<![CDATA[The judicial application of forced heirship in testamentary disputes raises problems of property classification, reserved-share calculation, and the legal consequences imposed on wills. Article 913 of the Indonesian Civil Code intensifies this by failing to distinguish the testator’s separate property from the deceased’s share in matrimonial community property. This article examines judicial assessment of forced-heirship claims by harmonizing Indonesian property and succession law with the matrimonial property regime under Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage. This normative legal research is descriptive-analytical and employs statutory, conceptual, case, and legal-theoretical approaches. Legal materials, particularly three district court judgments, were collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively through systematic, harmonious, teleological, and restrictive interpretation. Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory assesses justice in acquisition, transfer, and rectification. The article develops a three-stage judicial test: acquisition and property status, validity of testamentary transfer, and appropriate rectification. Applied to the three decisions: Surakarta’s invalidity should be limited to the portion not owned by the testator; Situbondo’s total annulment is unjustified, as inventory, calculation mass, and shortfall are unshown; South Jakarta equated the intestate share with the reserved share, since one-third satisfies Article 914. Under the proposed construction, separate property is the primary domain of testamentary freedom, while the deceased’s share in community property may be protected for forced heirs once the spouse’s rights are separated. Judges should explain the object’s origin, ownership status, net estate, reserved share, and shortfall before choosing a remedy, annulling an entire will only when the defect inseparably affects the whole intent.]]>
