Ferrer v. Sps.

Diaz
GR No. 165300—April 23, 2010
J. Gutierrez, Jr.

Topic: Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Succession—Acceptance and Repudiation of the
Inheritance
Doctrine: Pursuant to NCC Art. 1347(2), 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 NCC Art. 1347(2), 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.

Petitioners: Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer

FACTS: It was alleged that the Diazes, as represented by their daughter Comandante, obtained from
Atty. Ferrer a loan which was secured by a REM contract by way of second mortgage over TCT and
PN payable in six months. Comandante also issued to Atty. Ferrer PDCs as security. P600,000 of the
total money owed (P1,118,228) was a prior loan by Commandante, wherein she executed a Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) that was titled and registered in
the name of her parents because of this waiver, Atty. Ferrer executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim
which he caused to be annotated at the back of the TCT. The Diazes failed to comply with their
obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated
demands, they still failed and refused to settle the loan. Atty. Ferrer filed a Complaint for Collection of
Sum of Money Secured by REM Contract against the Diazes and Comandante. Subsequently, he
impleaded the Pangans as the mortgaged property was already under their name. The Pangans alleged
that they were purchasers in good faith. However, they were surprised upon being informed by Atty.
Ferrer that the subject land had been mortgaged to him by the Diazes. The Pangans claimed that the
said waiver cannot be the source of any right or interest over the property considering that it is null and
void under NCC Art. 1347(2). The SC ruled in favor of the respondents and echoed their argument.

Facts:
Atty. Ferrer’s version:
 May 7, 1999: The Diazes, as represented by their daughter Comandante, through an
SPA, obtained from him a loan of ₱1,118,228, which was secured by a REM Contract by way of
second mortgage over TCT No. RT-6604 and a PN payable within six months. Comandante also
issued to him postdated checks to secure payment of said loan.
 May 29, 1998: Comandante, for a valuable consideration of ₱600,000, which amount formed part
of the abovementioned secured loan, executed in his favor an instrument entitled Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided). The property covered by
the waiver is titled and registered in the name of Comandante’s parents, Alfredo T. Diaz and
Imelda G. Diaz, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT 6604 (82020) PR-18887.
  May 26, 1999: By viture of the waiver, Atty. Ferrer executed an Affidavit of Adverse
Claim which he caused to be annotated at the back of TCT No. RT-6604.
 The Diazes reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored
upon presentment.
 Despite repeated demands, they still failed and refused to settle the loan.
 September 29, 1999: Atty. Ferrer filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by
REM Contract against the Diazes and Comandante.
 He twice amended his complaint: (1) by including as an alternative relief the Judicial Foreclosure
of Mortgage and (2) by impleading as additional defendants the Pangans as the mortgaged
property covered by TCT No. RT-6604 was already transferred under their names in TCT No. N-
209049.

Respondent’s version:
 Comandante alleged that Atty. Ferrer and his wife were her fellow members in the CFC
Movement.
 1998: Commandante sought the help of Atty. Ferrer with regard to the mortgage with a bank of
the said lot.
 She also sought financial accommodations from the couple on several occasions which totaled
₱500,000. However, these loans were secured by chattel mortgages over her taxi units in addition
to several postdated checks she issued in favor of Atty. Ferrer.
 Because of her inability to comply with her obligation, the sps. presented to her in May 1998 a
document titled Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided)
pertaining to a waiver of her hereditary share over her parents’ property to to secure
Comandante’s loan which increased to ₱600,000 due to interests.
 The sps. again required Comandante to sign the following documents: (1) a REM Contract over
her parents’ property; and (2) an undated PN, both corresponding to the amount of ₱1,118,228.
 Comandante alleged that she reminded Atty. Ferrer that she was not the registered owner of the
subject property and that although her parents granted her SPA, same only pertains to her
authority to mortgage the property to banks and other financial institutions and not to individuals.
 Atty. Ferrer assured her that the SPA was also applicable to their transaction. The sps. Threatened
her to foreclose her taxi units and present the PDCs she issued to the bank for payment.
 For fear of losing her taxi units which were the only source of her livelihood, Comandante was
thus constrained to sign the mortgage agreement as well as the promissory note.
 September 29, 1999: She executed an Affidavit of Repudiation/Revocation of Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interests Over A (Still Undivided) Real Property, which she caused to be
annotated on the title of the subject property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on the
same day.
 As for the Diazes, they argue that Atty. Ferrer has no COA against them.
 As for the Pangans, they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in good faith
and for a consideration of ₱3,000,000 on November 11, 1999 from the Diazes through the latter’s
daughter Comandante who was clothed with SPA acknowledged before the Consul of New York.
The Pangans immediately took actual possession of the property without anyone complaining or
protesting. Thereafter, they were issued a new TCT. Atty. Ferrer’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 NCC Art. 1347(2).

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Appeal to the CA

 Assuming the summary judgment was proper, the trial court should not have considered the REM
Contract and the PN as they were defective, as well as Atty. Ferrer’s frivolous and non-registrable
adverse claim.

CA’s Decision

 It declared Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights null and void. However, it found the REM
executed by Comandante on behalf of her parents as binding between the parties thereto.

 As regards the Pangans, the mortgage contract was not binding upon them as they were
purchasers in good faith and for value. The property was free from the mortgage encumbrance of
Atty. Ferrer when they acquired it as they only came to know of the adverse claim through
petitioner’s phone call which came right after the former’s acquisition of the property. As
Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights and interests upon which Atty. Ferrer’s adverse claim
was based is a nullity, it could not be a source of any right in his favor.

Issues + Held: WON a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another executed by a future heir while the
parents are still living is valid—NO.

 Pursuant to NCC Art. 1347(2), 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 NCC Art. 1347(2), 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.

 In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of Comandante’s waiver, 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.

 Comandante and Atty. Ferrer entered into a contract involving the former’s future. The Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante in
favor of Atty. Ferrer is not valid and cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation
between them for being violative of NCC Art. 1347(2).

Ruling: Petition is DENIED.