THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case No:  192/2013

Reportable

In the matter between:

NICOLETTE ERASMUS NO

Appellant

and

ESTATE LATE BAREND CHRISTIAAN  BOOYSEN   Respondent

Neutral citation:
Nicolette Erasmus NO v Estate Late Booysen (192/13)
[2014] ZASCA 27 (28 March 2014)
Coram:
Mthiyane DP and Petse, Willis and Saldulker JJA and Legodi
AJA

Heard:
17 March 2014

Delivered:
28 March  2014

Summary:
A grandchild is not disqualified from inheritance as a result of
the fact that one or both of the grandchild‟s parents predeceased his or her
grandparents – in the absence of clear indications to the contrary in a will, the
grandchild of a predeceased parent will inherit per stirpes.

ORDER

On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (De Vos J sitting as
court of first instance):
1 The appeal is upheld;
2 The order of the high court is set aside;
3 The following order is substituted for that of the high court:
„(i) The fideicommissa established in terms of the wills of the late Johannes
Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen, dated 20 March 1969 and the late Jacomina
Hendrina Booysen, dated 26 March 1969 entitle Jonique Booysen (Identity
number 000113 0114 083) to inherit  such bequest as her late father, Josua
Booysen, would have inherited were he still alive;
(ii) The executor of the estate of the late Barend Christiaan Booysen is to
distribute the properties subject to the fideicommissa established in terms of
the said wills to Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen and Jonique Booysen
as fideicommissaries respectively, Jonique to inherit per stirpes;
(iii) The fideicommissa established in terms of the aforesaid wills of the late
Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen and the late Jacomina Hendrina
Booysen will terminate in respect of the fideicommissary bequest to Jonique
such that she receives ownership unrestricted by the considerations of any
generation succeeding her;
(iv) The costs of the application and counter-application as well as the costs of
Jonique‟s curator-ad-litem are to be borne by the estate of Barend Christiaan
Booysen.‟
4 Any pending rule nisi in this matter is discharged.
5. The costs of this appeal are to be borne by the estate of Barend Christiaan
Booysen.

JUDGMENT

Willis JA (Mthiyane DP, Petse and Saldulker JJA and Legodi
AJA concurring):

[1] This case is concerned with the interpretation of two separate but
related wills of two different persons. These two persons were the great-
grandfather and great-great-grandmother of a minor child („Jonique‟). The
great-grandfather was the father of Jonique‟s paternal grandfather. The great-
great-grandmother was the mother of that great-grandfather. Jonique‟s father,
Josua Booysen (Josua) had predeceased his father, the late Barend
Christiaan Booysen, (the deceased).

[2] The deceased was a fiduciary of fideicommissa established by the
respective wills of his father (the minor child‟s aforesaid great-grandfather)
and grandmother (the minor child‟s previously mentioned great-great-
grandmother). The issue for determination in both the high court and this court
was whether Jonique could inherit, as a fideicommissary, when her father had
predeceased the deceased. In the judgment of the high court (De Vos J) on
23 February 2013 it was found that Jonique could not. On 4 March 2013 it
granted the appellant leave to appeal to this court. The appellant was
Nicolette Erasmus, the mother and surviving natural guardian of Jonique, who
was born on 13 January 2000.

[3] Johannes Arnoldus Booysen (the excecutor), who is the son of the
deceased and the duly appointed executor of the deceased‟s estate, brought
an application before the high court for an order declaring that the
fideicommissum established in favour of Josua  Booysen, in terms of the wills
of the late Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen (the first testator) dated 20

March 1969 and the late Jacomina Hendrina Booysen (the testatrix or second
testator) dated 26 March 1969, terminated upon the death of Josua. Josua
died on 26 August 2001. Josua was the son of the deceased and the brother
of the executor. The deceased died on 22 February 2009. Josua therefore
predeceased his father, the deceased. The deceased was the son of the first
testator and the grandson of the testatrix. The testatrix was the mother of the
first testator. The executor has two children. The elder is Johannes Arnoldus
Jacobus Booysen, born on 7 July 1998, who was named after his paternal
grandfather, the first testator. The younger is Ane Booysen, born on 8 January
2000. These two children are still living. The first testator is Jonique‟s great-
grandfather to whom reference has already been made. The testatrix is
Jonique‟s aforesaid great-great-grandmother.

[4] The executor brought the application ex parte. At the instance of the
executor, a rule nisi was issued and served on all interested parties, including
the appellant. Consequent upon the issue of the rule nisi, the appellant
received notice of the application and successfully applied to be joined as a
party. The appellant opposed the application and brought a counter-
application for an order that Jonique should inherit that part of the deceased‟s
estate which her father, had he still been alive, would have inherited. An
advocate, Ms Elani Botha, was appointed as curator-ad-litem for Jonique on
an interim basis. Ms Botha was, by agreement, discharged from her duties
before the hearing of the application.

[5] The will of the first testator dated 20 March 1969 was comprehensive.
The first testator provided in clause six thereof:
„Ek bemaak my plaas Grootpan, 378 morge groot, aan my seun BAREND
CHRISTIAAN BOOYSEN onderhewig aan die voorwaarde dat dit by sy dood sal
gaan na sy kinders by wie se dood die plaas weer sal oorgaan na my seun se
kleinkinders. Indien my seun te sterwe sou kom, sonder om kinders na te laat óf
indien sy kinders geen kinders nalaat nie sal gemelde plaas oorgaan na CORNELIA
MARIA BEZUIDENHOUT (gebore De Jager), my half-suster JOHANNA DE JAGER
se dogter, by wie se dood die plaas na haar kinders sal oorgaan.

DIE bemaking is onderhewig aan die verdere voorwaarde dat my moeder
JACOMINA HENDRINA BOOYSEN  ‟n lewenslange reg van habitatio sal hê ten
opsigte van die huidige woonhuis op die plaas.‟
The first testator therefore bequeathed the farm Grootpan to the deceased on
condition that, upon the death of the deceased, ownership of the farm would
pass to the deceased‟s children, upon whose death, in turn, ownership of the
farm would pass to the deceased‟s grandchildren. The will therefore
envisages the passing of the ownership of the farm to the deceased‟s
grandchildren, of whom Jonique was one, there being neither distinction nor
discrimination among them on account of the early demise of a parent.

[6] The relevant portion of the will of the testatrix dated 26 March 1969 is
to be found in clause three thereof. The pertinent parts of clause three read as
follows:
„Ek bemaak my boedel, roerend en onroerend as volg:
A My gedeelte van die plaas Grootpan, 100 morge groot, aan my kleinseun BAREND
CHRISTIAAN BOOYSEN onderhewig aan die voorwaarde dat dit by sy dood sal
gaan na sy kinders by wie se dood die plaas weer sal oorgaan na my kleinseun se
kleinkinders. Indien my kleinseun te sterwe sou kom sonder om kinders na te laat,
sal gemelde plaas oorgaan na CORNELIA MARIA BEZUIDENHOUT (gebore de
Jager), die dogter van JOHANNA DE JAGER, by wie se dood die plaas sal oorgaan
na haar kinders. Die bemaking is onderhewig aan die verdere voorwaarde dat M J
JANSEN „n lewenslange reg van habitatio sal hê ten opsigte van die huis opgerig vir
hom en tans deur hom bewoon op my deel van gemelde plaas.‟
Ex facie the will of the testatrix, she left her portion of the farm to the
deceased but provided that, upon the death of the deceased, that portion
would devolve on his grandchildren in the event that he died having surviving
children.

[7] Jonique is the only surviving child of Josua who, as we have seen,
predeceased the deceased. The appellant, Nicolette Erasmus, was married to
Josua on 5 December 1997. Jonique was born of the marriage between the
appellant and Josua. The appellant, as the mother and natural guardian of
Jonique, opposed the executor‟s application and brought the counter-

application in the interests of Jonique. The appellant and Josua were
divorced. Subsequent to Josua‟s death, the appellant remarried.

[8] The provision in the will, stipulating the succession of the ownership of
the farm over several generations, is known in our law as a fideicommissum.
In Corbett et al‟s The Law of Succession in South Africa1 it is said that:
„A testamentary fideicommissum is a disposition of property by will to a beneficiary
(known as the “fiduciary”) subject to a provision requiring the fiduciary, either
absolutely or upon the fulfillment of a condition, to pass on the property either wholly
or in part, to another beneficiary (known as the “fideicommissary”).‟

[9] Upon the death of the first and second testators, the properties in
question were duly transferred to the deceased in accordance with the
testamentary dispositions of the deceased‟s father (the first testator) and
grandmother (the testatrix or second testator). There are, in fact, three
properties, subject to the fideicommissa in contention, which the deceased
inherited:
(i) Portion 28 of the farm Grootpan 86, Registration Division I S, Province of
Mpumalanga, in extent 85,8532 hectares, which the deceased inherited in
terms of the will of testatrix;
(ii) The Remaining Extent of the farm Grootpan, in extent 226,9096 hectares,
inherited in terms of the first testator‟s will;
(iii) The Remainder of Portion 9 of the farm Grootpan, in extent 98,4298
hectares, inherited in terms of the first testator‟s will.
Portion 28 of Grootpan was transferred to the deceased on 4 August 1976.
The Remaining Extent of Grootpan and the Remainder of Portion 9 were
transferred to him on 31 January 1997. These three farms have been treated
as a single unit, fenced as such and known as „Grootpan‟.

[10] The estate of the deceased had been sequestrated while he was still
living. The properties in question were sold by public auction on 6 August
1993 to LCJ and JC Bezuidenhout Boerdery Beperk. These properties were

1 M M Corbett, G Hofmeyr and E Kahn 2 The Law of Succession in South Africa 2 ed (2001)
at 260.

transferred to the purchaser on 31 January 1997. The transfers took place
subject to the fideicommissa provided for in the wills of the first and second
testator respectively.

[11] There is a difference between the will of the first testator, on the one
hand, and that of the testatrix, on the other:  the first testator stipulated that,
upon the death of the deceased, the farm was to pass to the deceased‟s
children whereas the will of the testatrix provides that, upon the death of the
deceased, the portion of the farm was to pass to the grandchildren of the
deceased. Nothing turns on this.

[12] The high court correctly found that:
„Die tersaaklike gedeelte van beide testamente is dat die plase by Barend Christiaan
Booysen (the deceased) se dood sal gaan aan al sy kinders en dat by die kinders se
dood die plase sal oorgaan na Barend Christiaan Booysen se kleinkinders.‟
This may be translated as follows:
„The relevant portion of both wills is that the farms shall be inherited by all of the
children of Barend Christiaan Booysen and that, upon the death of these children, the
farms shall pass to Barend Christiaan Booysen‟s grandchildren.‟ (My translation.)
Jonique is, as has already been mentioned, one of the deceased‟s
grandchildren.

[13] The high court relied strongly on the following passage in Jewish
Colonial Trust Ltd v Estate Nathan:2
„In the ordinary form of fideicommissum, created by will where the fiduciary is a
human being taking a beneficial interest and the fideicommissary is a human being,
there is implied in the bequest to the fideicommissary a condition of survivorship (viz
that his institution as heir is conditional on his surviving the fiduciary).‟3

[14] Referring to Jonique, the high court found that:
„Op die feite voor my het geen vestiging uit die fideicommissiêre beskikking
plaasgevind nie omdat die fideicommissarius voor the die fiduciarius gesterf het. Die

2 Jewish Colonial Trust Ltd v Estate Nathan 1940 AD 163.
3 At 176.

testamente is duidelik en bepaal dat vestiging sou plaasvind by die dood van die
fiduciarius. Tot daardie gebeurtenis plaasgevind het, het die dominium gevestig in die
fiduciarius. By die nie-vervulling van die fideicommissiêre voorwaarde, word die
ontbindende voorwaarde, waaronder die fideicommissarius se “reg” gebuk gaan,
vervul en vind dienooreenkomstige uitwissing van die ius in personam plaas…‟
This may be translated as follows:
„On the facts before me, no vesting of the fideicommissiary dispensation took place
because the fideicommissary died before the fiduciary. The wills are clear and
stipulate that vesting takes place on the death of the fiduciary. Until that event
occurs,
ownership
vested
in
the
fiduciary.
Upon
non-fulfillment
of
the
fideicommissiary condition, the resolutive condition, whereby the fideicommissary‟s
“right” had been burdened, is fulfilled and the corresponding termination of the
personal right occurs.‟
(My translation.)

