DOCTRINE:

The concept of waiver has been defined by this Court as: “a voluntary and intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or
privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed; the voluntary
abandonment or surrender, by a capable person, of a right known by him to exist, with the intent
that such right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefit; or such
conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right; or the intentional doing of
an act inconsistent with claiming it.”

FACTS:
-Petitioner Edna Mabugay-Otamias and retired Colonel Francisco B. Otamias were married and
had five children. Later, Edna and Colonel Otamias separated due to his alleged infidelity. Their
children stayed with Edna.
- Edna filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Colonel Otamias before the Provost Marshal Division
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Edna demanded monthly support equivalent to 75% of
Colonel Otamias’ retirement benefit. Colonel Otamias executed an affidavit stating that he can
only 50% of his retirement benefits.
-Colonel Otamias executed a Deed of Assignment where he waived 50% of his salary and
pension benefits in favour of Edna and their children. Colonel Otamias retired on April 1, 2003.
-The agreement was honoured until January 6, 2006. Edna alleged that “the Armed Forces of the
Philippines suddenly decided not to honour the agreement” between Colonel Otamias and his
legitimate family.
-The Armed Forces of the Philippines Pension and Gratuity Management Center (AFP-PGMC)
informed Edna that a court order was required for them to recognize the Deed of Assignment.
-Later on, The Armed Forces of the Philippines Pension Gratuity Management Center reiterated
that it could not act on Edna’s request to receive a portion of Colonel Otamias’ pension “unless
ordered by the appropriate court”.

ISSUE/S:
Was Colonel Otamias’ Deed of Assignment effective in waiving his rights to 50% of his
retirement benefits for monthly support towards Edna Otamias and his children?
RULING:
Yes. Because according to Article 6 of the Civil Code, rights may be waived unless it is contrary
to law or public policy. And in this case, the waiver was made to ensure that the family was
supported financially, which is their right under the Family code. The waiver is valid because it
does not go against public policy.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated May 22, 2009
and Resolution dated August 11, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 02555-MIN are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court Decision dated February 27, 2007 in F.C. Civil Case No.
2006-039 is REINSTATED.