Ferrer v.

Spouses Diaz (2010)

Petitioner: Atty. Pedro Ferrer

Respondent: Spouses Alfredo and Imelda Diaz
Ponencia: Del Castillo
Issues:
DOCTRINE:
W/M Comandantes waiver of hereditary right valid? Consequently
No contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly whether the petitioners affidavit of adverse claim which was based on
authorized by law. For the inheritance to be considered future, the succession must the waiver valid?
not have been opened at the time of the contract.
Held:

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Pedro Ferrer, in his complaint, alleged that respondent
Commandante, daughter of the respondents Spouses Diaz obtained
a P1.2 M loan from him. Such loan was secured by a Real Estate
Mortgage, as well as a promissory note. In addition, and for a
consideration of P600,000, to offset the loan, petitioner alleges that
Commandate executed an instrument entitled “Waiver of Hereditary
Rights and Interests over a Real Property” (Still Undivided). On the
basis of said waiver, petitioner executed a Affidavit of Adverse Claim
on the TCT of the property. Given that Commandante could not pay,
petitioner filed a case in court to hold Commandante, Spouses Diaz,
and the Pangans solidarily liable.
2. Commandante, for her part, alleges that while she is indeed indebted
to the petitioner, such were only secured by chattel mortgages over
her taxi units. She alleges that it was the petitioner that presented
her with documents such as the Real Estate Mortgage and Waiver of
Hereditary Rights, suggesting that her SPA from Spouses Diaz is
sufficient. Although she was hesitant to sign these, knowing that she
does not own the property, she was afraid of having her taxi units
foreclosed.
No the waiver is invalid for being contrary to public policy, and
consequently the affidavit of adverse claim is frivolous.
The main argument of the respondents is that the Adverse Claim on the TCT
on their property is invalid for it is entirely based on the waiver of
Commandante’s hereditary rights. Petitioner argues otherwise, but the
Supreme Court holds that the adverse claim is based entirely on the waiver.
The Supreme Court rules that pursuant to 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.
In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of
Comandantes Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still
Undivided), succession to either of her parents properties has not yet been opened
since both of them are still living.

3. Spouses Diaz presents that the loan of Commandante is her

personal obligation and that the SPA was not authentic.

4. Commandante alleges that the waiver of hereditary rights is useless

as its execution is prohibited by public policy. The trial court resolved
the case in favor of the petitioner. When it was appealed to the CA,
the CA affirmed the decision but modified it to exclude the Pangans
(they were the ones who owned the mortgaged property) from
liability. Hence this petition