20. GUY V.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 163707, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
FACTS: On June 13, 1997, private respondent-minors Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei,
represented by their mother Remedios Oanes, filed a petition for letters of administration before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138. Private respondents alleged that they are the duly
acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei (Rufino Guy Susim), who died intestate in Makati City on
October 29, 1992, leaving an estate valued at P10,000,000.00 consisting of real and personal properties.
His known heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and children, Emy, Jeanne, Cristina, George and
Michael, all surnamed Guy. Private respondents prayed for the appointment of a regular administrator for
the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate. They likewise prayed that, in the meantime, petitioner
Michael C. Guy, son of the decedent, be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate. Attached to
private respondents’ petition was a Certification Against Forum Shopping signed by their counsel, Atty.
Sedfrey A. Ordoñez. In his Comment/Opposition, petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the petition. He
asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can be settled without securing letters
of administration pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. He further argued that private
respondents should have established their status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of Sima Wei
pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code. In a Manifestation/Motion as Supplement to the Joint Motion
to Dismiss, petitioner and his co-heirs alleged that private respondents’ claim had been paid, waived,
abandoned or otherwise extinguished by reason of Remedios’ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim
stating that in exchange for the financial and educational assistance received from petitioner, Remedios
and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei from any and all liabilities.
ISSUE: Whether or not the successional rights of minors or incapacitated persons be waived.
RULING: NO. Even assuming that Remedios truly waived the hereditary rights of private respondents, such
waiver will not bar the latter’s claim. Article 1044 of the Civil Code, provides: ART. 1044. Any person having
the free disposal of his property may accept or repudiate an inheritance. Any inheritance left to minors or
incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may repudiate
the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial authorization. The right to accept an inheritance left to
the poor shall belong to the persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and
distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in Article 1030. (Emphasis supplied) Parents
and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wards without judicial approval. This is
because repudiation amounts to an alienation of property which must pass the court’s scrutiny in order to
protect the interest of the ward. Not having been judicially authorized, the Release and Waiver of Claim in
the instant case is void and will not bar private respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the
deceased.
It must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks
knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a material fact
negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension
of fact. In the present case, private respondents could not have possibly waived their successional rights
because they are yet to prove their status as acknowledged illegitimate children of the deceased.
Petitioner himself has consistently denied that private respondents are his coheirs. It would thus be
inconsistent to rule that they waived their hereditary rights when petitioner claims that they do not have
such right. Hence, petitioner’s invocation of waiver on the part of private respondents must fail.
