High court resolves jurisdiction dispute
The Superior Court of Justice of the City of Buenos Aires has decided that the succession of Samuel Liberman, a pioneer of cable television in Argentina who died in 2024, will be processed in Argentine courts. The ruling granted a complaint filed after an appeal of unconstitutionality was denied, ending a dispute over whether local courts had jurisdiction over the estate.[S1][S2]
Liberman had established his domicile in Panama and held no assets in Argentina, according to the case file. However, during the succession proceedings, evidence emerged showing he had remained in the country until his death, and he was buried in La Tablada Cemetery.[S1][S2]
Lower courts split on jurisdiction
In the first instance, National Civil Court No. 99 declared itself competent to handle the succession, citing evidence of the businessman's continued presence in Argentina until his death. The National Chamber of Appeals in Civil Matters reversed that decision, declaring Argentine courts incompetent and applying Article 2643 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which assigns jurisdiction to the courts of the deceased's last domicile. The Chamber also rejected the admission of the unconstitutionality appeal, prompting the petitioner to bring a complaint to the Superior Court.[S1][S2]
The appellant argued that the second-instance decision violated constitutional rights and guarantees and affected the right to a forced inheritance, which is not recognized under Panamanian law.[S1]
Court cites sovereignty and forced inheritance
The Superior Court found that the case involved a constitutional issue tied to due process and access to justice. It also invoked the principle of sovereignty because the challenged decision affected public-order rules protecting the forced inheritance of heirs. To determine jurisdiction, the court considered that Liberman was born in Argentina, lived at his Buenos Aires residence during the last two years of his life, died in the country, and was buried in an Argentine cemetery. Based on these circumstances and the substantive law, the court concluded that Argentine courts have jurisdiction over the succession.[S1][S2]
Understand this article deeper
The forced inheritance, contained in Article 2445 of the Civil and Commercial Code, sets the portions that the law reserves mandatorily for closest relatives and cannot be removed even by will.[S2]
Family dispute and evidence of residence
The legal conflict arose among Liberman's children. Franco Liberman Rocca argued that the succession should be processed in Argentina, focusing on the protection of the forced inheritance. His siblings Guillermo Javier Liberman, Analía Liberman Gadda, and Liliana Liberman contended that Argentine courts were incompetent and that the process should fall under Panamanian jurisdiction.[S3]
In March 2025, National Civil Court No. 99 had deemed Argentine courts competent, taking into account a Migration report that confirmed Liberman's presence in the country for nearly the last year of his life. That decision was later reversed by Chamber M of the National Chamber of Appeals on August 6, 2025, which applied Article 2643 and held that the succession should proceed where the deceased had his last domicile, which it located in Panama. The Chamber weighed documentation related to the 2002 change of domicile, tax deregistration, various acts of last will granted between 2014 and 2019, a Panamanian passport, and banking documents. It also declared inadmissible the unconstitutionality appeal filed against that resolution.[S3]
Franco Liberman Rocca appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice of the City. In his filing, he argued that the Chamber's decision compromised constitutional guarantees such as due process, access to justice, the right to defense, property, and the principle of the natural judge. He also raised that Argentine public-order rules related to the protection of forced heirs were at stake. Judges Inés Weinberg and Alicia Ruiz understood that the case was not limited to a discussion of facts or civil rules but involved a constitutional issue and aspects related to sovereignty, due to the impact that foreign jurisdiction could have on Argentine rules.[S3]
