Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

Uson v. Del Rosario: Inheritance Rights Dispute

1) Maria Uson claimed ownership over certain lands as the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who left no other heirs upon his death. However, Maria Del Rosario took possession of the lands, claiming to be Faustino's common-law wife. 2) The defendants claimed that Maria Uson had relinquished her inheritance rights in a separation agreement with Faustino. However, the court found that future inheritances cannot be subject to a contract or renounced. 3) While the new Civil Code granted succession rights to illegitimate children, these rights could not supersede Maria Uson's vested ownership rights over the lands that resulted from her husband's death, as her rights

Uploaded by

Paulo Abenio Escober
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

Uson v. Del Rosario: Inheritance Rights Dispute

1) Maria Uson claimed ownership over certain lands as the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who left no other heirs upon his death. However, Maria Del Rosario took possession of the lands, claiming to be Faustino's common-law wife. 2) The defendants claimed that Maria Uson had relinquished her inheritance rights in a separation agreement with Faustino. However, the court found that future inheritances cannot be subject to a contract or renounced. 3) While the new Civil Code granted succession rights to illegitimate children, these rights could not supersede Maria Uson's vested ownership rights over the lands that resulted from her husband's death, as her rights

Uploaded by

Paulo Abenio Escober
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Uson vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No.

L-4963 January 29, 1953 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. However, plaintiff claims that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945, his common-law wife Maria Del Rosario took possession illegally of said lands thus depriving her of their possession and enjoyment. As defense, defendants alleged that Maria Uson and her husband, the late Faustino Nebreda, executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria 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. Issue: Whether or not the contract renouncing the inheritance is valid Ruling: 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 may acquire and leave upon his death in the deed of separation they had entered into on February 21, 1931, cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be renounced. But defendants contend 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). Thus, said article provides that "if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation, provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin." As already stated in the early part of this decision, 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.

You might also like