Borromeo-Herrera vs. Borromeo

The Supreme Court held that a waiver of hereditary rights is invalid if the essential elements of a waiver—specifically a clear and convincing intention to relinquish the right—are absent, particularly when the conduct of the parties subsequent to the waiver (such as entering into partition agreements and assigning rights for consideration) contradicts the intent to waive. Furthermore, the Court established that while a probate court has jurisdiction over matters incidental to the settlement of the estate, it cannot charge the attorney's fees of individual heirs against the estate's assets, as such fees are the personal liability of the heirs who hired the counsel.

Vito Borromeo died in 1952, leaving no forced heirs but significant property in Cebu. Initially, a document was presented for probate as his last will and testament, naming Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo as heirs. However, the probate court and later the Supreme Court found the will to be a forgery. The case shifted to intestate proceedings, where various relatives sought recognition. In 1969, the trial court declared nine individuals as the legal intestate heirs. Fortunato Borromeo then attempted to claim a majority share of the estate by presenting a "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" purportedly signed by five of these heirs in 1967, leading to multiple legal challenges regarding the waiver's validity, the judge's impartiality, and the administration of the estate.

• Vito Borromeo died a widower and childless on March 13, 1952, leaving extensive properties.
• A purported will naming Fortunato Borromeo and others as heirs was proven to be a forgery in 1967.
• On April 10, 1969, the trial court declared nine individuals as the sole intestate heirs of Vito Borromeo.
• In 1972, Fortunato Borromeo filed a motion to be declared an heir, initially claiming to be an illegitimate son, but later changed his basis to a "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" dated July 31, 1967.
• The waiver was signed by five of the declared heirs, purportedly relinquishing their shares in the estate to Fortunato.
• Despite the 1967 waiver, the signatories participated in a 1969 Agreement of Partition and subsequent deeds of assignment and reconveyance involving the same properties.
• In 1967, Fortunato himself had submitted a proposal for amicable settlement that recognized the other signatories as heirs entitled to shares, contradicting the idea that they had already waived their rights to him.
• The trial court, under Judge Francisco P. Burgos, upheld the waiver in 1974 and declared Fortunato entitled to 5/9 of the estate.
• Judge Burgos also ordered that 40% of the market value of the estate be segregated to pay for attorney's fees.
• Various heirs challenged these orders, alleging the waiver was void, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the judge was biased due to his relationship with one of the lawyers and his insistence on selling the estate properties.

• The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the waiver because it was not a money claim against the decedent but a dispute between heirs and a third party.
• The "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" was void because it was executed before the heirs were certain of their rights or the distribution of the estate, violating Civil Code provisions on acceptance.
• There was no clear intention to waive rights, as evidenced by the fact that the signatories continued to act as owners and even entered into a partition agreement approved by the court in 1969.
• The trial judge should be disqualified for partiality, specifically for pushing a sale of the estate properties at an undervalued price and having a familial connection to one of the lawyers (Atty. Antigua).
• Attorney's fees should not be charged against the estate but should be the personal responsibility of the heirs who contracted the lawyers.

• The probate court has jurisdiction over the waiver because it partakes of the nature of a partition and occurred while the court had jurisdiction over the estate properties.
• Under Article 1043 of the Civil Code, there is no requirement for a person to be declared an heir before accepting or repudiating an inheritance; certainty of the death of the decedent is sufficient.
• The waiver was valid and irrevocable, and the signatories lost their rights the moment the document was executed.
• The trial judge acted within his discretion and his orders regarding accounting and inventory were affirmed by higher courts, proving his impartiality.
• The 5/9 share claim involves no question of title to property, thus falling within the probate court's authority to resolve.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the trial court, acting as a probate court, had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the "Waiver of Hereditary Rights."
  • Whether Judge Francisco P. Burgos should be inhibited or disqualified from presiding over the case due to bias and partiality.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" executed in 1967 is valid and effective to transfer 5/9 of the estate to Fortunato Borromeo.
  • Whether attorney's fees incurred by individual heirs can be legally charged against the assets of the intestate estate.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the waiver agreement, as a probate court's jurisdiction extends to matters incidental and collateral to the settlement of the estate, including the determination of who is entitled to the distributive shares.
  • The Court affirmed the disqualification of Judge Burgos, stating that while he might not be legally prohibited from sitting, the "fervent distrust" and suspicion of partiality (based on his relationship with counsel and his pressure to sell the estate) required him to inhibit himself to preserve the faith of the litigants in the judiciary.
• Substantive:
  • The Court declared the "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" invalid because it lacked the essential element of a clear and convincing intention to relinquish rights; the subsequent actions of both Fortunato and the signatories (e.g., the 1967 settlement proposal and the 1969 partition agreement) were inconsistent with a valid waiver.
  • The Court ruled that attorney's fees are not the obligation of the estate but of the individual heirs who hired the lawyers; therefore, the order segregating 40% of the estate's value for such fees was deleted.

• Essential Elements of a Waiver — For a waiver to exist, there must be: (1) the existence of a right; (2) knowledge of the existence thereof; and (3) an intention to relinquish such right. In this case, the Court found the third element missing because the parties' conduct contradicted an intent to waive.
• Jurisdiction of Probate Court over Incidental Matters — The jurisdiction of a probate court extends to all matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers in handling the settlement of the estate, including the validity of instruments affecting the distribution of shares.
• Retroactivity of Acceptance of Inheritance (Article 989) — While heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of death (Article 657), the acceptance of the inheritance retroacts to the moment of death once the adjudication is made.
• Judicial Inhibition and Impartiality — A judge must maintain the trust and faith of the parties; at the first sign of a lack of faith and trust, a judge should conduct a careful self-examination and, if necessary, disqualify himself to preserve the reputation of the court for probity and objectivity.

• "The intention to waive a right or advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly, and when the only proof of intention rests in what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of an intent to, voluntarily relinquish the particular right or advantage that no other reasonable explanation of his conduct is possible."
• "The Judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion... The better course for the Judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself."
• "Attorney's fees are not the obligation of the estate but of the individual heirs who individually hired their respective lawyers."

• Osorio v. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co. (41 Phil. 531) — Cited to explain that heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of death and that acceptance retroacts to that moment.
• Bautista v. Rebueno (81 SCRA 535) — Cited to emphasize the necessity of judicial impartiality and the duty of a judge to inhibit himself when his objectivity is reasonably questioned.
• Fernandez v. Sebido, et al. (70 Phil. 151) — Referenced regarding the requirement that acts indicating a waiver must be manifestly consistent with the intent to relinquish a right.

• Article 657, Civil Code — Establishes that rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
• Article 661, Civil Code — Relates to the principle that heirs succeed the deceased by the mere fact of death.
• Article 972, Civil Code — Invoked by the trial court to declare the initial nine intestate heirs.
• Article 989, Civil Code — States that the effects of the acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent.
• Article 1043, Civil Code — Requires that for a person to accept or repudiate an inheritance, they must be certain of the death of the person from whom they inherit and of their right to the inheritance.
• Article 1057, Civil Code — Directs heirs to signify acceptance or repudiation within thirty days after the court issues an order for distribution.