AYALA VS REY BURTON Before us for resolution is the petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the Decision2 dated

January 21, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74635,3 as well as its Resolution dated April 2, 2004 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The facts are: On December 22, 1995, Ayala Life Assurance, Inc., petitioner, and Ray Burton Development Corporation, respondent, entered into a contract denominated as a "Contract to Sell," with a "Side Agreement" of even date. In these contracts, petitioner agreed to sell to respondent a parcel of land, with an area of 1,691 square meters, situated at Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 186485 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City. The purchase price of the land is P55,000.00 per square meter or a total of P93,005,000.00, payable as follows: (a) On contract date P24,181,300.00 representing 26 percent of the purchase price, inclusive of theP1,000,000.00 option money; (b) Not later than January 6, 1996 P3,720,200.00 representing 4 percent of the purchase price to complete 30 percent down payment; and (c) In consecutive quarterly installments for a period of 5 years from December 22, 1995 P65,103,500.00 representing the 70 percent balance of the purchase price. The contract contains a stipulation in paragraphs 3 and 3.1 for an "Event of Default." It provides that in case the purchaser (respondent) fails to pay any installment for any reason not attributable to the seller (petitioner), the latter has the right to assess the purchaser a late penalty interest on the unpaid installment at two (2%) percent per month, computed from the date the amount became due until full payment thereof. And if such default continues for a period of six (6) months, the seller has the right to cancel the contract without need of court declaration by giving the purchaser a written notice of cancellation. In case of such cancellation, the seller shallreturn to the purchaser the amount he received, less penalties, unpaid charges and dues on the property. Respondent paid thirty (30%) down payment and the quarterly amortization, including the one that fell due on June 22, 1998. However, on August 12, 1998, respondent notified petitioner in writing that it will no longer continue to pay due to the adverse effects of the economic crisis to its business. Respondent then asked for the immediate cancellation of the contract and for a refund of its previous payments as provided in the contract.

Petitioner refused to cancel the contract to sell. Instead, on November 25, 1999, it filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, a complaint for specific performance against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-2014, demanding from the latter the payment of the remaining unpaid quarterly installments beginning September 21, 1999 in the total sum of P33,242,382.43, inclusive of interest and penalties. Respondent, in its answer, denied any further obligation to petitioner, asserting that on August 12, 1998, it (respondent) notified the latter of its inability to pay the remaining installments. Respondent invoked the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 3.1 of the contract to sell providing for the refund to it of the amounts paid, less interest and the sum of 25% of all sums paid as liquidated damages. After pre-trial, petitioner moved for a summary judgment on the ground that respondents answer failed to tender any genuine issue as to any material fact, except as to the amount of damages. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the parties to submit their memoranda. On December 10, 2001, the trial court rendered a Decision holding that respondent transgressed the law in obvious bad faith. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, defendant (now respondent) is hereby sentenced and ordered to pay plaintiff (now petitioner) the sum of P33,242,383.43, representing the unpaid balance of the principal amount owing under the contract, interest agreed upon, and penalties. Defendant is further ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of P200,000.00 as attorneys fees and the costs of suit. Upon full payment of the aforementioned amounts by defendant, plaintiff shall, as it is hereby ordered, execute the appropriate deed of absolute sale conveying and transferring full title and ownership of the parcel of land subject of the sale to and in favor of defendant. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated January 21, 2004 in CAG.R. CV No. 74635, reversing the trial courts Decision, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ayala Life is hereby ordered torefund all sums paid under the Contract to Sell, with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from 12 August 1998 until fully paid, less the amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount paid as liquidated damages. SO ORDERED. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties transaction in question is in the nature of a contract to sell, as distinguished from a contract of sale. Under their contract, ownership of the land is retained by petitioner until respondent shall have fully paid the purchase price. Its failure to pay the price in full is not a breach of contract but merely an event that prevents petitioner from conveying the title to respondent. Under such a situation, a cause of action for specific performance does not arise. What

should govern the parties relation are the provisions of their contract on the "Event of Default" stated earlier. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding that: (a) the remedy of specific performance is not available in a contract to sell, such as the one at bar; and (b) petitioner is liable to refund respondent all the sums the latter paid under the contract to sell, with interest at 12% per annum from August 12, 1998 until fully paid, less the amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount paid as liquidated damages. Petitioner argues that by virtue of the contract to sell, it has the right to choose between fulfillment and rescission of the contract, with damages in either case. Thus, it is immaterial to determine whether the parties subject agreement is a contract to sell or a contract of sale. In its comment, respondent disputed petitioners allegations and prayed that the petition be denied for lack of merit. The issues are: 1. Whether respondents non-payment of the balance of the purchase price gave rise to a cause of action on the part of petitioner to demand full payment of the purchase price; and 2. Whether petitioner should refund respondent the amount the latter paid under the contract to sell. At the outset, it is significant to note that petitioner does not dispute that its December 22, 1995 transaction with respondent is a contract to sell. It bears stressing that the exact nature of the parties contract determines whether petitioner has the remedy of specific performance. It is thus imperative that we first determine the nature of the parties contract. The real nature of a contract may be determined from the express terms of the written agreement and from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties.4 In the construction or interpretation of an instrument, the intention of the parties is primordial and is to be pursued. 5 If the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.6 If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.7 The denomination or title given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of its contents.8 Here, the questioned agreement clearly indicates that it is a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides:

4. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. The title to the property shall transfer to the PURCHASER upon payment of the balance of the Purchase Price and all expenses, penalties and other costs which shall be due and payable hereunder or which may have accrued thereto. Thereupon, the SELLER shall execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the PURCHASER conveying all the SELLERS rights, title and interest in and to the Property to the PURCHASER.9 As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision, "The ruling of the Supreme Court in Lim v. Court of Appeals (182 SCRA 564 [1990]) is most illuminating. In the said case, a contract to sell and a contract of sale were clearly and thoroughly distinguished from each other, with the High Tribunal stressing that in a contract of sale, the title passes to the buyer upon the delivery of the thing sold. In a contract to sell, the ownership is reserved in the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the purchase price is made. In the first case, non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition; in the second case, full payment is a positive suspensive condition. In the first case, the vendor has lost and cannot recover the ownership of the property until and unless the contract of sale is itself resolved and set aside. In the second case, the title remains in the vendor if the vendee does not comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time specified in the contract."10 Considering that the parties transaction is a contract to sell, can petitioner, as seller, demand specific performance from respondent, as buyer? Blacks Law Dictionary defined specific performance as "(t)he remedy of requiring exact performance of a contract in the specific form in which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon. The actual accomplishment of a contract by a party bound to fulfill it."11 Evidently, before the remedy of specific performance may be availed of, there must be a breach of the contract. Under a contract to sell, the title of the thing to be sold is retained by the seller until the purchaser makes full payment of the agreed purchase price. Such payment is a positive suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which is not a breach of contract but merely an event that prevents the seller from conveying title to the purchaser. The non-payment of the purchase price renders the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect. Thus, a cause of action for specific performance does not arise. In Rayos v. Court of Appeals,12 we held: x x x. Under the two contracts, the petitioners bound and obliged themselves to execute a deed of absolute sale over the property and transfer title thereon to the respondents after the payment of the full purchase price of the property, inclusive of the quarterly installments due on the petitioners loan with the PSB: xxx

Construing the contracts together, it is evident that the parties executed a contract to sell and not a contract of sale. The petitioners retained ownership without further remedies by the respondents until the payment of the purchase price of the property in full. Such payment is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not really a breach, serious or otherwise, but an event that prevents the obligation of the petitioners to convey title from arising, in accordance with Article 1184 of the Civil Code (Leano v. Court of Appeals, 369 SCRA 36 [2001]; Lacanilao v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 486 [1996]). The non-fulfillment by the respondent of his obligation to pay, which is a suspensive condition to the obligation of the petitioners to sell and deliver the title to the property, rendered the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect (Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 375 [1990]). The parties stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. Article 119113 of the New Civil Code will not apply because it presupposes an obligation already extant (Padilla v. Posadas, 328 SCRA 434 [2001]. There can be no rescission of an obligation that is still non-existing, the suspensive condition not having happened (Rillo v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 461 [1997]). (Underscoring supplied) Here, the provisions of the contract to sell categorically indicate that respondents default in the payment of the purchase price is considered merely as an "event," the happening of which gives rise to the respective obligations of the parties mentioned therein, thus: 3. EVENT OF DEFAULT. The following event shall constitute an Event of Default under this contract: the PURCHASER fails to pay any installment on the balance, for any reason not attributable to the SELLER, on the date it is due, provided, however, that the SELLER shall have the right to charge the PURCHASER a late penalty interest on the said unpaid interest at the rate of 2% per month computed from the date the amount became due and payable until full payment thereof. 3.1. If the Event of Default shall have occurred, then at any time thereafter, if any such event shall then be continuing for a period of six (6) months, the SELLER shall have the right to cancel this Contract without need of court declaration to that effect by giving the PURCHASER a written notice of cancellation sent to the address of the PURCHASER as specified herein by registered mail or personal delivery. Thereafter, the SELLER shall returnto the PURCHASER the aggregate amount that the SELLER shall have received as of the cancellation of this Contract, less: (i) penalties accrued as of the date of such cancellation, (ii) an amount equivalent to twenty five percent (25%) of the total amount paid as liquidated damages, and (iii) any unpaid charges and dues on the Property. Any amount to be refunded to the PURCHASER shall be collected by the PURCHASER at the office of the SELLER. Upon notice to the PURCHASER of such cancellation, the SELLER shall be free to dispose of the Property covered hereby as if this Contract had not been executed. Notice to the PURCHASER sent by registered mail or by personal delivery to its address stated in this Contract shall be considered as sufficient compliance with all requirements of notice for purposes of this Contract.14 Therefore, in the event of respondents default in payment, petitioner, under the above provisions of the contract, has the right to retain an amount equivalent to 25%

of the total payments. As stated by the Court of Appeals, petitioner having been informed in writing by respondent of its intention not to proceed with the contract on August 12, 1998, or prior to incurring delay in payment of succeeding installments,15 the provisions in the contract relative to penalties and interest find no application. The Court of Appeals further held that with respect to the award of interest, petitioner is liable to pay interest of 12% per annum upon the net refundable amount due from the time respondent made the extrajudicial demand upon it on August 12, 1998 to refund payment under the Contract to Sell,16 pursuant to our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.17 In sum, we find that the Court of Appeals, in rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution, did not commit any reversible error. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

CIR VS FAVIS This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals reversing the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue imposing an assessment of 2,511.00 against the Favis Car Exchange. It appears that in a letter dated January 20, 1953, the United States Navy informed the Collector of Internal Revenue that Lt. H.N. Maragidas of the U.S. Navy, Cavite City, sold one Chevrolet, Tudor Sedan, Fleetline de Luxe 1950, bearing engine serial No. HAM 198779, body serial No. 14 HKD-66495 to the Favis Car Exchange of Manila. Accordingly, a letter f demand dated April 29,1953 was sent by the Collector of Internal Revenue to the said car exchange demanding payment of the sum of P2,511 representing sales tax on the aforesaid car. On receipt of the said letter of demand, Arturo Favis, proprietor of the Car Exchange protested against the assessment and demanded a reinvestigation of the case. After due hearing, the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was of the opinion that the Favis Car Exchange was the purchaser for value of the car in question and therefore recommended the collection of the sum of P2,511 from the same. On December 17, 1953, Alfonso Favis, a brother of Arturo Favis, requested for a reconsideration and

rehearing of the case. A rehearing was granted and at its termination the investigating staff found that the claim that Alfonso Favis loaned P4,500 to Jose Crisologo and the latter brought the car with the said money was only a devise to circumvent the collection of the tax. On November 20, 1954, the collector of Internal Revenue issued a warrant of distraint and levy on appellee-company to collect the aforesaid obligation. Alfonso Favis on March 12, 1955, filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals and after due hearing the decision under appeal was rendered.

ACAP VS CA This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, in CA-G.R. No. 36177, which affirmed the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental holding that private respondent Edy de los Reyes had acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental based on a document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights", and ordering the dispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the land for failure to pay rentals. The facts of the case are as follows:

