INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMILIO CAMON. CONCEPCION EREÑETA, administratrix-appellee, vs. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ELWOOD KNICKERBOCKER, and MARY IRENE FALLON MCCORMICK,claimants-appellants; MARTINIANO O. DE LA CRUZ, administrator.; G.R. No. L-29746 November 26, 1973

TOPIC: Art. 6 

RATIONALE: A right, in order that it may be validly waived, must be in existence at the time of the waiver.

GIST:

Hacienda Rosario's half is owned by Romana and Alberta, the other by Bezore et al. Camon was a lessee of sugar plantation within the Hacienda, who eventually died. During his intestate, Bezore filed claims against him in the total amount of P64,165. 

11 January 1961 - Bezore agreed to sell their half to Romana and Alberta

12 January 1961 - Romana and Alberta signed a waiver for Camon freeing him from all the claims accrued during his lease of the land

04 August 1961 - Bezore executed a Deed of Sale. Romana and Alberta are now the sole owners of Hacienda Rosario

Bezore et al still wanted to claim from Camon. Romana and Alberta's waiver of accruing rights against Camon was void since they weren't the sole owners yet. However, the deed of sale validated this since Bezore et al's accrued rights were also included in the sale.

- YOU CANNOT WAIVE A FUTURE RIGHT.

FACTS:

1. Emilio Camon is a lessee of sugar plantation Hacienda Rosario. ½ of the plantation is owned by Amparo Santa Romana and Alberta vda. De Hapon while the other half is owned by the appellants Bezore et al.

2. Camon died and his widow Conception Ereñeta filed a petition for the grant of the letters of administration of the estate of his husband. Bezore at al. filed a claim against the estate of Camon amounting to P64,165 for sugar allotments, palay, allowances and rental.
At the trial, three documents were submitted in evidence. These are:

a.) Agreement to sell – whereby Bezore et al. agreed to sell their share to Romana et al.  [executed: 11 January 1961]

b.) Release and waiver of claims – Romana et al. released Camon from all the claims that may have accrued pertaining to the 2/4 pro indiviso (undivided) share in Hacienda Rosario.[executed: 12 January 1961]

c.) Deed of Sale- Bezore transferred to Romana et al. all their rights, title, interest and participation whether accrued or accruing in their 2/4 pro indiviso share in consideration of P78,000.[executed :04 August 1961]

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Amparo and Alberta could release or waive rights belonging to the claimants Bezore et al. in favor of Camon.

HELD: 

NO. Amparo and Alberta could not release the or waive accrued claims belonging to Bezore et al because at that time, what they had was a mere promise or an "agreement to sell" by claimants their half of the hacienda, not the right to the accrued claims. 

What was agreed to be sold in the future (half shares) was different from what was purportedly waived (accrued claims); and even if the object in both contracts were the same, the waiver would still be invalid for it is essential that a right, in order that it may be validly waived, must be in existence at the time of the waiver. Since Romana and Alberta were not yet the owner of the Hacienda at that time, they didn't have the right to waive Camon's accrued claims.

However, the waiver is subsequently cured by the sale on 14 August 1961. By virtue of the deed of sale, the appellants not only sold their share but also their accrued rights therein.

The court also finds no merit to the contention of the appellants that the sale has infirmity because of cheap consideration of 1,300 per hectare. Inadequacy of cause in a  contract does not of itself invalidate the contract.

Also, silence of Camon with regards to the demands was not legally deemed as admission of debt.

The continued cultivating the land by Camon in the absence of a new written contract of lease with Bezore et al's acquiescence was not a conversion of the original relationship into an express trust. It was merely implied that there's a new lease with the same terms with the original except as to the period. Thus, there's no basis to the claimants' claim that express trust was created when Camon continued cultivating.

ACCORDINGLY, the order a quo of July 20, 1966 is affirmed, at claimants-appellants’ cost.