Skip to content
MiPRFácil
ESEN
Family

A false reason in the will does not knock down the inheritance

Last reviewed: September 11, 2026 — VerifiedPoder Judicial

In short

Wills often explain why they leave what they leave: “to my nephew, who cared for me”, “to my neighbour, who saved my dog”. What if that reason turned out to be false? Article 1664 answers the opposite of what people assume: invoking a false motive does not annul the designation of heir or legatee. The designation survives. It falls only in one case, and that case requires two things at once, both arising from the will itself: that the institution’s effectiveness depends completely on the invoked motive existing, and that the testator, had they known of the falsehood, would not have made the designation. Miss one of the two and the inheritance stays where it is. The same article treats an illicit motive separately, and in a way worth reading slowly: the expression of an illicit motive is considered not written. What is deleted is the motive, not the designation; the article strikes the reason and says nothing about striking the gift. Article 1666 asks the testator the obvious and adds a consequence: the testator will identify the instituted person in the most clear, precise and undoubted manner, and the institution in favour of an uncertain person is considered not written, unless by some event it may turn out certain. And Article 1667 saves honest mistakes: an error in the designation does not vitiate the institution when, from the will’s context or by extrinsic evidence, the designated person may be identified with certainty. Note the contrast between those two articles and 1664. For a false motive, the Code confines itself to what arises from the will itself. For a mistaken name, it expressly admits extrinsic evidence. Same chapter, three articles apart, two different sources of proof. The contrast is pointed out here and no conclusion is drawn from it.

External link

Go to the official site

You'll leave MiPRFácilOpens in a new tab

bvirtualogp.pr.gov

What is it?

They are Articles 1664, 1666 and 1667 of the Civil Code of 2020: what happens when the will invokes a false or illicit motive, how the instituted person must be identified, and when an error in the name does not undo the designation.

Who can do it?

Anyone drafting a will who wants to explain their reasons, and any heir or legatee whose designation is disputed over the motive or the name.

Requirements

Documents you need

Cost

Check the current cost with the official agency.

Step by step

  1. Step 1: The default rule

    Article 1664: invoking a false motive does not annul the designation of heir or legatee.

  2. Step 2: The exception asks for two things

    That the institution’s effectiveness depend completely on the motive, and that the testator would not have designated had they known of the falsehood.

  3. Step 3: And both from the will itself

    The article says it must arise “from the will itself”. It does not send you looking outside.

  4. Step 4: An illicit motive is deleted

    The same article: the expression of an illicit motive is considered not written. The motive is deleted, not the designation.

  5. Step 5: Identify clearly

    Article 1666: the testator will identify the instituted person in the most clear, precise and undoubted manner.

  6. Step 6: An uncertain person does not count

    The same article considers it not written, unless by some event it may turn out certain.

  7. Step 7: But a mistaken name is forgiven

    Article 1667: the error does not vitiate the institution if the person is identified with certainty from the context or by extrinsic evidence.

  8. Step 8: Two different standards of proof

    Article 1664 confines itself to the will; 1667 admits extrinsic evidence. The contrast is pointed out here and nothing concluded from it.

Where to do it

These articles describe no procedure before any agency: they say how a will is interpreted. The Code does not say here before which forum a false motive is disputed, who weighs the extrinsic evidence of Article 1667, or within what deadline it may be raised. None of those gaps is filled here.

How long it takes

Check the current processing time with the official agency.

What to do if something goes wrong

If the will leaves you something “for having cared for my father” and it turns out someone else did the caring, Article 1664 does not knock down your designation on its own. For it to fall, two things are needed at once and both must arise from the will itself: that the institution’s effectiveness depended completely on that motive, and that the testator, knowing the truth, would not have designated you. If only one holds, the designation stands. An illicit motive is different: there the article annuls nothing, it considers the expression of the motive not written. What disappears is the sentence. If what fails is the name — your surname misspelled, you confused with a cousin — Article 1667 protects you if, from the will’s context or by extrinsic evidence, who was meant can be identified with certainty. And if the will names someone who cannot be identified at all, Article 1666 considers that institution not written, unless by some event it may turn out certain. The Code does not define an illicit motive, does not say what extrinsic evidence counts or who weighs it, and does not say what happens to the goods of an institution considered not written. None of that is invented here. MiPRFácil does not represent anyone in court and gives no legal advice.

Common mistakes

  • Believing a false reason knocks down the inheritance: Article 1664 says it does not annul it.
  • Applying the exception with only one of the two conditions: the article requires them together.
  • Looking for proof of those conditions outside the will: the article requires them to arise from the will itself.
  • Believing an illicit motive annuls the designation: the article considers the expression of the motive not written.
  • Giving up the inheritance because your name was misspelled: Article 1667 saves an identifiable error.
  • Believing only the will’s text counts for that error: Article 1667 admits extrinsic evidence.
  • Naming an uncertain person in the will: Article 1666 considers it not written unless some event makes them certain.
  • Expecting these articles to say who decides and within what term: they do not.

Frequently asked questions

The will gives a reason that is false. Do I lose what it left me?

Article 1664 says invoking a false motive does not annul the designation, unless the will itself shows the two conditions it sets.

And if the motive is illicit?

The same article says the expression of an illicit motive is considered not written. What is deleted is the motive.

My name was misspelled in the will. What happens?

Article 1667 says the error does not vitiate the institution when, from the will’s context or by extrinsic evidence, the designated person may be identified with certainty.

Is it valid to leave the inheritance to an unidentified person?

Article 1666 considers the institution in favour of an uncertain person not written, unless by some event it may turn out certain.

Official sources

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

Last verified

September 11, 2026

MiPRFácil is an independent informational website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Government of Puerto Rico or any government agency.

MiPRFácil does not submit applications on your behalf.

Was this guide helpful?

Did you find out-of-date information?

Did you find out-of-date information?

No account needed. We don't ask for personal data.