No. L-4963. January 29, 1953
This is an action for the recovery of the ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of land situated in the municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed by Maria Uson against Maria del Rosario and her four children.
Maria Uson, plaintiff-appellee, the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who upon his death in 1945 left the lands involved in this litigation. However, Maria del Rosario, a common law wife of the late Faustino Nebreda took possession of the said lands. Del Rosario claimed that in 1931, Uson and the late Faustino, executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria 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. Del Rosario also contends that her children are given the status and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights, and because these successional rights were declared for the first time in the new code, they shall be given retroactive effect.
(1) Whether or not the executed deed of separation, in which Maria Uson expressly renounced to inherit any future property that her husband may acquire and leave upon his death in consideration of a parcel of land by way of alimony is valid
(2) Whether or not the illegitimate children of deceased have successional rights
(1) No. Although the lawful wife has expressly renounced her right to inherit any future property that her husband may acquire and leave upon his death, such renunciation cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be renounced
(2) No. The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate children of the deceased cannot be asserted to the impairment of the vested right of the lawful wife over the lands in dispute. While article 2253 of the new Civil Code provides that rights which are declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred under the former legislation, yet this is so only when the new rights do not prejudice any vested or acquired right of the same origin
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without costs.