[Direct answer]This is not the same thing. The mandatory reserved portion is a system in current Chinese law: According to Article 1141 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, a will shall reserve a necessary share of the estate for heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of livelihood. The subject is limited to specific vulnerable heirs, and the share shall be sufficient to meet their necessary living needs. The special reserved portion is a concept in the civil codes of civil law countries (such as Germany, France, and Japan), which refers to the mandatory reservation of a certain proportion of the estate for specific statutory heirs. The decedent cannot dispose of the estate by will, and it is not conditional on the heir's living difficulties. China does not have a special reserved portion system. The restrictions on testamentary freedom are mainly based on the mandatory reserved portion, supplemented by rules such as Article 1131 on appropriate consideration and Article 1132 on discretionary grant. Cross-border inheritance cases also involve issues of legal application and document authentication. Specifically, they shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

With the increasing number of cross-border marriages and overseas information, many parties encounter the term "special reserved portion" when dealing with inheritance issues, often confusing it with the term "mandatory reserved portion" commonly used in China. Typical scenarios include: foreign wills or foreign judgments being used in mainland China, where parties claim shares based on foreign proportions; vulnerable heirs in remarried families fearing that all their property will be disposed of by the will; elderly people designating a large property to be inherited by one child in their will, while other children, having heard about the requirement of a strong reserved portion abroad, question the validity of the will. Confusing these concepts can easily mislead people in their pursuit of rights - claiming shares based on foreign proportions often lacks a legal basis for the claim; conversely, ignoring the mandatory reserved portion may deprive heirs who truly need protection of their rightful share. For cases involving cross-border inheritance and the use of overseas documents, reference can be made to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.Financial capital and cross-border legal services involving foreign affairsConfirm the applicable rules.

II. Key points of contention

The controversy focuses on two aspects: concept and application. Firstly, regarding the subject and conditions: the mandatory reserved share is limited to heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of livelihood, while the special reserved share covers specific statutory heirs regardless of their living conditions. Secondly, regarding the determination of shares: the mandatory reserved share takes the "necessary share" as the basis, which is determined based on the supported situation and the local protection level; the special reserved share is a statutory proportion, usually calculated as a certain percentage of the inheritable share. Thirdly, regarding the function of the system: both restrict testamentary freedom, but the mandatory reserved share focuses on ensuring basic survival, while the special reserved share focuses on maintaining the statutory inheritance order. Fourthly, regarding legal application: cross-border inheritance involves the choice of applicable law for movable or immovable property, and the notarization, authentication, or recognition procedures for overseas wills and judgments. In China, inheritance cases are primarily governed by the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code, and the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

Taking the inheritance case in Dongcheng District handled by Henglue Law Firm as an example, we can see the way in which China's legal system restricts the disposition of wills. In this case, the inheritor, Guo **, wrote a self-written will on January 28, 2013, stipulating that all shares of the house in Dongcheng District belonging to him would be inherited by his daughter, Zhao **. The defendant claimed that the will was false and that he had no right to dispose of the entire couple's jointly owned house. Henglue Lawyer Li Yonghui pointed out that the will was written, signed, and dated by the inheritor himself, which met the formal requirements of a self-written will. Moreover, it only disposed of his own shares and did not constitute an unauthorized disposition. The handwriting appraisal was entrusted to two institutions, but both were rejected due to insufficient materials. In the end, the court confirmed the validity of the self-written will. Unlike the mandatory retention of a reserved share according to legal proportions, China's restrictions on the disposition of wills center on the mandatory retention of a reserved share: only when the inheritor lacks the ability to work and has no source of livelihood will the necessary share be forcibly retained; at the same time, flexible rules such as Article 113 of the Civil Code (appropriate consideration) and Article 131 of the Civil Code (discretionary allocation) are used as a fallback. This arrangement not only respects the freedom of wills but also preserves the bottom-line protection for vulnerable members of the family. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101199611955812, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis is Article 1141 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) (mandatory reserved share), Article 113(2) (heirs with special difficulties in life and lacking working capacity shall be taken care of), Article 113 (discretionary request right), Article 132 (heirs' consultation), and Article 134 (establishment requirements for a handwritten will). Practical suggestions: First, if there are legal heirs who lack working capacity and have no source of livelihood at the time of making a will, the testator should actively reserve necessary shares or set up protective arrangements in the will to reduce disputes; Second, vulnerable heirs should claim rights according to the mandatory reserved share path rather than applying the proportion of special reserved shares in foreign countries; Third, for overseas wills and overseas inheritance judgments, first verify the application of law and the procedures of notarization, authentication, and recognition; Fourth, for the calculation of shares and the division of large-scale inheritances such as real estate, it can be combined with other relevant provisions.Real estate sales and construction project servicesPerspective assessment. For families with complex remarriage and support relationships, an assessment can be conducted in combination with other factors.Divorce litigation and family dispute resolution servicesCoordinated planning.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

