When assets are no longer just about money—but also carry relationships, care, and life choices—how to ensure that legal structures truly reflect real life becomes a challenge not only for high-net-worth individuals, but for families of all kinds.

Following the sudden passing of entertainer Tsao Hsi-Ping, public attention turned to his repeatedly stated wish during his lifetime: that his entire estate be left to his long-time caregiver and godson, Jeremy. The public debate that followed was not about emotional right or wrong, but about a far more practical question: can a godson legally inherit under such circumstances?

The Most Important Person Is Not Always Listed in the Household Registry

Under existing legal frameworks, a “godson” is not recognized as a parent–child relationship under civil law. Unless a formal legal adoption has been completed, a godson remains a third party in the eyes of the law, with rights and obligations fundamentally different from those of biological or legally adopted children.

Even if a will exists naming the godson as a beneficiary, several practical risks still remain:

• Whether the will satisfies all formal legal requirements
• Whether the testator’s mental capacity at the time of execution could be challenged
• Whether the will infringes upon the statutory rights of legal heirs

These uncertainties highlight a critical gap between “having a will” and “having one’s wishes carried out.”

‍

Legal Heirs, Priority Rules, and Hidden Risks

In common perception, siblings are often assumed to be natural heirs. However, under Taiwan’s Civil Code, whether siblings are entitled to a compulsory portion depends on whether higher-priority heirs—such as a spouse, children, or parents—are still alive.

Even so, two key risks frequently remain in practice:

• Siblings may still qualify as statutory heirs
• If no one can legally inherit, the estate may escheat to the state

Even if Tsao Hsi-Ping’s siblings expressed a willingness to renounce their inheritance, this does not automatically guarantee that the estate would pass to the godson. If the legal process fails to establish a valid successor, the estate could ultimately be confiscated by the state—an outcome entirely contrary to the deceased’s stated intentions.

‍

From a Trust Perspective: Bridging the Gap Between Law and Real Life

From a trust-planning standpoint, the core issue lies in the mismatch between institutional design and real-life relationships. The question is not “who do you want to give assets to,” but rather “can the assets actually reach them?”

A will can only specify how assets should be distributed after death.

A trust, by contrast, can be designed to determine how assets are managed, protected, and distributed over an entire lifetime.

A will functions more like a final instruction; it is not a comprehensive succession framework. If the goal is not only to transfer assets smoothly, but also to protect them, control their use, and provide structured, long-term care for loved ones, a will alone is often far from sufficient.

‍