G.R. No. 192383 - Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz

In 1975, Isabelo C. Dela Cruz, together with his sisters, Lucila and Cornelia, purchased a 240‑square meter lot in Las Piñas from Gatchalian Realty, Inc. on an installment plan.
Both the down payment and subsequent monthly amortizations were paid by Isabelo and Cornelia.

In the following year, Isabelo constructed a residential house on the same lot, thereby adding an improvement to the property.
During this period, a family financial matter emerged involving their cousin, Corazon L. Victoriano, prompting a decision to use the property as collateral.

Lucila proposed that the secured lot be used as collateral for a loan that Corazon intended to secure from the Philippine Veterans Bank.
To facilitate this, Lucila paid the remaining balance of ₱8,000.00 owed to Gatchalian Realty, Inc.
On January 18, 1979, the Register of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) S-80735 in Lucila’s name, which subsequently was mortgaged to benefit Corazon.

The property was foreclosed by the Philippine Veterans Bank on March 1, 1989, for an amount of ₱286,000.00 due to Corazon’s failure to pay the loan.
Lucila redeemed the foreclosed property on March 27, 1992, thereby regaining control over the land.

On October 7, 2002, Lucila executed an affidavit of waiver relinquishing all her share, interest, and participation in the subject property, clearly dividing it into two equal halves: one half for Isabelo and the other for her niece, Emelinda C. Dela Cruz.
On the same date, Isabelo and Emelinda executed a Kasunduan (agreement) acknowledging their respective rights in the property.

Claiming ownership of half of the property based on Lucila’s affidavit of waiver, Isabelo filed an action for partition on August 22, 2005, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City (Case No. SCA 05-0008).
Lucila countered by asserting that:

She had personally financed significant portions of the property costs, including the construction of the house, using her income and proceeds from selling jewelry.
The waiver contained a condition relating to the resolution of certain familial problems, implying that it did not absolutely transfer ownership.
Consequently, she maintained the right to revoke her waiver—a revocation she later executed on September 24, 2004, in the Kasulatan ng Pagpawalang Bisa ng Affidavit Waiver.

On February 7, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision denying Isabelo’s complaint for partition on the ground of lack of merit.
The RTC’s findings included:

The evidentiary strength of documents such as the tax declaration, real property tax payment orders, and the title in Lucila’s name, which supported her ownership.
Testimonies (including that of Cornelia) establishing that Lucila was responsible for all monthly amortizations rather than Isabelo.
The determination that Lucila’s affidavit of waiver did not result in the annotation on TCT S-80735, and hence could not mature into an adverse claim against her title.
The conclusion that the receipts and other documentary evidence presented by Isabelo regarding the construction of the house were insufficient to prove his ownership of the improvement.

The RTC further ordered Isabelo to pay Lucila ₱50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to shoulder the costs of the suit.

On December 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling by holding that Isabelo failed to establish his right to partition half of the subject property.
However, the CA deleted the award of attorney's fees and costs on the basis that Lucila did not adequately justify her claims, and due to the RTC’s insufficient explication on the rationale for the fees.
Isabelo’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

Central to the dispute was whether the language of the affidavit of waiver implied a binding and absolute renunciation of Lucila’s rights or if it was subject to a condition.
The relevant portion of the waiver stated: "That to put everything in proper order, I hereby waive all my share, interest and participation in so far as it refer to the one half portion (120 SQ. M.) of the above‑parcel of land, with and in favor of my brother ISABELO C. DELA CRUZ...".
This wording, particularly the use of the term “hereby waive,” was later interpreted as an absolute waiver without any precondition, reflecting Lucila’s intent to permanently divest herself of her property rights.

Whether Lucila’s affidavit of waiver effectively and absolutely transferred to Isabelo ownership of half of the subject property, thereby granting him the right to demand its partition.
Whether the language in the affidavit of waiver evidenced an irrevocable renunciation of her rights rather than a conditional promise subject to the resolution of familial issues.