SC: Waived inheritance may count as donation
Inherited property that is passed on to another after heirs deliberately waive their rights may be considered a lawful donation as long as the requirements under the law are met, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a Feb. 19 decision that was released only on Wednesday, the high tribunal upheld the earlier rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and Davao City Regional Trial Court over two parcels of land in Davao City. They were left by a single woman who died in 2004 without any children or a will.
The lower courts had dismissed the petitions filed by one of the deceased’s siblings who sought to nullify the waivers of rights executed by their parents.
Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, the deceased’s parents were the rightful heirs of the property by way of intestate succession. The parents, however, decided to waive their rights to the inherited lots and transfer these to only two out of their five remaining children.
In challenging the waivers executed by their parents, the petitioner, identified as “Felix,” argued that the documents “did not validly transfer ownership and cannot be considered donations.”
‘Donations inter vivos’
Felix claimed that this invalidated the extrajudicial settlement executed by his two other siblings, identified as “Robin” and “Oasis,” to make them recipients of the inherited property.
The high tribunal, however, disagreed with his arguments and pointed out that the waivers of inheritance rights signed by their parents were deemed “donations inter vivos,” or while alive.
“The CA correctly found that these requisites were sufficiently complied. 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 high court said in its 16-page decision written by Justice Jhosep Lopez.
The waivers signed by the parents also showed their intent and the voluntary renunciation of their rights and interests over the property in question, it added.
“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 Supreme Court said that Felix “failed to establish a right superior to that of respondents over the subject properties,” adding that it found “no reason to disturb these factual findings.”