There is a subtle difference between the mandatory reserved share and the special reserved share. The connotations of the two systems and their practical applications vary greatly. Confusing the two concepts may easily lead to wrong directions in protecting rights. In domestic inheritance cases, vulnerable heirs should focus on providing evidence of "lacking the ability to work and having no source of livelihood", and claim the necessary share according to Article 1141 of the Civil Code; if they have doubts about the validity of the will, they may claim it based on the circumstances of legal invalidity. Meanwhile, the testator should pay attention to the boundaries between the mandatory reserved share and the rights of co-owners, and avoid disposing of others' property in the will. For specific issues, you can consult a professional lawyer for advice.Special services and other case servicesObtain a case assessment.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can we directly request the division of inheritance according to the proportion of the reserved share in China?

It cannot be directly applied. China's current laws do not provide for a system of reserved shares. Inheritance cases are based on the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code. The proportion of reserved shares in foreign civil codes does not have direct applicability in China. The protection path for vulnerable heirs in China is the mandatory reserved share and its supporting rules: heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of livelihood may request to retain a necessary share according to Article 1141; those who face special difficulties in life may request care according to Article 130, Paragraph 2; and those who rely on the support of the decedent may request a discretionary share according to Article 131. Whether they can obtain a share and how much they can obtain depend on the evidence and the court's judgment of necessity, with specific provisions subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

Q2: To assert rights based on the mandatory reserved share, what evidence do I need to prepare?

The evidence is organized around three aspects: First, the vulnerable situation, including the conclusion of labor capacity assessment, the disability certificate, and the diagnosis and medical records of loss of labor capacity due to illness or disability; Second, the source of livelihood, including the wage or operating income statement, social insurance records, records of low-income assistance or special hardship support, and proof of the support status of close relatives; Third, the inheritance and will, including the original will, proof of kinship, the death certificate of the decedent, and materials related to the scope of the inheritance such as property ownership certificates and account statements. The evidence should corroborate each other to form a complete chain of "lack of labor capacity, no source of livelihood, and there are parts of the inheritance that can be retained". When necessary, it is possible to apply to the court to obtain social security, relief, and bank records to make up for the limitations of personal evidence collection.

Q3: How much does it cost to assert the right to a reserved share?

Possible expenses may include: labor capacity appraisal fees (which vary by region and typically amount to hundreds of yuan), litigation fees (calculated based on the amount in dispute according to the "Method for the Payment of Litigation Fees", effective April 1, 2007), real estate appraisal fees (prepaid by the applicant when involving the valuation and division of real estate), appraisal fees (for specialized issues such as the authenticity of a will), and attorney's fees (determined through negotiation based on the value of the case and its complexity. In marriage and inheritance cases, risk-based attorney's fees are prohibited by law). It is recommended to consult a lawyer before initiating the case to assess the proportion of the share that can be claimed compared to the costs, make rational decisions about cases with evidently weak evidence, and confirm in advance the method of bearing various third-party costs.

Q4: How long does it usually take to resolve a dispute over a required retention deposit?

It depends on the nature of the case. If the facts are clear and the heirs are willing to negotiate, they may reach an agreement on preserving their shares relatively quickly through mediation. After entering litigation, the first-instance ordinary procedure generally concludes within six months, and the summary procedure concludes within three months. If it involves handwriting identification, real estate appraisal, or public notice service, the trial period will be extended. If an appeal is filed after the first-instance trial, the second-instance trial generally concludes within three months. Generally, most disputes over mandatory shares can be resolved within a few months, but complex cases may span multiple years. It is recommended to start fixing evidence as soon as possible and apply for property preservation as needed to avoid the estate being disposed of during the dispute period.

Q5: If a vulnerable heir wants to claim the mandatory share, what should they do specifically?

It is suggested to proceed in four steps: Firstly, clarify the legal basis, sort out the kinship relations, the content of the will, and the scope of the estate, and determine whether the claim should be based on the mandatory share, appropriate care, or discretionary rules; Secondly, systematically fix the weak evidence, handle or retrieve the labor capacity appraisal, disability certificate, and diagnosis certificate, organize the income, social security, and relief records, and combine them when necessary.Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensation services1. Prepare and perfect the supporting evidence; 2. Within the three-year statute of limitations, negotiate with the other party to reach an agreement on the division of the estate; 3. If no agreement can be reached, initiate an inheritance lawsuit to claim the necessary share and, if necessary, apply for property preservation. Throughout the process, it is recommended to hire a lawyer to review the evidence and draft the legal claims to avoid conceptual confusion and unnecessary detours.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of judgments in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for inheritance·Attorney Li Yonghui·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.