, pp. 82). Furthermore, it is inferred that what is punished is conduct offensive to the deceased and their honor, which may occur during life or after death. This is how don Francisco Luis Vargas Soto analyzes it: “The offense may also have been committed against the memory of the deceased. That is, it may have occurred after the death of the de cujus, and nevertheless, despite such circumstance, it should indeed be sufficient grounds to exclude the offender from the offence, for the ingratitude is manifest in the heir who, being about to receive part of the hereditary estate of the former, goes about defaming them, and this must be admitted based on the principle that it is not permissible to distinguish where the law does not distinguish: the Code does not say whether the offense was committed during life or after the death of the deceased” (VARGAS SOTO (Francisco), *Manual de Derecho Sucesorio Costarricense*, Editorial Juricentro, 2010, pp.86). Now, while numeral 523 ibidem is clear in defining the specific grounds for indignity, this does not exclude the possibility of including other acts or behaviors which, although not encompassed in said precept, by their gravity or social immorality would constitute behaviors deserving of a judicial declaration of indignity to succeed. Thus, Albaladejo García refers to “repugnant conduct not singularly contemplated by law, which being morally as bad and worse than those that are, although not foreseen by its letter, nevertheless fit, in some reasonable way, within its spirit; because one must not forget that however much restrictive interpretation is advocated, that does not preclude appreciating as a cause of indignity some act of such a nature that, deserving to be one, even though it does not appear singled out in the legal catalog, can be included within one of its concepts” (ALBALADEJO GARCÍA, *Comentario al artículo 756 CC. Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones forales*, Edersa, Madrid, 1987, pp. 11-12). It is thus that the patrimonial aggression inflicted upon the deceased by his own son, with the consequence of taking advantage in the future of the assets of the hereditary estate, is considered a clear ground for indignity.\n\nIt should even be noted that, in the reform made to Article 523 of the Labor Code (not applicable to the case as its effective date is subsequent), the following was included: “Whoever, through deceit, abuse of power, or coercion, or taking advantage of a special state of vulnerability of the person, has induced the deceased to perform acts of disposition over their assets, rights, or economic resources, in a manner that produces prejudicial legal effects for themselves or their direct dependents” (Thus reformed by Article 1 of the Ley para actualizar las causales de indignidad para heredar, No. 9777 of November 12, 2019). From the foregoing, it is notorious that the legislator's intention was always to watch over the patrimonial well-being of the deceased against the bad faith of their heirs, including fraudulent acts after their death.\""
}