[15] The high court dismissed the appellant‟s counter-application and
ordered that the rule nisi issued on 6 July 2012, as amended on 12 August
2012 be confirmed. In other words the high court issued an order declaring
that:
(i) The fideicommissum  established in terms of the wills of the late Johannes
Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen (Jonique‟s great-grandfather) dated 20 March
1969 and the late Jacomina Hendrina Booysen (Jonique‟s great-great-
grandmother) dated 26 March 1969 terminated upon the death of Josua
Booysen (Jonique‟s father) on 26 August 2001; and
(ii) Jonique was not entitled to inherit in terms of the aforementioned wills of
the late Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen and the late Jacomina
Hendrina Booysen.
The high court ordered that the costs of the application and counter-
application as well as the costs of Jonique‟s curator-ad-litem be borne by the
estate of the deceased.

[16] In terms of s 6(1) of the Immovable Property (Removal or Modification
of Restrictions) Act 94 of 1965, any fideicommissum created in respect of
immovable property after the commencement of that Act is limited to two
successive fideicommissaries. Josua‟s father was the fiduciary of Grootpan.

Josua, having predeceased his father, did not become a fideicommissary
thereof. Accordingly, if Jonique otherwise qualifies, she would be the first
fideicommissary in terms of the wills of both the first and the second testators.

[17] Mr Muller, who appeared for the respondent, fairly and correctly
conceded that the respective wills had obviously been drawn with this Act in
mind and that the clear intention of the testators had been to pass down the
farm Grootpan to as many generations as the Act would allow. That, in itself,
favours Jonique.

[18] Where a fideicommissum provides for the fideicommissary property to
be passed on to successive fideicommissaries, as in this case, the
fideicommissum is termed a fideicommissum multiplex.4 This contrasts with
the situation where the fideicommissum provides for the property to be
passed on once only, which is known as a fideicommissum unicum (or
simplex).5

[19] The high court lost sight of the following qualification to that which has
been quoted earlier from Jewish Colonial Trust, viz:
„In the ordinary form of fideicommissum, created by will where the fiduciary is a
human being taking a beneficial interest and the fideicommissary is a human being,
there is implied in the bequest to the fideicommissary a condition of survivorship (viz.
that his institution as heir is conditional on his surviving the fiduciary)…But this
implication does not exist in every form of fideicommissum…‟(My emphasis.)

[20] In Corbett et al‟s The Law of Succession in South Africa6 it is said that
a fideicommissum multiplex constitutes an exception to the general rule stated
in the aforsaid passage in Jewish Colonial Trust and, referring with approval
to Ex parte Swanepoel,7 the learned authors say that where a
fideicommissum is multiplex, the death of the fideicommissary prior to vesting

4 See Executors Estate Fatha Mahomed v Moosa 1946 NPD 516 at 518; M M Corbett, G
Hofmeyr and E Kahn The Law of Succession in South Africa (supra) at 262-3.
5  See, for example, J Voet (1723) Commentarius Ad Pandectas 36.1.27 and 28; Ex Parte
Dell 1957 (3) SA 416 (C).
6 M M Corbett, G Hofmeyr and E Kahn The Law of Succession in South Africa (supra).
7 Ex parte Swanepoel 1960 (2) SA 357 (O).

does not result in the termination of the fideicommissum but brings about the
acceleration of the interest of the substitute.8 Effect has to be given the
intention of a testator expressed by creating a fideicommissum multiplex.9

[21] Johannes Voet, in his Commentarius Ad Pandectas, says:
„Ac proinde cum in Hollandia unius fratris filii et alterius fratris nepotes simul ad
intestato ad patrui defuncti hereditatem non in capita, sed in stirpes veniant, etiam
voluntas haec testatoris eam recepit interpretationem, ut in stirpes potius, quam in
capita, hereditas fratrum liberis ac nepotibus delata intelligatur.‟10 (My emphasis.)

