#

4
MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA DEL ROSARIO, Civil Code). As this Court aptly said, "The property belongs to
CONCEPCION NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA, DOMINADOR the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as
NEBREDA, and FAUSTINO NEBREDA, Jr., defendants- completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to
appellants. them a deed for the same before his death" (Ilustre vs. Alaras
Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). From that moment, therefore, the
G.R. No. L-4963 | 1953-01-29
rights of inheritance of Maria Uson over the lands in question
became vested. 
D E C I S I O N 
The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson had relinquished
her right over the lands in question because she expressly
renounced to inherit any future property that her husband
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: 
may acquire and leave upon his death in the deed of
separation they had entered into on February 21, 1931,
This is an action for the recovery of the ownership and
cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future
possession of five (5) parcels of land situated in the
inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be
municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed by
renounced (1 Manresa, 123, sixth edition; Tolentino on Civil
Maria Uson against Maria del Rosario and her four children
Code, p. 12; Osorio vs. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co.,
named Concepcion, Conrado, Dominador, and Faustino,
41 Phil., 531). 
surnamed Nebreda, who are all of minor age, before the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. 
But defendants contend that, while it is true that the four
minor defendants are illegitimate children of the late Faustino
Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda who
Nebreda and under the old Civil Code are not entitled to any
upon his death in 1945 left the lands involved in this litigation.
successional rights, however, under the new Civil Code which
Faustino Nebreda left no other heir except his widow Maria
became in force in June, 1950, they are given the status and
Uson. However, plaintiff claims that when Faustino Nebreda
rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional
died in 1945, his common- law wife Maria del Rosario took
rights which the law accords to the latter (Article 2264 and
possession illegally of said lands thus depriving her of their
article 287, new Civil Code), and because these successional
possession and enjoyment. 
rights were declared for the first time in the new code, they
shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which
Defendants in their answer set up as special defense that on
gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior
February 21, 1931, Maria Uson and her husband, the late
legislation (Article 2253, new Civil Code). 
Faustino Nebreda, executed a public document whereby they
agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration
There is no merit in this claim. Article 2253 above referred to
of their separation, Maria Uson was given a parcel of land by
provides indeed that rights which are declared for the first
way of alimony and in return she renounced her right to
time shall have retroactive effect even though the event
inherit any other property that may be left by her husband
which gave rise to them may have occurred under the former
upon his death (Exhibit 1). 
legislation, but this is so only when the new rights do not
prejudice any vested or acquired right of the same origin.
After trial, at which both parties presented their respective
Thus, said article provides that "if a right should be declared
evidence, the court rendered decision ordering the
for the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once,
defendants to restore to the plaintiff the ownership and
even though the act or event which gives rise thereto may
possession of the lands in dispute without special
have been done or may have occurred under the prior
pronouncement as to costs. Defendants interposed the
legislation, provided said new right does not prejudice or
present appeal. 
impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin." As
already stated in the early part of this decision, the right of
There is no dispute that Maria Uson, plaintiff-appellee, is the
ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question became
lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, former owner of the five
vested in 1945 upon the death of her late husband and this is
parcels of lands litigated in the present case. There is likewise
so because of the imperative provision of the law which
no dispute that Maria del Rosario, one of the defendants-
commands that the rights to succession are transmitted from
appellants, was merely a common-law wife of the late
the moment of death (Article 657, old Civil Code). The new
Faustino Nebreda with whom she had four illegitimate
right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the
children, her now co-defendants. It likewise appears that
illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be
Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 much prior to the effectivity of
asserted to the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson
the new Civil Code. With this background, it is evident that
over the lands in dispute. 
when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 the five parcels of land
he was seized of at the time passed from the moment of his
As regards the claim that Maria Uson, while her deceased
death to his only heir, his widow Maria Uson (Article 657, old
468414224.docx Page 1 of 2
 #
4
husband was lying in state, in a gesture of pity or compassion,
agreed to assign the lands in question to the minor children
for the reason that they were acquired while the deceased
was living with their mother and Maria Uson wanted to
assuage somewhat the wrong she has done to them, this
much can be said; apart from the fact that this claim is
disputed, we are of the opinion that said assignment, 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. 

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,

468414224.docx Page 2 of 2