Case Digest (G.R. No. 165300)
Facts:
Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer v. Spouses Alfredo Diaz and Imelda Diaz, Reina Comandante and Spouses Bienvenido Pangan and Elizabeth Pangan, G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer alleges that on May 7, 1999 he extended a loan of P1,118,228.00 to the Diaz spouses as represented by their daughter Reina Comandante under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The loan was evidenced by a promissory note, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over TCT No. RT‑6604 (the Diaz parents’ lot), and by postdated checks from Comandante. Earlier, on May 29, 1998, Comandante had executed in favor of petitioner an instrument titled “Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided)” for P600,000.00, and on May 26, 1999 petitioner caused an Affidavit of Adverse Claim to be annotated on the back of TCT No. RT‑6604. When the checks were dishonored, petitioner filed a Complaint for Collection (Civil Case No. Q‑99‑38876) on September 29, 1999, later amended to implead the Pangans after the property was transferred and retitled in their names as TCT No. N‑209049.
Comandante admitted indebtedness to petitioner but denied authority to encumber her parents’ lot for his loan, asserted that the SPA alleged by petitioner was different from the SPA she possessed, and repudiated the earlier waiver by executing an Affidavit of Repudiation on September 29, 1999 and filing a Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim (LRC Case No. Q‑12009 (99)) on October 4, 1999. The Diazes denied knowledge of or liability for the loan and challenged the SPA’s execution and authentication. The Pangans claimed to have purchased the property in good faith and for value on November 11, 1999 and denied being bound by petitioner’s adverse claim.
Branch 224, RTC, Quezon City, deemed cross‑motions for summary judgment submitted and on June 14, 2001 rendered summary judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering all defendants to pay P1,118,228.00 jointly and severally and directing annotation of petitioner’s rights on TCT No. N‑209049. The Pangans, the Diazes, and Comandante appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its December 12, 2003 Decision the Court of Appeals declared Comandante’s waiver void, held the mortgage binding only between petitioner and Comandante/Diazes, and m...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another executed by a future heir while the parents are still living is valid.
- Whether an adverse claim annotated on the title based on such waiver is valid and effective to bind subsequent owners.
- Whether the trial court properly rendered summary judgmen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)