G.R. No.

169129 March 28, 2007

SPS.
VIRGILIO
F.
SANTOS
&
ESPERANZA
LATI
SANTOS,
SPS.VICTORINO
F.
SANTOS,
&
LAGRIMAS
SANTOS,
ERNESTO
F.
SANTOS, and TADEO F. SANTOS,
Petitioners,
vs.
SPS. JOSE LUMBAO and PROSERFINA
LUMBAO, Respondents.
FACTS: Herein petitioners are the
legitimate and surviving heirs of the late
Rita Catoc Santos, who died on October
20, 195. The other pet. are the daughtersin-law of Rita. The respondents are the
alleged owners of a lot, which they
purportedly bought from on two occasions.
On the first occasion, Rita sold 100 square
meters of her inchoate share in her
mothers estate through a document
denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa.
Before her death, Rita allegedly informed
the respondents that she could not deliver
the title to the subject prop because the
entire property inherited by her had not
yet been partitioned. The respondents
claimed that petitioners adjudicated and
partitioned the subject property already
sold to them. They filed a formal demand
letter but pets still failed and refused to
reconvey the subject property. The trial
court denied the complaint. The CA
reversed the decision. MR denied.
ISSUE: WON petitioners are legally bound
to comply with the "Bilihan ng Lupa" and
consequently,
reconvey
the
subject
property to the respondents.
RULING: The general rule that heirs are
bound by contracts entered into by their
predecessors-in-interest applies in the
present case. It is clear from that
whatever rights and obligations the
decedent have over the property were

transmitted to the heirs by way of

succession, a mode of acquiring the
property, rights and obligations of the
decedent to the extent of the value of the
inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs
cannot escape the legal consequence of a
transaction
entered
into
by
their
predecessor-in-interest because they have
inherited the property subject to the
liability affecting their common ancestor.
Being heirs, there is privity of interest
between them and their deceased mother.
They only succeed to what rights their
mother had and what is valid and binding
against her is also valid and binding as
against them. The death of a party does
not excuse nonperformance of a contract
which involves a property right and the
rights and obligations thereunder pass to
the personal representatives of the
deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is
not excused by the death of the party
when the other party has a property
interest in the subject matter of the
contract. In the end, despite the death of
the petitioners mother, they are still
bound to comply with the provisions of the
"Bilihan ng Lupa."

had a grandnephew, Edgardo Cunanan,

who was a seminarian.
On appeal to CA, the order was reversed,
hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON Cunanan entering the
seminary shall affect the legal heirs right
to inherit the subject ricelands.
RULING: NO. As provided in Article 1025
of the Civil Code, in order to be
capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or
legatee must be living at the moment the
succession opens, except in case of
representation, when it is proper.
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND
FATHER PASCUAL RIGOR. THE PARISH
PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
OF VICTORIA, TARLAC v. RIGOR and
FAUSTO,
G.R. No. L-22036 April 30, 1979
FACTS: Father Pascual Rigor, herein
deceased, left a will which was executed
on Oct. 29, Dec. 1933 and contained a
provision that his ricelands shall be given
to his nearest male relative who shall
enter priesthood, and that during the
interval of time that no nearest male
relative of the testator was studying for
the priesthood or the testator's nephew
became
a
priest
and
was
excommunicated, the parish priest of
Victoria
would
administer
these
propertied.
When a new administrator was appointed
as prayed by herein petitioner, a petition
for the delivery of the ricelands to the
church as trustee was filed by petitioner.
The intestate heirs of the deceased
countered with a petition praying that the
bequest be inoperative and that they be
adjudged as the persons entitled to the
said ricelands since no nearest male
relative of the testator has ever studied
for the priesthood.
The lower court granted the legal heirs
petition. This was reversed in a MR filed by
petitioner on the ground that the testator

In 1935, when the testator died, his

nearest legal heirs were his 3 sisters or
second-degree relatives, Mrs. Escobar,
Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiambao.
Obviously, when the testator specified his
nearest male relative, he must have had in
mind his nephew or a son of his sister,
who would be his third-degree relative, or
possibly a grandnephew. Following that
interpretation of the will the inquiry would
be whether at the time Father Rigor died
in 1935 he had a nephew who was
studying for the priesthood or who had
manifested his desire to follow the
ecclesiastical career. This was answered in
the negative. Inasmuch as the testator
was not survived by any nephew who
became
a
priest,
the
unavoidable
conclusion is that the bequest in question
was ineffectual or inoperative. There being
no substitution nor accretion as to the said
ricelands the same should be distributed
among the testator's legal heirs. The
effect is as if the testator had made no
disposition as to the said ricelands.
Therefore, the administration of the
ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria,
as envisaged in the wilt was likewise
inoperative. Hence, CAs decision is
affirmed.

After due trial, the probate court held that

the document presented as the will of the
deceased was a forgery. The testate
proceedings were converted into an
intestate proceedings. After determining
the intestate heirs of the decedent, the
court ordered that the assets of of Vito
Borromeo shall be divided into 4/9 and 5/9
groups and distributed in equal and
equitable shares among the 9 declared
intestate heirs.

NTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE VITO

BORROMEO,
PATROCINIO
BORROMEOHERRERA,
petitioner,vs.
FORTUNATO
BORROMEO and HON. FRANCISCO P.
BURGOS, Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu,Branch II, respondents.
G.R. No. L-41171 July 23, 1987
FACTS: Vito Borromeo, a widower and
permanent resident of Cebu City died at
the age of 88 years without forced heirs
but leaving extensive properties in the
province of Cebu.
On April 19, 1952, Jose Junquera filed with
the CFI of Cebu a petition for the probate
of a 1 page document as the last will and
testament left by the said deceased,
devising all his properties to Tomas,
Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed
Borromeo, in equal and undivided shares,
and designating Junquera as executor
thereof.

On August 25, 1972, respondent Fortunato

Borromeo, who had earlier claimed as heir
under the forged will, filed a motion before
the trial court praying that he be declared
as one of the heirs of Vito, alleging that he
is an illegitimate son of the deceased and
that in the declaration of heirs made by
the trial court, he was omitted, in
disregard of the law making him a forced
heir entitled to receive a legitime like all
other forced heirs. As an acknowledged
illegitimate child, he stated that he was
entitled to a legitime equal in every case
to 4/5 of the legitime of an acknowledged
natural child. Finding that the motion of
Fortunato was already barred by the order
of the court dated April12, 1969 declaring
the persons named therein as the legal
heirs of the deceased Vito Borromeo, the
court dismissed the motion. Fortunato
filed a MR. In the memorandum he
submitted to support his MR, Fortunato
changed the basis for his claim to a
portion of the estate. He asserted and
incorporated a Waiver of Hereditary Rights
dated July 31, 1967, supposedly signed by
Pilar N. Borromeo, Maria B. Putong, Jose
Borromeo, Canuto V. Borromeo, Jr., Salud
Borromeo, Patrocinio Borromeo-Herrera,
Marcial Borromeo, Asuncion Borromeo,
Federico V. Borromeo, Consuelo B.
Morales, Remedios Alfonso and Amelinda
B. Talam.
In the waiver, five of the nine heirs
relinquished to Fortuna to their shares in
the disputed estate. The motion was
opposed on the ground that the trial court,
acting as a probate court, had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
claim; that respondent Fortunato is
estopped from asserting the waiver
agreement; that the waiver agreement is

void as it was executed before the

declaration of heirs; that the same is void
having
been
executed
before
the
distribution of the estate and before the
acceptance of the inheritance; and that it
is void ab initio and inexistent for lack of
subject matter.
The trial court ruled that the five declared
heirs who signed the waiver agreement
assigning their hereditary rights to
Fortunato Borromeo had lost the same
rights, declared the latter as entitled to
5/9 of the estate of Vito Borromeo.
It is argued by the petitioner that the
document entitled " waiver of Hereditary
Rights is without force and effect because
there can be no effective waiver of
hereditary rights before there has been a
valid acceptance of the inheritance the
heirs intend to transfer.
Pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code,
to make acceptance or repudiation of
inheritance valid, the person must be
certain of the death of the one from whom
he is to inherit and of his right to the
inheritance. Since the petitioner and her
co-heirs were not certain of their right to
the inheritance until they were declared
heirs, their rights were, therefore,
uncertain. This view, according to the
petitioner, is also supported by Article
1057 of the same Code which directs
heirs, devicees, and legatees to signify
their acceptance or repudiation within
thirty days after the court has issued an
order for the distribution of the estate.
Respondent Fortunato Borromeo on the
other hand, contends that under Article
1043 of the Civil Code there is no need for
a person to be first declared as heir before
he can accept or repudiate an inheritance.
What is required is that he must first be
certain of the death of the person from
whom he is to inherit and that he must be
certain of his right to the inheritance. He
points out that at the time of the signing
of the waiver document on July 31, 1967,
the signatories to the waiver document
were certain that Vito Borromeo was
already dead as well as of their rights to

