For more than three years after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami that hit coastal areas of Aceh, twenty-five-year-old Rosdiana and her three surviving younger brothers had been wondering whether they were entitled to the estate left by their grandfather and grandmother, who died in the tsunami. Rosdiana and her brothers had also lost their father and all of their uncles. One aunt survived. As the only surviving child of Rosdiana's grandparents, the aunt was given control of the inherited property. Acting on her consultation with village elders, the aunt took over all the estate. According to the elders, it was the aunt who became the legitimate heir, while Rosdiana and her brothers had no right to the property, because a so-called ‘patah titi’ had taken place.

THE VILLAGE CUSTOMARY LAW

The term patah titi means, literally, ‘broken linkage’ or ‘missing link’. It refers to a situation where a parent, usually the father, dies earlier than, or at the same time as, his parents, while his siblings survive. This leaves his children orphaned, but with aunts and/or uncles. The customary legal principle stipulates that to become an heir, one must be alive when the propositus dies. So if several people, who are linked by a line of inheritance, die concurrently, or one earlier than another but depending on the order in which their deaths occur, the configuration of heirs may be changed so that one or more heirs are foreclosed. Under this condition, the orphaned grandchildren are foreclosed by their uncles or aunts and they will not receive a share of the estate of the deceased grandparent.

In the village, an orphaned grandchild who does not receive an entitlement is often described as ‘sudah patah titi’ (‘suffering from a broken linkage’). The law professor of the Syiah Kuala University at Banda Aceh, Teuku Djuned, stated that the patah titi originated in the Shafi‘i Islamic jurisprudence that has, for centuries, influenced local inheritance practices in Aceh (Salim 2006: 37). For instance, a Shafi‘i legal textbook, Nihaya al-Muhtaj by al-Ramli, explains that a son of a predeceased son is still considered a son, but his right to inheritance can be foreclosed by the presence of his uncle.