MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR.

, Presiding Judge, RTC,

Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother,
REMEDIOS OANES, respondents.
G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006

FACTS:
1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy Susim). Private-respondents
Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors
were represented by their mother RemediosOanes who filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC
of Makati City.

2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving spouse, filed for the dismissal of the petition alleging
that his father left no debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of letters administration. The other heirs filed a
joint motion to dismiss alleging that the certification of non-forum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and not by
counsel.

3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason of a Release of Claim or waiver stating that in
exchange for financial and educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharged the estate of
the decedent from any and all liabilities.

4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the supplemental motion ruling that the mother is not the duly
constituted guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed the waiver. It also rejected the petitioner's objections
to the certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate the inheritance the wards

RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and parents and guardians must necessarily obtain judicial approval.
repudiation of inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the best interest of the ward. Not having been
authorized by the court, the release or waiver is therefore void. Moreover, the private-respondents could not have waived their
supposed right as they have yet to prove their status as illegitimate children of the decedent. It would be inconsistent to rule that
they have waived a right which, according to the petitioner, the latter do not have.

In this case, the Supreme Court find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights.The Release and Waiver of Claim does not state
with clarity the purpose of itsexecution. It merely states that Remedios received P300,000.00 and an educationalplan for her
minor daughters “by way of financial assistance and in full settlement of anyand all claims of whatsoever nature and kind against
the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim.” Considering that the document did not specifically mention private
respondents’hereditary share in the estate of Sima Wei, it cannot be construed as a waiver ofsuccessional rights.

Moreover, even assuming that Remedios truly waived the hereditary rights ofprivate respondents, such waiver will not bar the
latter’s claim. Article 1044 of the CivilCode, provides:

ART. 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property mayaccept or repudiate an inheritance.

Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by theirparents or guardians. Parents or guardians may
repudiate the inheritance left to theirwards only by judicial authorization.