Appellant contends that it has been amply shown that the original purchaser of the car was the Favis Car Exchange and that Jose Crisologo was its dummy; that the testimony of Revenue Agent Mingoa attests to the fact that the money used in the purchase by Crisologo was the loan obtained from Alfonso Favis, a brother of Arturo Favis, the owner of the Favis Car Exchange; that there was the admission by Crisologo to said Agent Mingoa that the real buyer was the Favis Car Exchange. Appellants evidence to support its theory, of the case is too weak to constitute reversible error. In the first place the Deed of Sale (Exh. E) between Lt. Maragidas and Jose Crisologo clearly named Crisologo as the vendee. Secondly, the loan was made by Alfonso Favis who was and is not an owner of appellee car exchange. Thirdly, the admission by Crisologo as testified to by Agent Mingoa regarding the identity of the buyer in that transaction with Lt. Maragidas cannot be received without reservation in view of the natural impulse of every man to protect himself from any liability. Had said Crisologo himself been presented in court and subjected to cross examination, this Court may have given the same value. Considering further the disposition of the said car after Crisologos purchase, the same having been sold then by Crisologo to the Luneta Motors Company without appellee car exchanges intervention whatsoever, we are more than convinced that Crisologo was the real purchaser from Lt. Maragidas. Purchase in ones own name with anothers money generally gives title to the purchaser, that is to him who appears in the deed to have made the purchase in his own name. (see case of Enriquez vs. Olaguer, 25 Phil. 641) The decision under consideration having been found in order, the same is hereby affirmed without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered. Now, therefore, We LAURENCIANA 3, ELY, ELMER, ERVIN and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO, do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of land in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES, of legal age, (f)ilipino, married to The controversy began when Pido died intestate and on 27 November 1981, his surviving heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran Cadastre," wherein they declared; to quote its pertinent portions, that: . . . Cosme Pido died in the Municipality of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, he died intestate and without any known debts and obligations which the said parcel of land is (sic) held liable. That Cosme Pido was survived by his/her legitimate heirs, namely: LAURENCIANA PIDO, wife, ELY, ERVIN, ELMER, and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO; children; That invoking the provision of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the above-mentioned heirs do hereby declare unto [sic] ourselves the only heirs of the late Cosme Pido and that we hereby adjudicate unto ourselves the above-mentioned parcel of land in equal shares. The title to Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental was evidenced by OCT No. R-12179. The lot has an area of 13,720 sq. meters. The title was issued and is registered in the name of spouses Santiago Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma. After both spouses died, their only son Felixberto inherited the lot. In 1975, Felixberto executed a duly notarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale" in favor of Cosme Pido. The evidence before the court a quo established that since 1960, petitioner Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land, covering an area of nine thousand five hundred (9,500) meters. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon Pido's death, to his widow Laurenciana.

VIRGINIA DE LOS REYES, and resident of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, Philippines. . . . 4 (Emphasis supplied) The document was signed by all of Pido's heirs. Private respondent Edy de los Reyes did not sign said document. It will be noted that at the time of Cosme Pido's death, title to the property continued to be registered in the name of the Vasquez spouses. Upon obtaining the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights in his favor, private respondent Edy de los Reyes filed the same with the Registry of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claimagainst the original certificate of title. Thereafter, private respondent sought for petitioner (Acap) to personally inform him that he (Edy) had become the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Private respondent further alleged that he and petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement wherein petitioner agreed to pay ten (10) cavans of palay per annum as lease rental. In 1982, petitioner allegedly complied with said obligation. In 1983, however, petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals on the land, prompting private respondent to seek the assistance of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The MAR invited petitioner to a conference scheduled on 13 October 1983. Petitioner did not attend the conference but sent his wife instead to the conference. During the meeting, an officer of the Ministry informed Acap's wife about private respondent's ownership of the said land but she stated that she and her husband (Teodoro) did not recognize private respondent's claim of ownership over the land. On 28 April 1988, after the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner, alleging in the main that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay the agreed annual rental of ten (10) cavans of palay despite repeated demands. During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private respondent's ownership over the subject land. He averred that he continues to recognize Cosme Pido as the owner of the said land, and having been a registered tenant therein since 1960, he never reneged on his rental obligations. When Pido died, he continued to pay rentals to Pido's widow. When the latter left for abroad, she instructed him to stay in the landholding and to pay the accumulated rentals upon her demand or return from abroad. Petitioner further claimed before the trial court that he had no knowledge about any transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent in 1981 and even the following year after Laurenciana's departure for abroad. He denied having entered into a verbal lease tenancy contract with private respondent and that assuming that the said lot was indeed sold to private respondent without his knowledge, R.A. 3844, as amended, grants him the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price. Petitioner also bewailed private respondent's ejectment action as a violation of his right to security of tenure under P.D. 27.

On 20 August 1991, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Edy de los Reyes, and against the defendant, Teodoro Acap, ordering the following, to wit: 1. Declaring forfeiture of defendant's preferred right to issuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholdings; 2. Ordering the defendant Teodoro Acap to deliver possession of said farm to plaintiff, and; 3. Ordering the defendant to pay P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, the sum of P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation and the amount of P10,000.00 as actual damages. 5 In arriving at the above-mentioned judgment, the trial court stated that the evidence had established that the subject land was "sold" by the heirs of Cosme Pido to private respondent. This is clear from the following disquisitions contained in the trial court's six (6) page decision: There is no doubt that defendant is a registered tenant of Cosme Pido. However, when the latter died their tenancy relations changed since ownership of said land was passed on to his heirs who, by executing a Deed of Sale, which defendant admitted in his affidavit, likewise passed on their ownership of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff (private respondent). As owner hereof, plaintiff has the right to demand payment of rental and the tenant is obligated to pay rentals due from the time demand is made. . . . 6 xxx xxx xxx Certainly, the sale of the Pido family of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff does not of itself extinguish the relationship. There was only a change of the personality of the lessor in the person of herein plaintiff Edy de los Reyes who being the purchaser or transferee, assumes the rights and obligations of the former landowner to the tenant Teodoro Acap, herein defendant. 7 Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, imputing error to the lower court when it ruled that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 and that he, as tenant, should pay rentals to private respondent and that failing to pay the same from 1983 to 1987, his right to a certificate of land transfer under P.D. 27 was deemed forfeited.

