[No. L4963. January 29, 1953]MARIAUSON,plaintiffandappellee,vs.MARIADELROSARIO,CONCEPCIONNEBREDA,CONRADONEBREDA,DOMINADORNEBREDA,andFAUSTINONEBREDA,JR.,defendantsandappellants.1.DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION HUSBAND AND WIFE RIGHTS OF LAWFUL WIFE ASAFFECTEDBYTHENEWCIVILCODE.Therightofownershipofthelawful wife of a decedent who had died before the new Civil Code tookeffectbecamevestedinheruponhisdeath,andthisissobecauseoftheimperativeprovisionofthelawwhichcommandsthattherightsof succession are transmitted from the moment of death (Art. 657, oldCivilCodeIlustrevs.Frondosa,17Phil.,321).Thenewrightrecognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate childrenof the deceased can not be asserted to the531VOL. 92, JANUARY 28, 1953 531Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al. impairmentofthevestedrightofthelawfulwifeoverthelandsindispute. While article 2253 of the new Civil Code provides that rightswhich are declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect eventhoughtheeventwhichgaverisetothemmayhaveoccurredunderthe former legislation, yet this is so only when the new rights do notprejudice any vested or acquired right of the same origin.2.ID.ID.RENUNCIATIONOFINHERITANCEMADEBYLAWFULWIFEFUTUREINHERITANCE, NOT SUBJECT TO CONTRACT.Although the lawful wife hasexpressly renounced her right to inherit any future property that herhusbandmayacquireandleaveuponhisdeath,suchrenunciationcannotbeentertainedforthesimplereasonthatfutureinheritancecannotbethesubjectofacontractnorcanitberenounced(1Manresa, 6th ed., 123 Osorio vs. Osorio, et al., 41 Phil., 531).3.ID. ID. DONATIONS BY DECEASED ESSENTIAL FORMALITIES OF DONATION.Assignments, if any, made by the deceased of real property for whichtherewasnomaterialconsideration,shouldbemadeinapublicdocument and must be accepted either in the same document or in aseparateone(Art.633,oldCivilCode).Assignmentsordonationswhich lack this essential formality have no valid effect.APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ofPangasinan. Martinez, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Priscilo Evangelista for appellee.Brigido G. Estrada for appellant.BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:Thisisanactionfortherecoveryoftheownershipandpossessionoffive(5)parcelsoflandsituatedinthemunicipalityofLabrador,ProvinceofPangasinan,filedbyMariaUsonagakistMariadelRosarioandherfourchildrennamedConcepcion,Conrado,Dominador,andFaustino,surnamedNebreda,whoareallofminorage,before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.MariaUsonwasthelawfulwifeofFaustinoNebredawhouponhisdeathin1945leftthelandsinvolvedinthislitigation.FaustinoNebredaleftnootherheirexcepthiswidowMariaUson.However,plaintiffclaimsthatwhenFaustino Nebreda died in 1945, his commonlawwife532532 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDUson vs. Del Rosario, et al.MariadelRosariotookpossessionillegallyofsaidlandsthus depriving her of their possession and enjoyment.DefendantsintheiranswersetupasspecialdefensethatonFebruary21,1931,MariaUsonandherhusband,thelateFaustinoNebreda,executedapublicdocumentwhereby they agreed to separate as husband and wife and,in consideration of their separation, Maria Uson was givenaparceloflandbywayofalimonyandinreturnsherenounced her right to inherit any other property that maybe left by her husband upon his death (Exhibit 1).Aftertrial,atwhichbothpartiespresentedtheirrespectiveevidence,thecourtrendereddecisionorderingthe defendants to restore to the plaintiff the ownership andpossessionofthelandsindisputewithoutspecialpronouncementastocosts.Defendantsinterposedthepresent appeal.ThereisnodisputethatMariaUson,plaintiffappellee,is the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, former owner of thefiveparcelsoflandslitigatedinthepresentcase.ThereislikewisenodisputethatMariadelRosario,oneofthedefendantsappellants,wasmerelyacommonlawwifeofthelateFaustinoNebredawithwhomshehadfourillegitimatechildren,hernowcodefendants.Itlike wiseappears that Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 much prior tothe effectivity of the new Civil Code. With this background,it is evident that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 thefive parcels of land he was seized of at the time passed fromthe moment of his death to his only heir, his widow MariaUson (Article 657, old Civil Code). As this Court aptly said,"Thepropertybelongstotheheirsatthemomentofthedeathoftheancestorascom pletelyasiftheancestorhadexecuted and delivered to them a deed for the same beforehis death" (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). Fromthatmoment,therefore,therightsofinheritanceofMariaUson over the lands in question became vested.533VOL. 92, JANUARY 28, 1953 533Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.TheclaimofthedefendantsthatMariaUsonhadrelinquishedherrightoverthelandsinquestionbecauseshe expressly renounced to inherit any future property thatherhusbandmayacquireandleaveuponhisdeathinthedeedofseparationtheyhadenteredintoonFebruary21,1931,cannotbeentertainedforthesimplereasonthatfutureinheritancecannotbethesubjectofacontractnorcanitberenounced(1Manresa,123,sixtheditionTolentinoonCivilCode,p.12Osoriovs.OsorioandYnchausti Steamship Co., 41 Phil., 531).Butdefendantscontendthat,whileitistruethatthefourminordefendantsareillegitimatechildrenofthelateFaustinoNebredaandundertheoldCivilCodearenotentitled to any successional rights, however, under the newCivilCodewhichbecameinforceinJune,1950,theyaregiventhestatusandrightsofnaturalchildrenandareentitled to the successional rights which the law accords tothelatter(Article2264andarticle287,newCivilCode),and because these successional rights were declared for thefirsttimeinthenewcode,theyshallbegivenretroactiveeffecteventhoughtheeventwhichgaverisetothemmayhave occurred under the prior legislation (Article 2253, newCivil Code).Thereisnomeritinthisclaim.Article2253abovereferredtoprovidesindeedthatrightswhicharedeclaredforthefirsttimeshallhaveretroactiveeffecteventhoughthe event which gave rise to them may have occurred undertheformerlegislation,butthisissoonlywhenthenewrightsdonotprejudiceanyvestedoracquiredrightofthesameorigin.Thus,saidarticleprovidesthat"ifarightshould be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall beeffective at once, even though the act or event which givesrisetheretomayhavebeendoneormayhaveoccurredunderthepriorlegislation,providedsaidnewrightdoesnot prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of thesameorigin."Asalreadystatedintheearlypartofthisdecision, the right of ownership of Maria Uson534534 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Aciertoover the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon thedeath ofherlatehusbandandthisissobecauseoftheimperativeprovisionofthelawwhichcommandsthattherightstosuccessionaretransmittedfromthemomentofdeath.(Article657,oldCivilCode).The newrightrecognizedbythenewCivilCodeinfavoroftheillegitimatechildrenofthedeceasedcannot,therefore,beas sertedtotheimpairmentofthevestedrightofMariaUson over the lands in dispute.AsregardstheclaimthatMariaUson,whileherde ceasedhusbandwaslyinginstate,inagestureofpityorcompassion,agreedtoassignthelandsinquestiontotheminorchildrenforthereasonthattheywereacquiredwhile the deceased was living with their mother and MariaUson wanted to assuage somewhat the wrong she has donetothem,thismuchcanbesaidapartfromthefactthatthisclaimisdisputed,weareoftheopinionthatsaidas signment,ifany,partakesofthenatureofadonationofrealproperty,inasmuchasitinvolvesnomaterialcon sideration,andinorderthatitmaybevaliditshallbemade in a public document and must be accepted either inthesamedocumentorinaseparateone(Article633,oldCivilCode).Inasmuchasthisessentialformalityhasnotbeenfollowed,itresultsthattheallegedassignmentordonation has no valid effect.Wherefore,thedecisionappealedfromisaffirmed,without costs.Paras,C.J.,Pablo,Bengzon,Padilla,Tuason,Montemayor, Reyes, JugoandLabrador, J J.,concur.Judgment affirmed.Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.