G.R. No. 145379. December 9, 2005.
DAMIANA INTO, Petitioner, vs. MARIO VALLE, OCTAVIO VALLE, ALBERTO VALLE, OLIVER VALLE, BRENDA VALLE, and LUISA VDA. DE VALLE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Damiana Into obtained a final judgment against Eleanor Valle Siapno. To satisfy the judgment, sheriffs levied and auctioned Eleanor’s pro-indiviso hereditary share in six parcels of land forming part of the intestate estate of her father, Victorio Valle, which was pending settlement. Petitioner was the highest bidder. Subsequently, respondents, the other heirs and the surviving spouse, filed a complaint to nullify the sheriff’s sale. They claimed Eleanor had earlier waived her hereditary rights in their favor for valuable consideration before the levy, and thus had no more interest in the properties when they were sold at auction.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint but also declared the auction sale null and void. It ruled that Eleanor’s waiver, executed after Into’s judgment credit existed, prejudiced Into’s vested right. Furthermore, the waiver was invalid for non-compliance with Article 1051 of the Civil Code, requiring repudiation through a public instrument or a petition in the probate court. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the auction sale valid. It held that the waiver, being for consideration, was not a gratuitous repudiation under Article 1051 but a conveyance, which did not require probate court approval. It also ruled that respondents, as co-owners, had the personality to sue.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the sheriff’s sale of Eleanor’s hereditary share on execution was valid, considering her prior waiver of rights to her co-heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is twofold. First, the waiver executed by Eleanor was not a gratuitous renunciation under Article 1051 of the Civil Code, which governs repudiation of inheritance. The document was a “Waiver of Hereditary Shares and/or Rights” made for valuable consideration. Therefore, it constituted a conveyance or assignment of her expectant right, not a formal repudiation. Such a conveyance is valid and effective between the parties without the formalities prescribed for repudiation. Consequently, when the sheriff levied on the properties, Eleanor had already transferred her interest to the respondents, leaving no attachable interest in her name.
Second, the Court clarified the proper parties. While the estate was under administration, the administratrix (respondent Luisa) could sue to protect estate assets. However, for orderly procedure, the Estate of Victorio Valle should be impleaded. If the estate had been settled and the properties adjudicated, then the heir-respondents themselves would have the legal personality to sue. The Court found no merit in the claim that the respondents lacked capacity to sue, as co-owners have an interest in preventing an illegal sale of a portion of the common property. Thus, the auction sale of an interest no longer owned by the judgment debtor was invalid.