The Supreme Court partly granted a petition filed by Virgilio, Jesus, Santiago, and Lourdes Balwit (Virgilio et al.), ruling that the 1981 Affidavit of Waiver of Rights executed by Angelita Balwit-Acedo was ineffective as a repudiation of inheritance but valid as a conveyance or sale of her hereditary share in the estate of her father, Candido Balwit. As a result, the Heirs of Angelita have no right to demand partition of Candido's estate, but may demand partition of the estate of her mother, Anastacia Naong Balwit.
The Case
The controversy centers on the estate of Candido Balwit, which consists solely of a 30,000-square-meter agricultural land located in Carang, Dapitan City, with an assessed value of PHP 35,400.00. Candido died intestate and without any issue or liability. He was survived by his wife, Anastacia Naong Balwit, and his five legitimate children: Virgilio, Jesus, Santiago, Lourdes (Virgilio et al.), and Angelita. The heirs did not partition Candido's estate upon his death.
Following Anastacia's death on April 30, 1998, Virgilio et al. began utilizing the property by making copra from the coconuts planted on it, then divided the profits among themselves to the exclusion of Angelita. Even after Angelita's passing on December 18, 2005, Virgilio et al. refused to pay her share. Angelita's heirs — Rosalinda, Gil, Maximo, Satero, Genalyn, and Jolito Acedo (the Heirs of Angelita) — filed a Complaint for judicial partition.
Virgilio et al. claimed Angelita had already voluntarily waived her rights. They averred that on August 18, 1981, she executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, ceding all her share in Candido's estate in favor of her co-heirs in exchange for the sum of PHP 3,000.00. Angelita purportedly subscribed and swore to the document before then-first assistant provincial fiscal Hermogenes Balisado, and signed it in the presence of Lorenzo Egot, Solomon Naong, and her brother, Virgilio.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Complaint, finding Angelita had validly conveyed her share. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that the waiver should have been made in a public instrument under Article 1051 of the Civil Code, and that the affidavit, sworn before a fiscal rather than a commissioned notary, did not qualify.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as whether the CA erred in finding that the Heirs of Angelita had (1) the right to succeed Candido's estate despite the existence of Angelita's Affidavit of Waiver, and consequently, (2) the right to demand partition.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Affidavit of Waiver is in the nature of a contract of sale, not a repudiation of inheritance. Angelita's waiver was upheld as a valid conveyance of her undivided interest in Candido's estate, so the Heirs of Angelita may no longer demand partition of Candido's estate. However, because the affidavit was executed in August 1981 while Anastacia died only on April 30, 1998, the transfer was limited to Angelita's share in Candido's estate. Angelita inherited from Anastacia in her own right, and those rights passed to her heirs upon her death.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The September 19, 2022 Decision and the August 23, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 05568-MIN are MODIFIED and SET ASIDE." The Court declared the Affidavit of Waiver ineffective as a repudiation but upheld it as a valid conveyance or sale of Angelita's hereditary share in Candido's estate, and remanded the case to the RTC for continuation of partition proceedings.
By the Numbers
- Property: 30,000 square meters of agricultural land in Carang, Dapitan City
- Assessed value: PHP 35,400.00
- Consideration in the Affidavit of Waiver: PHP 3,000.00
- Affidavit executed: August 18, 1981
- Anastacia died: April 30, 1998
- Angelita died: December 18, 2005
- Candido's estate: 15,000 square meters, divided among six compulsory heirs at 2,500 square meters each
- After Angelita's waived share: remaining heirs receive 3,000 square meters each
- Anastacia's estate: 18,000 square meters in total
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that questions of fact are generally inappropriate under Rule 45, but exercised its power of review because the findings of the CA and the RTC were conflicting. For a valid repudiation of inheritance, Article 1051 of the Civil Code requires a public or authentic instrument. The Court explained that Candido's death dissolved the conjugal partnership, so one-half of the property — 15,000 square meters — pertained to Anastacia, while the remaining 15,000 square meters formed Candido's estate, to be divided among his six compulsory heirs.
Under Article 996 of the Civil Code, the surviving spouse is entitled to a share equal to each legitimate child, giving each of the six heirs 2,500 square meters. Angelita's 2,500-square-meter share was redistributed among the five remaining heirs, each receiving an additional 500 square meters. Because material facts about Anastacia's estate — including whether she died testate or intestate and the identity of her compulsory heirs, including her purported illegitimate child Aniano Naong — remain undetermined, the Court found it necessary to remand the case to the RTC for proper reception and evaluation of evidence.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 270360.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.