G.R. No. 192383; December 4, 2013
Isabelo C. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, vs. Lucila C. Dela Cruz, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Isabelo C. Dela Cruz filed an action for partition over a parcel of land in Las Piñas. He claimed that he, his sister Lucila (respondent), and another sibling initially purchased the lot. Isabelo constructed a house on it. To assist a cousin, the property was eventually titled solely in Lucila’s name to secure a loan. After foreclosure and Lucila’s redemption, she executed an Affidavit of Waiver in 2002, relinquishing half of the lot to Isabelo and the other half to their niece, Emelinda. Isabelo and Emelinda executed a corresponding agreement.
Lucila opposed the partition, asserting sole ownership, having paid for the property from her own funds. She contended the waiver was conditional upon the resolution of family problems and, since this condition was unmet, she validly revoked it through a subsequent document in 2004. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled against Isabelo, holding he failed to establish co-ownership. The courts found Lucila’s title conclusive and deemed the revoked waiver as not vesting any ownership right to Isabelo.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Lucila’s affidavit of waiver did not make Isabelo a part-owner with the right to demand partition.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts. The Court clarified that an action for partition presupposes the existence of co-ownership; thus, ownership must first be resolved. The pivotal question was whether the Affidavit of Waiver transferred ownership to Isabelo.
The Court meticulously analyzed the waiver’s language: “That to put everything in proper order, I hereby waive all my share, interest and participation…” It held this was an absolute waiver, not a conditional one. The phrase “to put everything in proper order” merely stated Lucila’s motive for executing the waiver, not a precondition for its effectivity. The operative word “hereby waive” indicated a present, irrevocable act of cession. If a condition were intended, the phrasing would have been “subject to the condition that…” or similar.
Consequently, the waiver constituted a donation—a mode of acquiring ownership. Upon acceptance, evidenced by the subsequent Kasunduan, Isabelo became the owner of one-half of the property. Lucila’s attempted revocation was invalid as the donation was already perfected. Therefore, Isabelo, as a co-owner with Emelinda, correctly filed an action for partition. The case was remanded to the trial court to conduct partition proceedings.