GR 165300; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165300 ; April 23, 2010
ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ and IMELDA DIAZ, REINA COMANDANTE and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN and ELIZABETH PANGAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer extended a loan to respondents Spouses Alfredo and Imelda Diaz, represented by their daughter Reina Comandante under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a property registered under the Diazes’ name and a promissory note. Prior to this loan, Comandante, for a consideration of ₱600,000.00 which formed part of the later loan, executed a “Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided)” in favor of Ferrer, covering her future inheritance from her parents. Based on this waiver, Ferrer annotated an adverse claim on the title. The Diazes defaulted, and the property was subsequently sold to respondents Spouses Bienvenido and Elizabeth Pangan. Ferrer filed a complaint for collection and judicial foreclosure, impleading the Pangans and seeking to hold all respondents solidarily liable.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) Is a waiver of hereditary rights executed by a future heir while the parents are still living valid? (2) Is an adverse claim annotated based on such waiver valid and effective against subsequent owners?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the waiver of hereditary rights is void. Under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, a contract upon a future inheritance is prohibited, except in cases expressly authorized by law. A future inheritance cannot be the object of a contract, and a waiver thereof, even if for a valuable consideration, is considered a contract upon a future inheritance. Comandante had no vested right or interest in the property during her parents’ lifetime, as inheritance rights are merely inchoate and contingent until the succession opens upon the death of the decedent. Consequently, the adverse claim annotated on the title, which was derived solely from this void waiver, is also invalid and produces no legal effect. It cannot bind the property or impose liability on the subsequent buyers, the Pangans. The Court affirmed the appellate decision absolving the Pangans from solidary liability, ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the remaining claims against the Diazes and Comandante.