Short answer. No. Article 533 provides that one who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the property. This mirrors the rule for acceptance: an heir who accepts is treated as possessing from the moment of death, so a valid renunciation erases possession from that same point, as if it never began.
What the law says
The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.
Civil Code, Article 533 — Possession of Hereditary Property. Read the full provision →
What the law says
One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same.
Civil Code, Article 533 — Possession of Hereditary Property. Read the full provision →
Possession passes at the moment of death
Philippine succession does not leave an interval in which inherited property belongs to no one. Article 533 provides that the possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. The heir who accepts is treated as having possessed from the instant the decedent died, even though he may have learned of the death, or taken physical hold of anything, only much later. The law bridges the gap so that the chain of possession runs unbroken from the deceased to the heir.
Renunciation wipes the slate clean
Renunciation works the same fiction in reverse. The article states that one who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. The renouncing heir is not treated as someone who briefly held the property and then let it go; he is treated as never having held it at all. The effect reaches back to the moment of death and removes him from the picture as if he had never been an heir, so the property passes as though it had gone to the next entitled person from the start.
Why the fiction matters
Being deemed never to have possessed is not an empty formality — real consequences turn on it. A possessor can incur obligations tied to the property, answer for its condition, and be affected by what happens during his possession; the periods of possession also matter for prescription. By erasing the renouncer's possession from the outset, the law spares him those burdens for a thing he declined, and keeps the property's history clean for whoever actually takes it. He cannot be treated as having had, however fleetingly, an estate he validly gave up.
Everything hangs on "validly"
The retroactive erasure follows only a renunciation that is valid. A repudiation of an inheritance has its own requirements as to how it is made and by whom, and a purported renunciation that does not meet them does not carry this effect — the person may remain an heir who possessed after all, with the responsibilities that brings. Anyone intending to walk away from an inheritance, particularly to avoid its debts or entanglements, should ensure the renunciation is done in proper form, because a defective one leaves him deemed to have possessed exactly what he thought he had disclaimed.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Queen Errika L. Saddi vs. Maricris Renomeron OCA No. IPI-10-3423-P August 22, 2017 Judge Ramon V. Efondo, Municipal Trial Court of Goa, Camarines Sur vs. Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Goa, Camarines Sur, G.R. No. 211004, August 23, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose C. Lee, et al. vs. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 85, etc., et al, G.R. No. 146006, February 23, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →