G.R. No.

L-14070 March 29, 1961

MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, LEONCIO GERVACIO BLAS and
LOIDA GERVACIO BLAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the
deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, in Sp. Proc. No. 2524, Court of First
Instance of Rizal, defendants-appellants. MARTA GERVACIO BLAS and DR. JOSE
CHIVI, Defendants-Appellants.

LABRADOR, J.:
FACTS: This action was instituted by plaintiffs against the administration of the estate of
Maxima Santos, to secure a judicial declaration that one-half of the properties left by
Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, the greater bulk of which are set forth and described in the
project of partition presented in the proceedings for the administration of the estate of the
deceased Simeon Blas, had been promised by the deceased Maxima Santos to be delivered
upon her death and in her will to the plaintiffs, and requesting that the said properties so
promised be adjudicated to the plaintiffs. The complaint also prays for actual damages in the
amount of P50,000. The alleged promise of the deceased Maxima Santos is contained in a
document executed by Maxima Santos on December 26, 1936 attached to the complaint as
Annex “H” and introduced at the trial as Exhibit “A”. The complaint also alleges that the
plaintiffs are entitled to inherit certain properties enumerated in paragraph 3 thereof,
situated in Malabon, Rizal and Obando, Bulacan, but which properties have already been
included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and evidently
partitioned and conveyed to his heirs in the proceedings for the administration of his estate.
Spouses Simeon Blas and Marta Cruz have three children they also have grandchildren. One
year after Marta Cruz died, Blas married Maxima Santos but they don’t have children and
the properties that he and his former wife acquired during the first marriage were not
liquidated. Simeon Blas executed a will disposing half of his properties in favor of Maxima
the other half for payment of debts, Blas also named a few devisees and legatees therein. In
lieu of this, Maxima executed a document whereby she intimated that she understands the
will of her husband; that she promises that she’ll be giving, upon her death, one-half of the
properties she’ll be acquiring to the heirs and legatees named in the will of his husband; that
she can select or choose any of them depending upon the respect, service, and treatment
accorded to her by said heirs. On 1937 Simeon Blas died while Maxima died on 1956 and
Rosalina Santos became administrator of her estate. In the same year, Maria Gervacio Blas,
child of Simeon Blas in his first marriage, together with three other grandchildren of Simeon
Blas (heirs of Simeon Blas), learned that Maxima did not fulfill her promise as it was learned
that Maxima only disposed not even one-tenth of the properties she acquired from Simeon
Blas. The heirs are now contending that they did not partition Simeon Blas’ property
precisely because Maxima promised that they’ll be receiving properties upon her death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs can acquire the properties that Maxima promised with
them.
HELD: Yes, they can acquire the properties that Maxima promised with them because it was
stated in Art. 1347 that “No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in
cases expressly authorized by law.”. In this case the contract was authorized by law because
the promised made by Maxima to their heirs before she died is a valid reason and it should
be enforceable upon her death and her heirs can now acquire the succession of the
properties in issue.

TEODORO ACAP v. CA, GR No. 118114, 1995-12-07

Facts:
After... both spouses died, their only son Felixberto inherited the lot. In 1975, Felixberto
executed a duly notarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute
Sale" in favor of Cosme Pido.
The evidence before the court a quo established that since 1960, petitioner Teodoro Acap
had been the tenant of a portion of the said land, covering an area of nine thousand five
hundred (9,500) square meters. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to
Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his
leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon Pido's death, to his widow Laurenciana.
The controversy began when Pido died intestate and on 27 November 1981, his surviving
heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of
Right
The document was signed by all of Pido's heirs. Private respondent Edy de los Reyes did not
sign said document.
On 28 April 1988, after the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against petitioner, alleging in the main that as his
leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay the agreed annual rental of ten (10)...
cavans of palay despite repeated demands.
During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private
respondent's ownership over the subject land. He averred that he continues to recognize
Cosme Pido as the owner of the said land, and having been a registered tenant... therein
since 1960, he never reneged on his rental obligations. When Pido died, he continued to pay
rentals to Pido's widow. When the latter left for abroad, she instructed him to stay in the
landholding and to pay the accumulated rentals upon her demand or return... from abroad.
Issues:
In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the nature and effect of
the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed)
of sale.
Ruling:
In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the
ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in
money or its equivalent.
Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public
instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and
divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an...
extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.
Private respondent,... being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot
conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document
which neither recites the elements of either a sale,[13] or a donation,[14] or any... other
derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
Quite surprisingly, both the trial court and public respondent Court of Appeals concluded
that a "sale" transpired between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent and that
petitioner acquired actual knowledge of said sale when he was summoned by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform... to discuss private respondent's claim over the lot in question. This
conclusion has no basis both in fact and in law.
Consequently, while the transaction between Pido's heirs and private respondent may be
binding on both parties, the right of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land cannot be
perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership without the...
corresponding proof thereof.
Principles:
Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of
hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between
the parties.[11] The second is, technically speaking, a mode of... extinction of ownership
where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge
of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in
the succession.

Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera

TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera

CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653

FACTS:

Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard
Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at
Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20,
1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in private
respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the
Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal
separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of
marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of
Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with William Chia as
early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”.

ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even
though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued.

HELD:

The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person
who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. Though
in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained
a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its
legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under
the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of
petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture
that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.