The Court of Appeals brushed aside petitioner's argument that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights (Exhibit "D"), the document relied upon by private respondent to prove his ownership to the lot, was excluded by the lower court in its order dated 27 August 1990. The order indeed noted that the document was not identified by Cosme Pido's heirs and was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Negros Occidental. According to respondent court, however, since the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights appears to have been duly notarized, no further proof of its due execution was necessary. Like the trial court, respondent court was also convinced that the said document stands as prima facie proof of appellee's (private respondent's) ownership of the land in dispute. With respect to its non-registration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual knowledge of the subjectsale of the land in dispute to private respondent because as early as 1983, he (petitioner) already knew of private respondent's claim over the said land but which he thereafter denied, and that in 1982, he (petitioner) actually paid rent to private respondent. Otherwise stated, respondent court considered this fact of rental payment in 1982 as estoppel on petitioner's part to thereafter refute private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land. Under these circumstances, respondent court ruled that indeed there was deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay rent for a continued period of five years that merited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred right to the issuance of a certificate of land transfer. In the present petition, petitioner impugns the decision of the Court of Appeals as not in accord with the law and evidence when it rules that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 through the aforementioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights. Hence, the issues to be resolved presently are the following: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS IS A RECOGNIZED MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID DOCUMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED A DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF THE LOT IN QUESTION. Petitioner argues that the Regional Trial Court, in its order dated 7 August 1990, explicitly excluded the document marked as Exhibit "D" (Declaration of Heirship, etc.) as private respondent's evidence because it was not registered with the Registry of Deeds and was not identified by anyone of the heirs of Cosme Pido. The Court of Appeals, however, held the same to be admissible, it being a notarized document, hence, a prima facie proof of private respondents' ownership of the lot to which it refers. Petitioner points out that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is not one of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code. Neither can the same be considered a deed of sale so as to transfer ownership of the

land to private respondent because no consideration is stated in the contract (assuming it is a contract or deed of sale). Private respondent defends the decision of respondent Court of Appeals as in accord with the evidence and the law. He posits that while it may indeed be true that the trial court excluded his Exhibit "D" which is the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as part of his evidence, the trial court declared him nonetheless owner of the subject lot based on other evidence adduced during the trial, namely, the notice of adverse claim (Exhibit "E") duly registered by him with the Registry of Deeds, which contains the questioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as an integral part thereof. We find the petition impressed with merit. In the first place, an asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question. 8 Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and thederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum). In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same. In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. 9 Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. 10 Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. 11 The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. 12 Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the

elements of either a sale, 13 or a donation, 14 or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership. Quite surprisingly, both the trial court and public respondent Court of Appeals concluded that a "sale" transpired between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent and that petitioner acquired actual knowledge of said sale when he was summoned by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to discuss private respondent's claim over the lot in question. This conclusion has no basis both in fact and in law. On record, Exhibit "D", which is the "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights" was excluded by the trial court in its order dated 27 August 1990 because the document was neither registered with the Registry of Deeds nor identified by the heirs of Cosme Pido. There is no showing that private respondent had the same document attached to or made part of the record. What the trial court admitted was Annex "E", a notice of adverse claim filed with the Registry of Deeds which contained the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of rights and was annotated at the back of the Original Certificate of Title to the land in question. A notice of adverse claim, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent's ownership over the tenanted lot. "A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendenswhich is a notice of a case already pending in court." 15 It is to be noted that while the existence of said adverse claim was duly proven, there is no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent transferring the rights of Pido's heirs to the land in favor of private respondent. Private respondent's right or interest therefore in the tenanted lot remains an adverse claim which cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land and title the same in private respondent's name. Consequently, while the transaction between Pido's heirs and private respondent may be binding on both parties, the right of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land cannot be perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership without the corresponding proof thereof. Petitioner had been a registered tenant in the subject land since 1960 and religiously paid lease rentals thereon. In his mind, he continued to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and his family (after Pido's death), even if in 1982, private respondent allegedly informed petitioner that he had become the new owner of the land. Under the circumstances, petitioner may have, in good faith, assumed such statement of private respondent to be true and may have in fact delivered 10 cavans of palay as annual rental for 1982 to private respondent. But in 1983, it is clear that petitioner had misgivings over private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land because in the October 1983 MAR conference, his wife Laurenciana categorically denied all of private respondent's allegations. In fact, petitioner even secured a certificate from the MAR dated 9 May 1988 to the effect that he continued

