Persons Waiver of Rights Discussion on Cases (Briefly with respect to Validity of Waiver) De Los Santos vs.

De la Cruz Facts: Extrajudicial partition agreement was executed between the nieces and nephews (legal heirs) of decedent Pelagia de la Cruz and plaintiff grand niece (not a legal heir) De los Santos. Agreement included obligation of the defendant to develop the property and subdivision of estate. Plaintiff filed a petition in CFC Rizal to compel defendant to comply with his obligation. Defendant prayed that the complaint be dismissed; that the extrajudicial partition agreement be declared void with respect to the plaintiff among others. On motion of the defendant, the court entered an order declaring the plaintiff in default for not having answered counterclaim. CFI held that the defendant being a party to the extrajudicial partition agreement was stopped from raising in issue the right of the plaintiff to inherit from the decedent and hence must abide by the terms of the agreement. CFI ordered the defendant to perform his obligations. Defendant petitioned SC for direct appeal from the judgment of the CFI Rizal.

Issues(among others):

1. Whether the extrajudicial partition is null and void with respect to the plaintiff-appellee and consequently has no cause of action against the defendant-appellant. 2. Whether the agreement constitute a waiver on the part of the defendant from raising in issue the right of plaintiff to inherit or whether the

defendant is estopped from questioning plaintiffs right to have the agreement enforced. Held SC ruled that judgment of default against a defendant who has neither appeared nor filed his answer does not imply a waiver of rights except that of being heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff. Inclusion of a non-heir into an extrajudicial partition agreement does not constitute a waiver on the part of the legal heirs of their sole right to the property because it is contrary to law, in this case Art. 972 and from raising in issue the right of the plaintiff to inherit. Appeal granted.

Allied Banking Corporation vs Court of Appeals Facts: Contract of Lease between Allied and Tanqueco spouses for 14 years has an express provision which gives the lessee the sole option to renew for a like term. Tanqueco spouses executed deed of donation of said property in favor of their four children. A year before the expiry of lease, Tanquecos notified Allied thatthey were no longer interested in renewing the lease. Allied replied that it was exercising its option to renew under the same terms with additional proposals. Tanqueco made a counter-proposal which was rejected by Allied When the lease of contract expired, private respondents demanded that allied vacate the premises but the latter asserted its sole option. MTC of Quezon City declared the provision of the contract void for being violative of Art 1308 ofthe CC. On appeal to the RTC and later to the CA, the decision was affirmed.

While case was pending in CA Allied vacated the premises for the reason of the controversy. Allied petitioned for review on certiorari.

Issue (among others)

1. Whether the contract of lease is mutually binding (principle of mutuality) and has the force of a law between the contracting parties.

Held:

The Contract of Lease executed by the parties is a valid waiver on the part of the Tanquecos on their right as lessors to bargain additional provisions for the renewal of the lease based on the principle of mutuality. The contract was mutually agreed upon and it has a binding effect and the force of law. Petitioner, not being a party to the deed of donation and having no material interest in it has no legal personality to asail the validity of the deed of donation executed by the lessor. The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside.

People vs Tudtud Facts: Tudtud and Bolong were sentenced by in RTC Davao City to suffer reclusion perpetua for illegal possessionof prohibited drugs. Police officers searched the alleged possession (boxes) of the accused without a search warrant. Prosecution contend that there was no time to secure a search warrant and the police had probable cause of the guilt of the accused

Accused allegedly did not protest and readily opened the boxes themselves. Found inside were dried marijuana fruiting tops 3200 g and dried suspected marijuana leaves 890g. Accused appealed from the decision of the said RTC.

Issue:

The search and seizure conducted was conducted without a judicial warrant and hence unreasonable. Held There is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures if the following requisites are present: 1. It must appear that the rights exist;

2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; 3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The prosecution in this case failed to establish second and third requisites. The fact that the defendant failed to object to a search does not amount to permission thereto. It does not constitute as a valid waiver of his right against unreasonable search, a fundamental right of an individual and a violation thereof is contrary to law.

Lorenzo vs. Workmens Compensation Commission Failure of employer to controvert right of claimant to compensation benefits within the statutory period is a valid waiver or renunciation of the right to controvert the claim. Having failed to timely controvert the claim of the petitioner, the respondent company was thereby considered to have renounced all non-jurisdictional defenses, such as the non-compensability of the claim.