G.R. No. 165300, 23 April 2010


Allegedly, the Diazes, as represented by their daughter Comandante obtained from him a loan of P1,118,228.00. The loan was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage Contract by way of second mortgage over Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and a Promissory Note payable within six months or up to November 7, 1999. Comandante also issued to petitioner post-dated checks to secure payment of said loan.

Petitioner further claimed that prior to this or on May 29, 1998, Comandante, for a valuable consideration of P600,000.00, which amount formed part of the above mentioned secured loan, executed in his favor an instrument entitled Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided), and which property is titled and registered in the name of my parents Alfredo T. Diaz and Imelda G. Diaz, as evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title. On the basis of said waiver, petitioner executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which he caused to be annotated at the back of the TCT.

The Diazes, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated demands, said respondents still failed and refused to settle the loan. Thus, petitioner filed on September 29, 1999 a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage Contract against the Diazes and Comandante. At the Pangans’ end, they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in good faith and for a consideration of P3,000,000.00 on November 11, 1999 from the Diazes through the latter’s daughter Comandante. However, on December 21, 1999, they were surprised upon being informed by petitioner that the subject land had been mortgaged to him by the Diazes. As affirmative defense, the Pangans asserted that the annotation of petitioner’s adverse claim on TCT No. RT-6604 cannot impair their rights as new owners of the subject property. They claimed that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) upon which petitioner’s adverse claim is anchored cannot be the source of any right or interest over the property considering that it is null and void under paragraph 2 of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.


WON a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another executed by a future heir while the parents are still living valid;


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.[38]

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. The Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante in favor of petitioner as not valid and that 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.

*Case digest by Hipolito Bael III, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio College Law School, SY 2018-2019