【作者】 刘阳；

【导师】 辜明安；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2025， 硕士

【摘要】 遗嘱撤回制度是遗嘱自由原则的延伸,关乎遗嘱人临终意愿的落实与遗产继承秩序的稳定。《民法典》第1142条虽确立了遗嘱法定撤回规则,但司法实践中仍存在规范性质不明、适用标准模糊及立法指引性不足等问题。本文以问题为导向,通过规范分析、实证研究与比较法考察,系统检视我国遗嘱法定撤回规则的司法困境与理论争议,并提出完善路径。全文共分五章:第一章解析遗嘱法定撤回的法理基础。主张遗嘱法定撤回规范应属“可反驳的推定”,允许通过遗嘱人明示保留意思推翻撤回效果,以平衡遗嘱形式强制与遗嘱人真实意思的探求。遗嘱要式性须适度缓和,避免过度形式化侵蚀遗嘱自由。第二章通过实证研究揭示遗嘱法定撤回规则的司法适用现状。当前裁判分歧集中于“前后遗嘱相抵触”的认定标准模糊、“相反行为”的范围界定不明及物质毁弃遗嘱的规范缺失,导致同案不同判现象频发。第三章至第五章聚焦类型化规则建构。针对“前后遗嘱相抵触型”撤回,强调应以遗嘱人真意探求为核心,承认部分抵触效力,确立“补充说”解释路径;对于“相反行为型”撤回,主张明确排除“物权变动”要件限制,将负担行为纳入适用范围,明确身份行为与拆迁协议的区分标准,其他非法律行为亦有纳入适用的空间;至于“物质毁弃型”撤回,建议借鉴域外立法增设独立规则,严格限定主观故意与行为不可逆性要件,填补立法空白。本文的创新之处在于,梳理裁判文书,对遗嘱法定撤回规则进行类型化分析,在现有研究基础上对相关重点概念进一步界定,并构建物质撤回遗嘱的认定规则;不足之处一是对资料的收集和理解不够全面,部分案例样本量不够丰富,二是囿于笔者学术水平,文章对问题的探讨和研究不够深入。更多还原

【Abstract】 The testamentary revocation regime,as an extension of the principle of testamentary freedom,bears critical significance in implementing testators’final intentions and stabilizing inheritance order.Although Article 1142 of the Civil Code establishes statutory rules for testamentary revocation,judicial practice reveals persistent issues including ambiguous normative nature,inconsistent application standards,and insufficient legislative guidance.Adopting a problem-oriented methodology through doctrinal analysis,empirical research,and comparative law examination,this study systematically examines the judicial dilemmas and theoretical controversies surrounding China’s statutory testamentary revocation rules,proposing pathways for refinement.The thesis comprises five chapters:Chapter 1 delineates the jurisprudential foundations of statutory testamentary revocation.It posits that statutory revocation norms should operate as rebuttable presumptions,permitting revocation effects to be overridden by testators’expressly reserved intentions,thereby balancing formality requirements with genuine testamentary intent.Testamentary formalities must be moderately relaxed to prevent excessive rigidity from undermining testamentary freedom.Chapter 2,through empirical analysis,uncovers current judicial application patterns.Prevailing adjudicative divergences center on:(1)indeterminate criteria for identifying"inconsistencies between successive wills";(2)unclear scope of"incompatible acts";and(3)legislative gaps in regulating material destruction of wills,collectively resulting in inconsistent judgments for factually analogous cases.Chapters 3 to 5 focus on constructing typological frameworks.Regarding revocation through inconsistent wills,the study advocates prioritizing the ascertainment of testators’actual intentions,recognizing partial inconsistencies,and establishing a"complementary interpretation"approach.For revocation via incompatible acts,it proposes eliminating"real rights transfer"prerequisites,expanding applicability to obligatory acts,clarifying distinctions between status-related acts and demolition agreements,while acknowledging potential inclusion of non-juristic acts.Concerning material destruction,the thesis recommends adopting autonomous rules from foreign jurisdictions,strictly requiring subjective intent and irreversible conduct to fill legislative lacunae.Innovations lie in systematizing judicial decisions to conduct typological analysis of statutory revocation rules,refining key conceptual boundaries,and formulating identification criteria for material revocation.Limitations include partial inadequacies in data comprehensiveness and case sample representativeness,as well as constrained analytical depth due to the author’s academic capacity.更多还原