the inheritance as shown in the waiver

document itself.
ISSUE:
WON
an
acceptance
or
renunciation of inheritance, in order to be
valid, must be preceded by a court
declaration that the person making the
acceptance or renunciation is indeed an
heir.
RULING:
NO.
The
prevailing
jurisprudence on waiver of hereditary
rights is that "the properties included in an
existing inheritance cannot be considered
as belonging to third persons with respect
to the heirs, who by fiction of law continue
the personality of the former. Nor do such
properties have the character of future
property, because the heirs acquire a right
to succession from the moment of the
death of the deceased, by principle
established in article 657 and applied by
article 661 of the Civil Code, according to
which the heirs succeed the deceased by
the mere fact of death.
More or less, time may elapse from the
moment of the death of the deceased until
the heirs enter into possession of the
hereditary property, but the acceptance in
any event retroacts to the moment of the
death, in accordance with article 989 of
the Civil Code. The right is vested,
although
conditioned
upon
the
adjudication
of
the
corresponding
hereditary portion." The heirs, therefore,
could waive their hereditary rights in 1967
even if the order to partition the estate
was issued only in 1969.In this case,
however, the purported "Waiver of
Hereditary Rights" cannot be considered
to be effective.
For a waiver to exist, three elements are
essential: (1) the existence of a right; (2)
the knowledge of the existence thereof;
and (3) an intention to relinquish such
right.
The intention to waive a right or
advantage must be shown clearly and
convincingly, and when the only proof of
intention rests in what a party does, his
act should be so manifestly consistent
with, and indicative of an intent to,

voluntarily relinquish the particular right

or advantage that no other reasonable
explanation of his conduct is possible.
The circumstances of this case show that
the signatories to the waiver document
did not have the clear and convincing
intention to relinquish their rights, Thus:
(1) On October 27, 1967. Fortunato,
Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo filed a
pleading entitled "Compliance" wherein
they submitted a proposal for the
amicable settlement of the case. In that
Compliance, they proposed to concede to
all the eight (8)intestate heirs of Vito
Borromeo all properties, personal and real,
including all cash and sums of money in
the hands of the Special Administrator, as
of October 31, 1967, not contested or
claimed by them in any action then
pending in the Court of First Instance of
Cebu. In turn, the heirs would waive and
concede to them all the 14 contested lots.
In
this
document,
the
respondent
recognizes and concedes that the
petitioner, like the other signatories to the
waiver document, is an heir of the
deceased Vito Borromeo, entitled to share
in the estate. This shows that the "Waiver
of Hereditary Rights" was never meant to
be what the respondent now purports it to
be. Had the intent been otherwise, there
would not be any reason for Fortunato,

Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo to mention

the heirs in the offer to settle the case
amicably, and offer to concede to them
parts of the estate of the deceased; (2) On
April 21 and30, 1969, the majority of the
declared heirs executed an Agreement on
how the estate they inherited shall be
distributed. This Agreement of Partition
was approved by the trial court on August
15, 1969; (3)On June 29, 1968, the
petitioner, among others, signed a
document entitled Deed of Assignment"
purporting to transfer and assign in favor
of the respondent and Tomas and Amelia
Borromeo all her(Patrocinio B. Herrera's)
rights, interests, and participation as an
intestate heir in the estate of the
deceased Vito Borromeo. The stated
consideration for said assignment was
P100,000.00; (4) On the same date, June
29, 1968, the respondent Tomas, and
Amelia Borromeo (assignees in the
aforementioned deed of assignment) in
turn executed a "Deed of Reconveyance"
in favor of the heirs-assignors named in
the same deed of assignment. The stated
consideration was P50,000.00; (5) A
Cancellation of Deed of Assignment and
Deed of Reconveyance was signed by
Tomas Borromeo and Amelia Borromeo on
October 15, 1968, while Fortunato
Borromeo signed this document on March
24,1969.