Can an unmarried person living apart from the deceased still inherit?

I. Basic Facts

This case is an inheritance dispute concerning the distribution of the deceased’s estate, which was adjudicated in two instances: the first instance dismissed the claim, while the second instance reversed the ruling. The key facts are as follows:

• The party concerned ：
  • Appellant (Plaintiff in the original trial): A, who claims to have maintained a long-term cohabitation relationship with the deceased D.
  • Appellees (defendants in the original trial): B and C, who are the siblings of the deceased D.
  • Deceased: D, who cohabited with A after divorce and has no children, and suffers from a Grade III mental disability.
• Heritage Object : A residential property located in a certain district of Beijing, originally registered in the name of the deceased D, was subsequently transferred to B’s name through notarized inheritance procedures.
• Background Relationship A claims that since 1999 he has been in a romantic relationship with D, and that starting in 2000 they have jointly resided in the property at issue, living together as husband and wife for more than twenty years. Five years before D’s death, A moved to another locality for work, and the two have been separated for five years since then. A asserts that, as D’s legal guardian, he has fulfilled his obligations of support, including providing daily care, emotional comfort, and financial assistance, such as supporting D’s parents and receiving caregiving management subsidies. B and C’s father predeceased D, and their mother subsequently passed away; the inheritance that the mother received from D was successively inherited by B and then by C, with C renouncing her right of inheritance.
• Litigation Process : In the first instance, A sought a declaration that it is entitled to a 50% ownership interest in the estate property belonging to D; however, this claim was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the ruling, A filed an appeal, requesting that the first-instance judgment be set aside and that A be recognized as holding a 15% ownership interest (or an equivalent cash compensation).

II. Points of Contention

The central issue in this case revolves around whether Appellant A has the statutory standing to inherit the estate, specifically including:

1. Determination of Dependency Relationship : Does A qualify as “a person who, though not an heir, has provided substantial support to the deceased” as stipulated in Article 1131 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China? The central issue is:
   • Can the evidence provided by Party A prove that it has rendered substantial and ongoing support to Party D, including financial assistance, daily care, and emotional comfort?
   • The appellee B argues that A’s claim for maintenance is unsupported by sufficient evidence, and that D lived long-term in a different locality during his later years, with the parties being separated for as long as five years; therefore, A’s conduct amounts only to mutual assistance among friends and relatives and does not constitute maintenance.
2. Reasonableness of Estate Distribution : If A is entitled to a share of the estate, how should that share be determined? Should a cash compensation be paid instead of directly transferring ownership of the house?

III. Legal Analysis

Article 1131 of the Civil Code provides that two categories of persons other than heirs may be entitled to a proper share of the estate: (1) persons who were dependent on the deceased for support; and (2) persons who provided substantial care and support to the deceased.

Support encompasses material assistance, daily care, and emotional comfort, and shall be determined by comprehensively considering the duration of support, the methods employed, and the degree of closeness in the relationship.

• Analysis of Dependency Relationships ：
  First-instance opinion The court held that A had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had borne a greater share of the support obligations. A stated that it relied on D’s pension for its livelihood, and that D resided in another locality in later life; however, the evidence—such as bank transfer records and shopping receipts—only showed routine mutual assistance and was insufficient to establish that A had assumed a dominant role in providing support. Accordingly, the first-instance court dismissed A’s claim.
  Second-instance Opinion : The court adopted the counsel’s argument and reversed the first-instance judgment, holding that A qualifies as a “person who has provided substantial support.” The reasons include: (1) A has lived with D for more than 20 years, presenting themselves to the public as husband and wife, a fact corroborated by testimony from some relatives, friends, and neighbors; (2) As the guardian designated by the subdistrict office, A has received caregiving subsidies for many years, demonstrating that A has provided daily care for D, who is a person with a mental disability; (3) Call records show that A has long provided emotional comfort to D, particularly during D’s critical illness; and (4) Support should be assessed comprehensively, taking both material and emotional factors into account, and A’s conduct satisfies the requirement of continuity.
• Principles of Estate Distribution The amount of the inheritance allocated shall be commensurate with the duty of support. The 15% share is broadly consistent with A’s contribution to support; given that the property is registered in B’s name, it would be more efficient to determine the compensation payable by B to A based on the property’s market value, thereby ensuring optimal utilization of the asset.

IV. Other Disputes

In this case, the court attempted mediation by seeking to balance the interests through the establishment of a right of residence in favor of A; however, the mediation failed because B did not consent. Article 366 of the Civil Code provides that the establishment of a right of residence must be effected by contract or will; otherwise, such right shall not come into existence. Consequently, it would be inappropriate for the court to render a judgment directly conferring a right of residence in the absence of a statutory basis.

V. Legal Advice

This case primarily concerns a cohabitation relationship that has been characterized by prolonged separation due to geographical distance, and the question of how to determine whether one party has fulfilled a greater duty of support toward the deceased. It is advisable to prepare evidence comprehensively, with the following types of evidence being particularly relevant: witness statements from relatives, friends, neighbors, local subdistrict offices, and neighborhood police stations (to establish that the parties lived together as husband and wife); continuous records of fund transfers, online purchases, expenditures, and account top-ups made on behalf of the deceased (to demonstrate financial support); ongoing call logs and WeChat chat records (to show emotional comfort); and documentation of medical treatment for the deceased and arrangements for funeral services (to prove daily care and the closeness of the relationship). To establish that one was dependent on the deceased for support, it is necessary not only to demonstrate financial dependence but also to prove that one lacks the capacity to work.