遗嘱信托的规范构成与体系效应

Normative Composition and System Effect of the Testamentary Trust

我国《民法典》及《信托法》关于遗嘱信托的直接规定集中体现于遗嘱信托效力,但相应的解释论展开仍有不足。《信托法》上遗嘱信托成立与生效的形式要件应与《民法典》继承编相关规定保持一致,不应排斥录音录像遗嘱。但遗嘱信托不能突破继承制度中特留份的限制,否则利害关系人可行使扣回权。受托人缺位虽不影响遗嘱信托生效,但相应补位机制尚有不足,在解释论上应类推适用法院指定遗产管理人的相关规定。遗嘱信托财产登记与否不影响遗嘱信托的生效,相关登记仅具有宣示效力。遗嘱对信托受益权移转的限制仅有内部效力,不能对抗善意第三人。清偿立遗嘱人的生前债务应先适用《民法典》关于遗产债务清偿的规定,仍有不足时才适用《信托法》中债权人撤销信托的规定,不应轻易否定遗嘱信托的效力。

The direct regulations about testamentary trust in the Civil Code and the Trust Law focus on their effective specifications, but relevant interpretative theory expansion isn’t still sufficient. The formal requirements of testamentary trust’s setting up and coming into effect should accord with the Civil Code’s corresponding regulations to the greatest extent, and audiovisual testament shouldn’t be excluded. But testamentary trust should be restricted by special portion system, or interested party can exercise the right of deduction. Trustee’s absence doesn’t stop testamentary trust coming into effect, but the existing system of replenishing is not good enough. The regulation of the court appointing asset manager can be applied by analogy. Whether testamentary trust asset is registered or not, it doesn’t affect testamentary trust’s taking effect because such register just has declarative effect. Testament’s limits on the transferring of beneficial right only have internal validity but can’t confront a third party with good faith. If the testator has debt before his death, the specifications about liquidation of the inherited debts in the Civil Code should be applied first, and then the specifications about creditor’s right of cancellation in the Trust Law can be applied if there is still a portion of the remaining debt, which means the effect of testamentary trust should not be denied readily.