[22] Sir Percival Gane‟s translation of this passage by Voet is the following:
„Since therefore in Holland the sons of one brother and the grandsons of another
brother come together in intestacy into the inheritance from a deceased uncle not by
heads‟11 but by stocks,12 this wish of the testator has also received the interpretation
that the inheritance is understood to have been conferred on the children and
grandchildren of brothers by stocks rather than by heads.‟13
Voet also records that, in a context such as this, where a clear intention to the
contrary is absent in a will, it is presumed that that the direction is that the
succession of descendants follows the order upon intestacy (i e per stirpes
rather than per capita).14 The relevant portions of the original text read as
follows: „… in dubio…potius successive secundum ordinem dilectionis et
successionis ab intestato.‟15 (My emphasis.)

[23] The principle of representation16 in our law of succession entails that,
where an ancestor leaves descendants, a presumption arises that the
descendants should inherit per stirpes (each stem of the family taking the

8 At 296-7.
9 See Jewish Colonial Trust Ltd v Estate Nathan (supra) at 176; M M Corbett, G Hofmeyr and
E Kahn The Law of Succession in South Africa (supra) at 262-3.
10J Voet (1723) Commentarius Ad Pandectas 28.5.17.
11 „Capita‟, in this context, refers to the phenomenon whereby only the survivors in a particular
generation inherit, but do so in equal shares.
12 „Stem‟ in my respectful opinion is a better translation for „stirps‟ (plural: „stirpes‟) than
„stock‟. See, for example, The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Moreover, when genealogies are
considered, we commonly use botanical imagery (e g „roots‟ and „branches‟).
13 (1956) Butterworth & Co (Africa) Ltd: Durban.
14 J Voet (1723) Commentarius Ad Pandectas 28.5.20.
15 Ibid.
16 Parkin & others v Estate Parkin & others (1908) 25 SC 346 at 349; Herold v Visser 1937
CPD 67 at 75.

same share).17 This principle has the natural consequence that, in our law, in
circumstances where a grandchild‟s parents predeceased that grandchild‟s
grandparents, the grandchild will ordinarily inherit from his or her
grandparents. A grandchild is not disqualified from inheritance merely as a
result of the fact that one or both of the grandchild‟s parents predeceased his
or her grandparents.

[24] The strength of Jonique‟s claim to inheritance is compounded by the
presumption in our law against a testator having the intention to disinherit
descendants.18

[25] The clear intention of both the first and second testators was that,
without distinction among them, the grandchildren of the deceased should
inherit under the respective fideicommissa. As such a grandchild, Jonique
was entitled to inherit thereunder. She inherits per stirpes. The appeal must
succeed.

[26] The following order is made:
1 The appeal is upheld;
2 The order of the high court is set aside;
3 The following order is substituted for that of the high court:
„(i) The fideicommissa established in terms of the wills of the late Johannes
Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen, dated 20 March 1969 and the late Jacomina
Hendrina Booysen, dated 26 March 1969 entitle Jonique Booysen (Identity

17 See, for example, J Voet Commentarius Ad Pandectas 28.5.17 read with 28.5.20.; Human
v Human’s Executors (1893) 10 SC 172 at 175-6; Stegmann v Board of Executors (1894) 11
SC 421 at 427; Wannenberg v Le Roux (1895) 12 SC 383 at 386; Board v Titterton (1896) 13
SC 164 at 168; Parkin & others v Estate Parkin & others (1908) 25 SC 346 at 349; Jansen
NO v De Bruyn (1909) 26 SC 266 at 270; Hopkins v Estate Smith 1920 CPD 558 at 566;
Tredgold v Estate Arderne 1926 CPD 25 at 32; In Re Estate Swanepoel 1929 OPD 98 at 102;
Erasmus v Van der Hoven 1935 OPD 194 at 195-6; Herold v Visser 1937 CPD 67 at 75; Ex
parte Platt 1951 (4) SA 394 (N) at 400; Coetzer NO v Bester 1952 (4) SA 73 (O) at 78; Ex
parte Swanepoel en Andere 1960 (2) SA 357 (O) at 360; Reek NO v Registrateur van Aktes
1969 (1) SA 589(T) at 592F.
18  See, for example, Michau v Michau’s Executor (1894) 11 SC 362 at 365; Executor of A
Neveling v Executor of P Neveling & others (1909) 26 SC 196 at 207; Ex parte Oakeshott
1910 TS 895 at 900; Ex parte Honikman 1943 CPD 98 at 102 and Ex Parte Schroder NO
1956 (2) SA 148 (E) at 153.