to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and not of private respondent. The reason is that private respondent never registered the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights with the Registry of Deeds or with the MAR. Instead, he (private respondent) sought to do indirectly what could not be done directly,i.e., file a notice of adverse claim on the said lot to establish ownership thereover. It stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there was no unjustified or deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay the lease rentals or amortizations to the landowner/agricultural lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to establish in his favor by clear and convincing evidence. 16 Consequently, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under P.D. 27 and to the possession of his farmholdings should not be applied against petitioners, since private respondent has not established a cause of action for recovery of possession against petitioner. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 1 May 1994 which affirmed the decision of the RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental dated 20 August 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE. The private respondent's complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Acap is hereby DISMISSED for failure to properly state a cause of action, without prejudice to private respondent taking the proper legal steps to establish the legal mode by which he claims to have acquired ownership of the land in question. SO ORDERED. NGA VS IAC This is a petition for review of the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court * (now Court of Appeals) dated January 31, 1984, reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, 8th Judicial District, Branch III, and of the resolution dated August 28, 1984 denying the motion for reconsideration filed thereof. The undisputed facts of this case as found by the Trial Court and the Intermediate Appellate Court are as follows: On December 2,1971, the spouses Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizards, as owners of a parcel of land situated in Bo. San Francisco, Victoria, Laguna, comprising more or less 105,710 square meters, sold for P30,000.00 said property in favor of spouses Melencio Magcamit and Nena Cosico, and Amelita Magcamit (herein private respondents) as evidenced by "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Mabiling Muli." This sale with right to repurchase was recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna on December 6,1971 under Act No. 3344. On January 31,1972 the sale was made absolute by the spouses Vivas and Lizardo in favor of the private respondents for the sum of P90,000.00; P50,000.00 of which was paid upon the execution of the instrument, entitled "Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Tuluyan," after being credited with the P30,000.00 consideration of the "Kasulatan Ng Mabibiling Muli," and the balance of P40,000.00 was to be paid the moment that the certificate of title is issued. From the

execution of said Kasulatan, private respondent have remained in peaceful, adverse and open possession of subject property. On February 26, 1975, an Original Certificate of Title No. T-1728 covering the property in question was issued to and in the name of the spouses Vivas and Lizardo without the knowledge of the private respondents and on April 30, 1975, said Spouses executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Irenea Ramirez authorizing the latter to mortgage the property with the petitioner, National Grains Authority. On May 2, 1974, the counsel for the petitioner wrote the Provincial Sheriff in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, requesting for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage executed by Irenea Ramirez on May 18, 1975, covering, among others, the property involved in this case covered by OCT No. T-1728, for unpaid indebtedness in the amount of P63,948.80 in favor of the petitioner. On May 31, 1974, the Provincial Sheriff caused the issuance of the notice of sale of the property in question, scheduling the public auction sale on June 28, 1974. The petitioner was the highest and successful bidder so that a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date by the Provincial Sheriff. On July 10, 1974, the petitioner in its capacity as attorney-in-fact of the mortgagor sold the subject real property in favor of itself. By virtue of the deed of absolute sale, TCT No. T-75171 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Laguna was issued in the name of the petitioner on July 16, 1974. It was only in July 1974, that private respondents learned that a title in the name of the Vivas spouses had been issued covering the property in question and that the same property had been mortgaged in favor of the petitioner. Private respondent Nena Magcamit offered to pay the petitioner NGA the amount of P40,000.00 which is the balance of the amount due the Vivas spouses under the terms of the absolute deed of sale but the petitioner refused to accept the payment. On July 31, 1974, counsel for private respondents made a formal demand on the spouses Vivas and Lizardo to comply with their obligation under the terms of the absolute deed of sale; and soon after reiterated to the NGA, the offer to pay the balance of P40,000.00 due under the absolute deed of sale. On August 13, 1974 petitioner in its reply informed counsel of private respondents that petitioner is now the owner of the property in question and has no intention of disposing of the same. The private respondents, who as previously stated, are in possession of subject property were asked by petitioner to vacate it but the former refused. Petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against private respondents in the Municipal Court of Victoria, Laguna, but the case was dismissed. On June 4, 1975, private respondents filed a complaint before the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, Branch III, San Pablo City, against the petitioner and the spouses Vivas and Lizardo, praying, among others, that they be declared the owners of the property in question and entitled to continue in possession of the same, and if the petitioner is declared the owner of the said property, then, to order it to reconvey or transfer the ownership to them under such terms and conditions as the court may find just, fair and equitable under the premises. (Record on Appeal, pp. 2-11).

