Dela Cruz vs.

Dela Cruz
[Civil Law: Property and Lease, Partition of an Immovable Property]

Isabelo C. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, vs. Lucilla C. Dela Cruz, Respondent

G.R NO. 192383; December 4, 2013

Facts:  Petitioner Isabelo Dela Cruz and his sisters/respondents Lucila and
Cornelia were co-owners of a 240-square meter land in Las Pinas which they
bought on installment from Gatchalian Realty, Inc.  Isabelo and Cornelia paid for
the down payment and religiously paid for the monthly amortizations. 

Upon Lucia’s plea to help out a financially distressed cousin (Corazon), the
siblings agreed to make use of the lot as collateral and security for a loan from the
Philippine Veterans Bank.   In order to make this possible, Lucia paid the P8,000
outstanding balance to Gatchalian Realty and had the deed of title registered in her
name.  The title was then mortgaged for Corazon’s benefit.  However, Corazon
was not able to pay for the loan and the mortgaged lot was then foreclosed by the
bank.  The foreclosed lot was however redeemed by Lucia.

In 2002, Lucila executed an affidavit of waiver relinquishing all her share,

interest and participation to her brother Isabelo and her niece Emelinda.  Isabelo
then filed an action for partition seeking the segregation of his portion of said lot
and the corresponding title in his name. This action was, however, contested by
Lucila claiming 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 this condition did not happen and that she had every right to revoke
the waiver.  This was made evident by the revocation she made through an
affidavit dated September 24, 2004.    The RTC ruled in favor of Lucia and this
was affirmed by the CA. 

Issue:  Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Lucila’s cession of the property
through waiver did not have the effect of making Isabelo part owner thereof. 

Ruling:   In deciding this case, the SC considered the wordings used by Lucila in
her waiver.  The court noted that the phrase used “ To put everything in 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.    It disagreed with the lower court’s 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.   Therefore, the SC ruled that the affidavit of waiver
executed by Lucila makes Isabelo and Emelinda co-owners of the waived share of
Lucila.  Isabelo then has the right to demand partition.