SC: Inherited property can be waived in favor of another as donation

MANILA, Philippines — An heir who has deliberately waived his or her rights to an inherited property in favor of another may be considered a lawful donation as long as other requirements under the law are met.

This was according to a ruling by the Supreme Court on Feb. 19, but made public only on Wednesday, involving a Davao City property left by a woman who died single and without a will.

The high court upheld the earlier decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) and Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC), which both dismissed the petition filed by one of the deceased’s siblings who sought the nullification of the waiver of rights executed by the parents.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under the law, the deceased’s parents were the rightful heirs to the property by way of intestate succession. The parents decided to waive their rights over the inherited lots and transfer them to only two of their five remaining children.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

In challenging the waivers executed by the parents, one sibling, identified as “Felix,” argued that the documents “did not validly transfer ownership and cannot be considered donations.”

This, Felix argued, invalidated the extrajudicial settlement executed by his two other siblings, identified as “Robin” and “Oasis,” to become recipients of the inherited property.

READ: On donating properties 2

But the high tribunal disagreed with Felix’s arguments and pointed out that the waivers of inheritance rights signed by the deceased’s parents were deemed “donations inter vivos,” or donations made while alive.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The CA correctly found that these requisites were sufficiently complied [with]. The donations were made during the lifetime of (the parents), resulting in the reduction of their properties as donors and an increase in the patrimonies of Robin and Osias as donees,” the Supreme Court said in its 16-page decision.

The parents’ waivers also showed their intent and voluntary renunciation of their rights and interests over the property in question, it added.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The CA further found that such acceptance was made known to the donors … who were the very parties who executed the notarized waivers expressly authorizing the transfer,” it added.

Because of the proof of documents executed for the transfer of inherited property, the court said Felix “failed to establish a right superior to that of respondents over the subject properties” and that it found “no reason to disturb these factual findings.” /mcm