In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner (defendant therein) maintained that it was never a privy to any transaction between the private respondents (plaintiffs therein) and the spouses Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizardo that it is a purchaser in good faith and for value of the property formerly covered by OCT No. 1728; and that the title is now indefeasible, hence, private respondents' cause of action has' already prescribed. (Record on Appeal, pp. 16-22). After due hearing, the trial court ** rendered its decision on March 17, 1981, in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive portion of said judgment reading as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (1) declaring defendant National Grains Authority the lawful owner of the property in question by virtue of its indefeasible title to the same; (2) ordering plaintiffs to turn over possession of the land to defendant National Grains Authority; (3) ordering defendants-spouses Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizardo to pay plaintiffs the sum of P56,000.00 representing the amount paid pursuant to the Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan marked Exhibit "3", with legal interest thereon from January 31, 1972 until the amount is paid, to pay an additional amount of P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees, an additional amount of Pl0,000.00 as moral damages, another amount of P5,000.00 by way of exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit. (Rollo, P. 35). The private respondents interposed an appeal from the decision of the trial court to the Intermediate Appellate Court. After proper proceedings, the appellate court rendered its decision on January 31, 1984, reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court as follows: WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby reversed and set aside and another one is rendered ordering the National Grains Authority to execute a deed of reconveyance sufficient in law for purposes of registration and cancellation of transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75171 and the issuance of another title in the names of plaintiff-appellants, and ordering defendantsappellees Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizardo to pay the National Grains Authority the sum of P78,375.00 (Exh. 3) within thirty (30) days from the receipts of the writ of execution. No damages and costs. (Rollo, p. 19). The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision but the same was denied. (Rollo, p. 26).

Hence, this petition. In the resolution of May 20, 1985, the petition was given due course and the parties were required to submit simultaneous memoranda (Rollo, p. 128). The memorandum for the petitioner was filed on July 3, 1985 (Rollo, p. 129) while the memorandum for the private respondents was filed on August 26, 1985 1 Rollo p. 192). The main issue in this case is whether or not violation of the terms of the agreement between the spouses Vivas and Lizardo, the sellers, and private respondents, the buyers, to deliver the certificate of title to the latter, upon its issuance, constitutes a breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title and right acquired by petitioner NGA, an innocent purchaser for value. It is undisputed that: (1) there are two deeds of sale of the same land in favor of private respondents, namely: (a) the conditional sale with right to repurchase or the 'Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Mabibiling Muli" which was registered under Act 3344 and (b) the deed of absolute sale or "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan" which was not registered; (2) the condition that the Certificate of Title will be delivered to the buyers upon its issuance and upon payment of the balance of P40,000.00 is contained in the deed of absolute sale; and (3) the land in question at the time of the execution of both sales was not yet covered by the Torrens System of registration. It is axiomatic, that while the registration of the conditional sale with right of repurchase may be binding on third persons, it is by provision of law "understood to be without prejudice to third party who has better right" (Section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344). In this case, it will be noted that the third party NGA, is a registered owner under the Torrens System and has obviously a better right than private respondents and that the deed of absolute sale with the suspensive condition is not registered and is necessarily binding only on the spouses Vivas and Lizardo and private respondents. In their complaint at the Regional Trial Court, private respondents prayed among others, for two alternative reliefs, such as: (a) to be declared the owners of the property in question or (b) to order the declared owner to reconvey or transfer the ownership of the property in their favor. Private respondents claim a better right to the property in question by virtue of the Conditional Sale, later changed to a deed of Absolute Sale which although unregistered under the Torrens System allegedly transferred to them the ownership and the possession of the property in question. In fact, they argue that they have been and are still in possession of the same openly, continuously, publicly under a claim of ownership adverse to all other claims since the purchase on December 2, 1971 (Rollo, p. 165). It is stressed that not until the month of July, 1974 did the plaintiff learn that a title had been issued covering the property in question (Rollo, p. 15). Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the proceedings for the registration of title to land under the Torrens System is an action in rem not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary in order that the court may

have jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res. Neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the land situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a proceeding in rem or one in the nature of or akin a to proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon all persons, known or unknown (Moscoso vs. Court of appeals, 128 SCRA 719 [1984], citing: City of Manila vs. Lack, et al., 19 Phil. 324, 337; Roxas vs. Enriquez, 29 Phil. 31; Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil. 120; Aguilar vs. Caogdan, 105 Phil. 661). It is thus evident that respondents' right over the property was barred by res judicatawhen the decree of registration was issued to spouses Vivas and Lizards. It does not matter that they may have had some right even the right of ownership, BEFORE the grant of the Torrens Title. Thus, under Section 44 of P.D. 1529, every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on the certificate and any of the encumbrances which may be subsisting, and enumerated in the law. Under said provision, claims and liens of whatever character, except those mentioned by law as existing, against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are cut off by such certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issued binds the whole world, including the government (Aldecoa and Co. vs. Warner Barns & Co., 30 Phil. 209 [1915]; Snyder vs. Fiscal of Cebu and Avila, 42 Phil. 766 [1922]). Under said ruling, if the purchaser is the only party who appears in the deeds and the registration of titles in the property registry, no one except such purchaser may be deemed by law to be the owner of the properties in question (Ibid). Moreover, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession (Umbay vs. Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 [1985]). It does not appear that private respondents' claim falls under any of the exceptions provided for under Section 44 of P.D. 1529 which can be enforced against petitioner herein. Thus, it has been invariably restated by this Court, that "The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casato," avoid the possibility of losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed (Dominga vs. Santos, 55 Phil. 361; Singian vs. Manila Railroad, 62 Phil. 467)." The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is then considered as guilty of fraud and he may be compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner so long as the property has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value (Angeles vs. Sania, 66 Phil. 444 [1938], emphasis supplied). It will be noted that the spouses Vivas and Lizardo never committed any fraud in procuring the registration of the property in question. On the contrary, their application for registration which resulted in the issuance of OCT No. 1728 was with complete

knowledge and implied authority of private respondents who retained a portion of the consideration until the issuance to said spouses of a certificate of title applied for under the Torrens Act and the corresponding delivery of said title to them. The question therefore, is not about the validity of OCT No. 1728 but in the breach of contract between private respondents and the Vivas spouses. Petitioner NGA was never a privy to this transaction. Neither was it shown that it had any knowledge at the time of the execution of the mortgage, of the existence of the suspensive condition in the deed of absolute sale much less of its violation. Nothing appeared to excite suspicion. The Special Power of Attorney was regular on its face; the OCT was in the name of the mortgagor and the NGA was the highest bidder in the public auction. Unquestionably, therefore, the NGA is an innocent purchaser for value, first as an innocent mortgagee under Section 32 of P.D. 1529 and later as innocent purchaser for value in the public auction sale. Private respondents claim that NGA did not even field any representative to the land which was not even in the possession of the supposed mortgagors, nor present any witness to prove its allegations in the ANSWER nor submit its DEED OF MORTGAGE to show its being a mortgages in good faith and for value (Rollo, p. 110). Such contention is, however, untenable. Well settled is the rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. When there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto (Centeno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 545 [1985]). More specifically, the Court has ruled that a bank is not required before accepting a mortgage to make an investigation of the title of the property being given as security (Phil. National Cooperative Bank vs. Carandang Villalon, 139 SCRA 570 [1985]), and where innocent third persons like mortgagee relying on the certificate of title acquire rights over the property, their rights cannot be disregarded (Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489 [1985]). Under the circumstances, the Regional Trial Court could not have erred in ruling that plaintiffs (private respondents herein) complaint insofar as it prays that they be declared owners of the land in question can not prosper in view of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title under the Torrens System, because it is an established principle that a petition for review of the decree of registration will not prosper even if filed within one year from the entry of the decree if the title has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value (Pres. Decree No. 1529, Sec. 32). The setting aside of the decree of registration issued in land registration proceedings is operative only between the parties to the fraud and the parties defrauded and their privies, but not against acquirers in good faith and for value and the successors in interest of the latter; as to them the decree shall remain in full force and effect forever (Domingo vs. The Mayon Realty Corp. et al., 102 Phil. 32 [19571). Assuming, therefore, that there was fraud committed by the sellers against the buyers in the instant case, petitioner NGA who was not privy therein cannot be made to suffer the consequences thereof

As correctly declared by the trial court, the National Grains Authority is the lawful owner of the property in question by virtue of its indefeasible title. As to private respondents' alternative prayer that the declared owner be ordered to reconvey or transfer the ownership of the property in their favor, it is clear that there is absolutely no reason why petitioner, an innocent purchaser for value, should reconvey the land to the private respondents. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, now Regional Trial Court, is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.