Ferrer vs. Spouses Diaz

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER VS.

SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ,


REINA COMANDANTE AND SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN AND ELIZABETH
PANGAN
GR. NO. 165300; APRIL 23, 2010
J. DEL CASTILLO
TOPIC: WAIVER OF RIGHTS
FACTS: Herein respondent, Reina Comandante is the daughter of Spouses Diaz, who
executed a Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over Real Property (Still Undivided) in
favor of herein petitioner as security for a loan availed of by Comandante.
A year later, the couple again required Comandante to sign the following documents: (1) a
Real Estate Mortgage Contract over her parents’ property; and, (2) an undated Promissory
Note, both corresponding to the amount of ₱1,118,228.00, which petitioner claimed to be the
total amount of Comandante’s monetary obligation to him exclusive of charges and interests.
Comandante alleged that she reminded petitioner that she was not the registered owner of the
subject property and that although her parents granted her SPA, same only pertains to her
authority to mortgage the property to banks and other financial institutions and not to
individuals. Petitioner nonetheless assured Comandante that the SPA was also applicable to
their transaction.
Comandante likewise alleged that on September 29, 1999 at 10:00 o‘ clock in the morning,
she executed an Affidavit of Repudiation/Revocation of Waiver of Hereditary Rights and
Interests Over A (Still Undivided) Real Property, which she caused to be annotated on the
title of the subject property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on the same day.
Interestingly, petitioner filed his complaint later that day too.
For the part of Spouses Diaz, they asserted that petitioner has no cause of action against them.
As they did not execute any SPA in favor of Comandante authorizing her to mortgage for the
second time said property. They claim that they do not owe petitioner anything. Thus they
prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed.
At the Pangans’ end, they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in good
faith and for a consideration of ₱3,000,000.00 on November 11, 1999 from the Diazes
through the latter’s daughter Comandante who was clothed with SPA acknowledged before
the Consul of New York. The Pangans immediately took actual possession of the property
without anyone complaining or protesting. Soon thereafter, they were issued TCT No. N-
209049 in lieu of TCT No. RT-6604 which was cancelled.
On May 7, 2001, petitioner also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,25 claiming that his
suit against the respondents is meritorious and well-founded and that same is documented and
supported by law and jurisprudence. He averred that his adverse claim annotated at the back
of TCT No. RT-6604, which was carried over in TCT No. 209049 under the names of the
Pangans, is not merely anchored on the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a
Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante, but also on the Real Estate
Mortgage likewise executed by her in representation of her parents and in favor of petitioner.
Petitioner insisted that said adverse claim is not frivolous and invalid and is registrable under
Section 70 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
RTC ruled by way Summary Judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering all defendants jointly
and solidarily pay the plaintiff Php1,118,228.00) and ordering that the rights and interest of
the plaintiff over the subject property be annotated at the back of the Title.

On appeal, the Pangans faulted the trial court in holding them jointly and severally liable with
the Diazes and Comandante. On the other hand, the Diazes and Comandante, on the other
hand, imputed error upon the trial court in rendering summary judgment in favor of
petitioner. They averred that assuming the summary judgment was proper, the trial court
should not have considered the Real Estate Mortgage Contract and the Promissory Note as
they were defective, as well as petitioner’s frivolous and non-registrable adverse claim.

CA declared Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights null and void. However it found the
Real Estate Mortgage executed by Comandante on behalf of her parents as binding between
the parties thereto. As regards the Pangans, the CA ruled that the mortgage contract was not
binding upon them as they were purchasers in good faith and for value. The property was free
from the mortgage encumbrance of petitioner when they acquired it as they only came to
know of the adverse claim through petitioner’s phone call which came right after the former’s
acquisition of the property. The CA further ruled that as Comandante’s waiver of hereditary
rights and interests upon which petitioner’s adverse claim was based is a nullity, it could not
be a source of any right in his favor. Hence, the Pangans were not bound to take notice of
such claim and are thus not liable to petitioner.

ISSUES: WON The Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still
Undivided) executed by Comandante is null and void for being violative of Art. 1347 of the
Civil Code, hence, petitioner’s adverse claim which was based upon such waiver is likewise
void and cannot confer upon petitioner any right or interest over the property.
RULING: Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code, no contract
may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.
For the inheritance to be considered "future", the succession must not have been opened at
the time of the contract. A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance,
prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites
concur:

(1) That the succession has not yet been opened.

(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and,

(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which
is purely hereditary in nature.
In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of Comandante’s Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided), succession to either of
her parent’s properties has not yet been opened since both of them are still living. With
respect to the other two requisites, both are likewise present considering that the property
subject matter of Comandante’s waiver concededly forms part of the properties that she
expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such expectancy of a right, as shown
by the facts, is undoubtedly purely hereditary in nature.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Comandante and petitioner entered into a contract
involving the former’s future inheritance as embodied in the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and
Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by her in petitioner’s favor, hence
not valid and the same cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation between
them for being violative of the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.

Anent the validity and effectivity of petitioner’s adverse claim, it is provided in Section 70 of
PD 1529, that it is necessary that the claimant has a right or interest in the registered land
adverse to the registered owner and that it must arise subsequent to registration. Here, as no
right or interest on the subject property flows from Comandante’s invalid waiver of
hereditary rights upon petitioner, the latter is thus not entitled to the registration of his
adverse claim. Therefore, petitioner’s adverse claim is without any basis and must
consequently be adjudged invalid and ineffective and perforce be cancelled.

Wherefore, petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of CA insofar as it excluded


respondents Spouses Pangan from among those solidarily liable to petitioner Atty. Pedro
Ferrer is Affirmed. The adverse claim of petitioner id hereby ordered cancelled.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy