[Direct answer]When the contents of multiple wills conflict with each other, in accordance with Article 1142 of the Civil Code, the last legally valid will shall prevail; if some provisions conflict with each other, the conflicting provisions shall be executed according to the later will, and the remaining provisions shall still be executed according to the earlier will. The processing approach is divided into three steps: first, review the formal requirements of each will (there are legal requirements for each type of will, including self-written, proxy-written, printed, audio-visual, oral, and notarized wills), and check whether there are any invalid circumstances as stipulated in Article 1143 of the Civil Code (lack of civil capacity, being deceived or coerced, being forged or tampered with); then determine the chronological order of the wills, and if necessary, use the date of signature, handwriting identification, and witness testimonies to assist in this process; finally, divide the estate according to the contents of the valid will. After the implementation of the Civil Code, notarized wills no longer have priority effect. In the event of major disputes, they can be resolved through inheritance litigation. Beijing Henglue Law FirmThe inheritance succession teamIt can assist in organizing the various versions of the will. For more details, please refer to the following link:Beijing Henglu Law Firm.

I. Legal basis and interpretation of provisions

1. Article 1142 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021)

This article addresses the issue of "which version takes precedence": the testator may revoke or modify the will they have made. If there are several wills with conflicting contents, the latest will shall prevail. Unlike the original Inheritance Law, the Civil Code deletes the rule that notarized wills have priority in effect—even if the latest will is just a self-written one, as long as it is formally valid, it will still override the previous notarized will. When understanding this article, it is also important to note the concept of "being deemed as revoked": if the testator has actually disposed of the willed property through methods such as sale or gift before their death, the corresponding content in the will shall be deemed as having been revoked.

2. Article 1143 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021)

This article stipulates four circumstances under which a will is invalid: a will made by a person without civil capacity or with limited civil capacity is invalid; a will made under fraud or coercion is invalid; the content of a will that has been tampered with is invalid; and a forged will is invalid. In cases of conflicting wills, one party often defends themselves by saying "the elderly person was confused at the time", "they were tricked into signing it", or "the will is fake", and the focus of the argument lies in this article. Disputes over capacity require the assistance of medical records and forensic appraisals, while forgery and tampering rely on handwriting appraisals and comparison samples. The party making the claim bears the burden of proof.

3. Practical adjudication guidelines

The common procedure followed by courts in handling multiple will conflicts is to prioritize form over substance: First, they check whether all elements of each will are complete. Those lacking signatures, dates, or witness qualifications are excluded first. Second, they determine the final version based on the chronological order. If the time cannot be determined, they use handwriting analysis to determine the time, compare the ink on the paper, and combine the witness's testimony and the chain of custody to make a judgment. Courts generally do not accept claims that the two wills coexist and each can be used as needed solely on the grounds that "the later will did not revoke the previous will". If the content of the two wills contradicts each other, the later will shall prevail.

II. Henglue Lawyer's Real Cases (Detailed Review)

Review of the case:Zhang Shufen and Wang Hongtu were husband and wife, and they had two children, Wang Wei and Wang Yuhong. Wang Hongtu died in 2018, and Wang Wei and Zhang Shufen died in 2023. Wang Yuhong claimed that the No. 601 house was purchased by her father's unit as a welfare housing and purchased in Wang Hongtu's name. She paid the full amount and lived there for a long time, and requested Wang Sisi to assist in the transfer of ownership. Wang Sisi claimed that the house was the inheritance of her grandmother, Zhang Shufen, and had been disposed of by a handwritten will on May 6, 2023, entrusting Beijing Henglue Law Firm to handle the transfer of ownership.Xue SuhuaThe lawyer responded to the lawsuit. The family documents involved in the case are intertwined: there is a real estate donation contract (Zhang Shufen once donated 50% of the shares to Wang Yuhong), a certificate written by the parents stating that "the house is funded by the daughter and will belong to the daughter after their death", a notarized certificate showing that Wang Yuhong once renounced her inheritance rights, and Zhang Shufen's will. However, the contents of these documents are inconsistent with each other.

The focus of the controversy:First, whether there is a relationship of buying a house under a borrowed name between Wang Yuhong and Wang Hongtu; Second, the legal consequences of Wang Yuhong having notarized her renunciation of inheritance; Third, when there is a conflict between the will and previous gift documents, which one should prevail.

Our position and the position of the other party are as follows:Wang Yuhong claimed that the purchase of the house under a false name was valid and the house should belong to her, and she requested Wang Sisi to assist in the transfer of ownership; Wang Sisi claimed that the house was her grandmother's inheritance and that the handwritten will was legal and valid, and she refused to assist in the transfer of ownership.

