MARQUEZ, GWEN

10986472
GUY v CA (, Hon. Sixto Marella Jr., Karen Oanes Wei & Kamille Oanes Wei represented by
their mother, Remedios Oanes) G.R. No. 163707 Sept. 15, 2006 DIGEST
Topic: WAIVE OF RIGHTS
FACTS:
Private respondent-minors claim that they are the duly acknowledged illegitimate
children of Sima Wei who died on Oct. 29, 1992 leaving an estate of real and personal
properties worth P10,000,000.
The petitioner asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that respondents
should have established their status during the lifetime of the deceased as stated in
Article 175 of the Family Code.
Petitioner and his co-heirs further claimed that private respondents claim had been
waived by reason of Remedios June 7, 1993 release and waiver of claim stating that
she discharges the estate of Sima Wei from any and all liabilities.
The Regional Trial Court denied this motion for it was not established that Remedios
was the duly constituted guardian of her minor daughters and therefore, could not waive
such right. Such decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the release and waiver of claim prevents the private respondent-minors from
claiming their rights as illegitimate children of deceased Sima Wei.
DECISION:
No, the release and waiver of claim is considered null and void. Thus, the private respondentminors are qualified to claim their rights as illegitimate children of deceased Sima Wei.
SC rules that for a waiver to be valid and effective, it must be couched in clear and
unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of the party; a waiver may
not be attributed to a person when its terms do not explicitly evince intent to abandon
right.
The signed release and waiver of claim did not in any way mention the private
respondent-minors hereditary share so it cannot be taken as a waiver of successional
rights.
Said waiver was not judicially authorized. According to Article 1044 of the Civil Code,
any inheritance left to minors may be repudiated by parents or guardians only through
judicial authorization.
o Thus, if and when said waiver mentioned the hereditary share, it would not still
be valid.
o There is such rule because repudiation amounts to alienation of property and
must therefore pass the courts scrutiny in order to protect the interest of minors.
Petitioner claims that respondents do not have such right. Therefore, there can have no
waiver.
o Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks
knowledge of right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest.