DELA CRUZ VS.

DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 192383 December 4, 2013

FACTS:
Petitioner Isabelo C. Dela Cruz claimed that in 1975 he and his sister,
respondent Lucila and Cornelia bought on installment a 240-square meter land in Las
Pias from Gatchalian Realty, Inc. Isabelo and Cornelia paid the down payment and
the monthly amortizations. Upon Lucias plea to help their financially distress cousin,
Corazon, the siblings agreed to make use of the lot as collateral for the loan. Lucila
paid the P8, 000.00 that they still owed to Gatchalian Realty, Inc. and had the deed
of title registered in her name. The title was mortgaged for Corazons benefit.
However, Corazon failed to pay her loan so the bank foreclosed the property. After
three years, Lucila redeemed the property. In 2002, Lucila executed an affidavit of
waiver, relinquishing all her share, interest, and participation to half of the lot to
Isabelo and the other half to her niece, Emelinda. Isabelo then filed an action for
partition seeking the segregation of his portion of the land and the issuance of the
corresponding title in his name. But Lucila claim that the waiver she executed ceding
ownership of her share to Isabelo was subject to a condition that their family problems
would be resolved. She claims that the said condition did not happen and that she
had every right to revoke the waiver. It was made evident by the revocation she made
through an affidavit dated September 24, 2004.The RTC ruled in favor of Lucia and
was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Lucilas cession of the property to
Isabelo through waiver did not have the effect of making him part owner of the
property with a right to demand partition.

RULING:
Lucilas waiver was absolute and contained no precondition. The court noted
that the phrase That to put everything in proper order, I hereby waive all my share,
interest and participation means that the intention of Lucila was to waive her right to
the property, irreversibly divesting herself of her existing right to it. The Supreme
Court disagreed with the lower courts interpretation that such wordings intends a
precondition of waiver for if such was the intent, the phrase containing words such
as subject to the condition that everything is put in order would have been used.
After he and his co-owner Emelinda accepted the donation, Isabelo became the
owner of half of the subject property having the right to demand its partition.