13 USON v.

DEL ROSARIO AUTHOR: LA CHICA, LOILA

MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA DEL ROSARIO, Notes:
CONCEPCION NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA, DOMINADOR
NEBREDA, AND FAUSTINO NEBREDA, Jr., defendants-
appellants.
G.R. No. L-4963, January 29, 1953
TOPIC: Opening of Succession
PONENTE: BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Rights recognized for the first time in the NCC shall be given retroactive effect subject to the exception when
an acquired or vested right shall be impaired.

EMERGENCY RECIT:
The wife (Uson) of the deceased claimed ownership and possession to 5 parcels of land that were occupied by her deceased
husbands common-law wife (Del Rosario) and her 4 illegitimate children. Del Rosario claimed that a public document was executed
whereby the married couple agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Uson was given a
parcel of land by way of alimony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other property that may be left by her husband
upon his death. Article 657 of the Old Civil Code, provides that rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death. The
public document has no valid effect simply because future inheritance cannot be subject of a contract nor can it be renounced.
Article 2253 states that rights introduced for the first time shall be given retroactive effect so long as it does not prejudice any
vested or acquired rights. The right of ownership of Uson became vested in 1945 upon the death of her husband, this is so because
of Art. 777. The new right recognized under the NCC in favor of illegitimate children of the deceased cannot be asserted to the
impairment of the vested right of Uson over the lands.

FACTS:
Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda who upon his death in 1945 left the lands involved in this litigation. Faustino
Nebreda left no other heir except his widow Maria Uson. Nebreda left 5 parcels of land situated in the Municipality of Labrador,
Pangasinan which however was left under the possession of his common-law wife Maria Del Rosario, out of which four illegitimate
children were born.

Uson filed an action for recovery of the ownership and possession of the five parcels of land arguing that she was the only heir of
Nebreda. Del Rosario rebutted stating that on February 21, 1931, Uson & Nebreda had executed in a public document their
agreement to separate and in consideration of their separation, Uson was given a parcel of land, thereby renouncing her rights to
inherit from Nebreda. The trial court ruled in favor of Uson and ordered the return of the lands. Defendants interposed the appeal.

Defendants contended that, while it is true that the four minor defendants are illegitimate children of the late Faustino Nebreda and
under the old Civil Code are not entitled to any successional rights, however, under the new Civil Code which became in force in
June, 1950, they are given the status and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights which the law accords
to the latter (article 2264 and article 287, new Civil Code), and because these successional rights were declared for the first time in
the new code, they shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred under the
prior legislation (Article 2253, new Civil Code).

ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not the public document executed by Nebreda and Uson constituted a waiver of Usons right to inherit?
2. Whether or not the illegitimate children can inherit?

HELD/RATIO:
The right of ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon the death of her late husband and this
is so because of the imperative provision of the law which commands that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment
of death (Article 657, old Civil Code). The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate children of the
deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.

The assignment [of the lands] in question, if any, partakes of the nature of a donation of real property, inasmuch as it involves no
material consideration, and in order that it may be valid it shall be made in a public document and must be accepted either in the
same document or in a separate one (Article 633, old Civil Code). Inasmuch as this essential formality has not been followed, it
results that the alleged assignment or donation has no valid effect.