number 000113 0114 083) to inherit  such bequest as her late father, Josua
Booysen, would have inherited were he still alive;
(ii) The executor of the estate of the late Barend Christiaan Booysen is to
distribute the properties subject to the fideicommissa established in terms of
the said wills to Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen and Jonique Booysen
as fideicommissaries respectively, Jonique to inherit per stirpes;
(iii) The fideicommissa established in terms of the aforesaid wills of the late
Johannes Arnoldus Jacobus Booysen and the late Jacomina Hendrina
Booysen will terminate in respect of the fideicommissary bequest to Jonique
such that she receives ownership unrestricted by the considerations of any
generation succeeding her;
(iv) The costs of the application and counter-application as well as the costs of
Jonique‟s curator-ad-litem are to be borne by the estate of Barend Christiaan
Booysen.‟
4 Any pending rule nisi in this matter is discharged.
5 The costs of this appeal are to be borne by the estate of Barend Christiaan
Booysen.

_______________________
N P WILLIS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

J G Bergenthuin SC
Instructed by:
Els Attorney, Pretoria
c/o Phatshoane Henney Inc, Bloemfontein

For the Respondent:

G C Muller SC
Instructed by:
Stopforth Swanepoel & Brewis Inc, Pretoria
c/o Webbers, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

28 March 2014

STATUS

Immediate

Nicolette Erasmus NO v Estate Late Booysen (192/13) [2014] ZASCA 27 (28
March 2014)
Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does
not form part of the judgment.

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld an appeal by the mother of a
minor who had been disqualified by the high court from inheritance in terms wills of
the child’s great-great-grandmother and great-grandfather respectively court on
account of the fact that her father had predeceased her grandfather.

An application had been brought before the North Gauteng High Court (De Vos J) by
the mother of the child for an order that the child could inherit rights to three
separate portions of the farm Grootpan in Mpumalanga by reason of fideicommissa
established in terms of the wills of the child’s great-great-grandmother and great-
grandfather respectively.

The relevant portion of both wills stipulated that the farms would be inherited by all
of the children of Barend Christiaan Booysen and that, upon the death of these
children, the farms would pass to the grandchildren of Barend Christiaan Booysen’s
Barend Christiaan Booysen, the grandfather of the child, had died subsequently to
his son, who was the father of the child. The point in issue was whether the fact that
her father had predeceased her grandfather operated to prevent the child from
inheriting in terms of the fideicommissa.

The high court found that no vesting of the fideicommissiary dispensation had taken
place because the fideicommissary (the father of the child) had died before the
fiduciary (her grandfather). The high court found that it was clear from the wills that
vesting takes place upon the death of the fiduciary and that because her father had
predeceased her grandfather, there had been nonfulfillment of the condition
necessary to pass ownership to the child. The high court granted leave to appeal to
this court.

The SCA found that where, as in this case, there was a fideicommissum multiplex,
the death of the fideicommissary prior to vesting does not result in the termination of
the fideicommissum but merely brings about the acceleration of the interest of the
substitute, unless there was a clear intention to the contrary.

The SCA confirmed the principle of representation in our law of succession which
entails that, where an ancestor leaves descendants, a presumption arises that the
descendants should inherit per stirpes (each stem of the family taking the same
share). This principle in our law has the natural consequence that where a
grandchild’s parent had predeceased that grandchild’s grandparents, the grandchild
will ordinarily inherit from his or her grandparents. A grandchild is not disqualified
from inheritance merely as a result of the fact that one or both of the grandchild’s
parents predeceased his or her grandparents.

The SCA reaffirmed the presumption in our law against a testator having the
intention to disinherit descendants. The court held that the clear intention of both the
child’s great-great-grandmother and great-grandfather had been that that the

grandchildren of the deceased should inherit under the respective fideicommissa,
without distinction among them.

The SCA held that the child was entitled to inherit thereunder. It upheld the appeal
and substituted a comprehensive order making provision for the child’s inheritance.