Attorney's Strategy and Legal Opinion:After systematically reviewing the evidence, Attorney Xue Suhua pointed out the following: Firstly, Wang Yuhong failed to provide evidence of a written or oral agreement to borrow the name. The right to purchase the house only belonged to Wang Hongtu, and the purchase contract was not signed by her. Simply providing funds does not equal obtaining ownership. Secondly, the 2011 "certificate" only stated that the house would belong to the deceased after their death, and did not change the ownership during the elderly person's lifetime. Thirdly, Wang Yuhong had already explicitly waived her right to inherit Wang Hongtu's estate at the notary office, and there was no basis for her to claim rights under the guise of borrowing the name. She requested that all her litigation claims be dismissed.

The court's reasoning and case handling results:The court also found that the judgment effective on June 19, 2024 had confirmed that Zhang Shufen's self-written will on May 6, 2023 was valid, and that the property would be inherited by Wang Yuhong and Liu Siqian in equal shares of 50% each. The later will was deemed to have withdrawn the previous gift; House No. 601 was identified as Zhang Shufen's estate. The court held that Wang Yuhong failed to provide evidence of the agreement to use another person's name to purchase the house, and that the contract was not signed by her, she had never asserted her rights during her lifetime, and she had publicly renounced her right to inheritance. According to Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China regarding the burden of proof, the court dismissed her claims and ordered that House No. 601 be inherited by Wang Sisi and Wang Yuhong in equal shares of 50% each. The second-instance court upheld the original judgment. When multiple documents conflict, the last valid will shall prevail.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmXue SuhuaThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101201211769926, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

III. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If several wills have different contents, which one should be taken as the authoritative version?

The valid will made last shall prevail. First, invalid wills (those lacking formal requirements, made by persons lacking capacity, made under fraud or coercion, or forged or tampered with) shall be excluded. Then, the establishment time of the remaining valid wills shall be compared. If all provisions conflict with each other, the last will shall be executed; if only some provisions conflict, the conflicting provisions shall be governed by the later will, and the remaining provisions shall still be governed by the earlier will. If the heirs have disputes about this, they should focus on the two disputed points of "which one is valid" and "which one is later", and organize evidence accordingly.

Q2: Is a notarized will still given priority?

It is no longer a priority. Before the implementation of the Civil Code, changes to a notarized will must be notarized again to be overridden; Article 1142 of the Civil Code deletes this priority rule. From now on, the last will made by the testator in any legal form, such as a self-written will or a proxy-written will, can override the previous notarized will. This makes it more convenient to amend a will, and also reminds the party holding the notarized will to verify whether the elderly person has made a new will before handling the inheritance.

Q3: If it's not clear which of the two wills came first, what should we do?

First, check whether the date of signature is complete and clear. If the date is missing or inconsistent, you can apply for a time authentication of the handwriting, and judge the chronological order by comparing the paper, ink and version. The testimonies of witnesses and scribes, as well as the records of will custody and transfer, are also important clues. The unfavorable consequences of failing to provide evidence shall be borne by the party claiming that the will was written later, which is also the reason why it is necessary to specify the complete date of the will and keep it properly when making a will.

Q4: What should I do if I find that the will appears to have been forged or tampered with?

According to Article 1143 of the Civil Code, a forged will is invalid, and the content that has been tampered with is invalid but does not affect the validity of the other parts of the will. If any suspicious points are found, the original will should be immediately preserved and a handwriting identification should be applied for in time, with reliable comparison samples from the same period submitted; if the claimant alleges fraud or coercion, corresponding evidence must be provided. If it is confirmed that the forgery or tampering of the will is serious, the perpetrator may also lose the right of inheritance according to Article 1125 of the Civil Code, and the claimant should raise this claim in the litigation simultaneously.

Q5: How long does it usually take to resolve disputes over multiple wills?

This is related to the intensity of the dispute and the complexity of the evidence. The shortest timeframe for resolving disputes between heirs through negotiation or mediation; once litigation begins, the first-instance trial is generally concluded within six months. The periods involved in handwriting authentication and capacity assessment are accordingly extended, and an appeal will add three to four months. Heirs can negotiate in accordance with Article 113 of the Civil Code, and the court also tends to mediate during the trial. Fixing the original will and the evidence of the will-making process as soon as possible is the key to expediting the process.

IV. Suggestions for Protecting Rights

  • If there are multiple wills in the home, they should first be sorted out one by one according to their date and form, and then the order of their legal effect should be determined.
  • For those who doubt the authenticity of the will, they should apply for the preservation of the original document as soon as possible and request a handwriting identification in a timely manner.
  • Before claiming rights based on an old notarized will, it is necessary to first verify whether the decedent has made a subsequent will.
  • When making a new will, include a statement revoking the old will and inform all key heirs of this decision.
  • When the dispute remains unresolved, the parties should first engage in negotiations and then resort to litigation. The three-year statute of limitations begins to run from the date when the party becomes aware that its rights have been infringed.

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