Recently, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (hereinafter, the “Supreme Court”) issued back-to-back important opinions regarding wills, trusts, widow’s quota (in Spanish, “Usufructo Viudal”) and non-public company valuation. Opinions on these topics are scarce, and far in between so the fact that they are issued in the first two (2) months of 2026 gives the estate, trust and planning community a rare opportunity to enhance planning strategies for clients. The Supreme Court specifically decided on:
1. Testamentary Trust per Allio v. Santiago Chardón y otros, 2026 TSPR 13
Held that, under Puerto Rico’s Trust Act (Act No. 219-2012, as amended), any trust created in Puerto Rico—including testamentary trusts—must be registered in the Special Trust Registry maintained by the Office of Notarial Inspection (“ODIN” by its Spanish acronym). Failure to comply with that statutory registration requirement renders the trust null as a matter of law, even if the trust was authorized to be created in the will and reflects the testator’s intent. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the registration requirement is mandatory.
Based on an analysis of this case, it is a good practice to expressly include the full trust provisions in the will, rather than making only a general reference to a trust which details are to be drafted later through Public Deed, as was the situation in this case. A mere general mention may entail the risk that, if the will is not registered with both the Last Will and Testament Registry and the Special Trust Registry, the trust drafted in the subsequent Public Deed could be deemed null.
In sum, authorizing the creation of a trust in a will is not enough under PR law to be valid—any testamentary trust must also be timely and properly registered at the time the will is executed to be enforceable.
2. Widow’s Quota and Non-Public Company Valuation per Vicioso v. Suárez, 2026 TSPR 8
Held that, under Puerto Rico succession law, a testator, whose death occurred under the prior PR Civil Code of 1930, may validly determine in the will the specific method for satisfying the widow’s quota. In such cases, when the will clearly requires payment of the widow’s usufruct in cash, the heirs are bound to comply and may not substitute another form of commutation—such as a life annuity—unless (i) the testamentary language allows it or (ii) the rights of forced heirs would otherwise be impaired. This decision reaffirmed that the testator’s intent governs the administration and distribution of the estate and that the choice of how to commute the widow’s quota can be exercised by the testator, provided the legitime portion is respected. In other words, the will of the testator constitutes the law of succession between the heirs for which it must be strictly complied with, and the heirs are not allowed to change this structure or replace the required lump-sum payment with a lifetime annuity or installment plan, because the testator’s express instructions must be honored.
This case also ruled that, in order to reflect the real value of the estate and avoid distortions that could prejudice any of the heirs (including the surviving spouse), the shares of the non-public company under the estate must be appraised at their actual market value rather than book value. This has implications on negotiations of partition agreements where such family ownership is present.
This document has been prepared for information purposes only and is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you have any questions or comments about the matters discussed in this notice, wish to obtain more information related thereto, or about its possible effect(s) on policy or operational matters, please contact us.