Short answer. When a will names heirs without saying how much each should get, the law fills that gap simply: they inherit in equal parts. No heir named this way gets more than another based on relationship, need, or anything else the will does not actually state.
What the law says
Heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit in equal parts.
Civil Code, Article 846 — Equal Shares When Unspecified. Read the full provision →
The default is a straightforward equal split
Article 846 answers this exact gap directly: heirs who are instituted without designation of shares — meaning the will names them but never states a fraction, percentage, or specific portion for each — inherit in equal parts. There is no ranking or weighting built in; the default is simple equality among the heirs named that way, regardless of how many heirs the will happens to name.
This applies to the heirs instituted without shares, not necessarily the whole estate
The article's wording is specific to heirs instituted without designation of shares. If a will names some heirs with specific shares and others without, this equal-division rule concerns the heirs left without a stated share — it does not, on its own, tell you how those two groups are meant to interact if a will mixes both kinds of instituted heirs.
Why the law defaults to equality rather than guessing intent
A testator who wanted unequal shares generally has every opportunity to say so explicitly in the will. Article 846 does not try to guess at what the testator might have privately intended when shares are left unstated — it applies a clean, predictable default instead. This avoids disputes over inferred intent by giving every unspecified heir the exact same portion, without anyone having to argue over what the testator probably meant.
Why a predictable rule matters here
Without a rule like Article 846, heirs left without a stated share could be pulled into drawn-out disagreements about relative closeness to the testator, need, or perceived fairness — questions the will itself never answers and that a court has no reliable way to settle from silence alone. A flat equal-shares default removes that entire category of dispute, giving every named heir in that position the same clear, calculable entitlement right from the outset of the estate proceeding.
What this default does not touch
Article 846 governs heirs instituted to the estate — it does not speak to a will that instead leaves particular, identified items to particular people, which is a different kind of disposition governed by its own rules rather than by an equal-shares default. It also does not override whatever a compulsory heir is entitled to by law regardless of what the will says or leaves unsaid; that entitlement exists independently of how the testator divided the rest of the estate. And the article does not say what happens if a will designates a share for some named heirs but leaves others unspecified — it fixes only the outcome for the heirs left without any designation at all.