Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995
TEODORO ACAP, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS an ED! DE LOS RE!ES, respondents.

PAD"LLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision
1
of the Court of Appeals, 2nd
Division, in CA-G.R. No. 36!!, which affir"ed the decision
#
of the Re#ional Trial Court
of $i"a"a%lan, Ne#ros &ccidental holdin# that private respondent 'd% de los Re%es
had ac(uired ownership of )ot No. 3* of the Cadastral +urve% of $ini#aran, Ne#ros
&ccidental ,ased on a docu"ent entitled -Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of
Ri#hts-, and orderin# the dispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the land for
failure to pa% rentals.
The facts of the case are as follows/
The title to )ot No. 3* of the Cadastral +urve% of $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental was
evidenced ,% &CT No. R-2!0. The lot has an area of 3,!2* s(. "eters. The title was
issued and is re#istered in the na"e of spouses +antia#o 1as(ue2 and )oren2a
&ru"a. After ,oth spouses died, their onl% son 3eli4,erto inherited the lot. 5n 0!6,
3eli4,erto e4ecuted a dul% notari2ed docu"ent entitled -Declaration of $eirship and
Deed of A,solute +ale- in favor of Cos"e 7ido.
The evidence ,efore the court a quo esta,lished that since 06*, petitioner Teodoro
Acap had ,een the tenant of a portion of the said land, coverin# an area of nine
thousand five hundred 80,6**9 "eters. .hen ownership was transferred in 0!6 ,%
3eli4,erto to Cos"e 7ido, Acap continued to ,e the re#istered tenant thereof and
reli#iousl% paid his leasehold rentals to 7ido and thereafter, upon 7ido:s death, to his
widow )aurenciana.
The controvers% ,e#an when 7ido died intestate and on 2! Nove",er 0;, his
survivin# heirs e4ecuted a notari2ed docu"ent deno"inated as -Declaration of $eirship
and .aiver of Ri#hts of )ot No. 3* $ini#aran Cadastre,- wherein the% declared< to
(uote its pertinent portions, that/
. . . Cos"e 7ido died in the =unicipalit% of $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental, he died
intestate and without an% >nown de,ts and o,li#ations which the said parcel of land is
8sic9 held lia,le.
That Cos"e 7ido was survived ,% his?her le#iti"ate heirs, na"el%/ )A@R'NC5ANA
75D&, wife, ')A, 'R15N, ')='R, and ')'C$&R all surna"ed 75D&< children<
That invo>in# the provision of +ection , Rule !B of the Rules of Court, the a,ove-
"entioned heirs do here,% declare unto CsicD ourselves the onl% heirs of the late Cos"e
7ido and that we here,% adEudicate unto ourselves the a,ove-"entioned parcel of land in
e(ual shares.
Now, therefore, .e )A@R'NC5ANA
$
, ')A, ')='R, 'R15N and ')'C$&R all
surna"ed 75D&, do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over
the said parcel of land in favor of 'DA D' )&+ R'A'+, of le#al a#e, 8f9ilipino, "arried to
15RG5N5A D' )&+ R'A'+, and resident of $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental,
7hilippines. . . .
4
8'"phasis supplied9
The docu"ent was si#ned ,% all of 7ido:s heirs. 7rivate respondent 'd% de los Re%es
did not si#n said docu"ent.
5t will ,e noted that at the ti"e of Cos"e 7ido:s death, title to the propert% continued to
,e re#istered in the na"e of the 1as(ue2 spouses. @pon o,tainin# the Declaration of
$eirship with .aiver of Ri#hts in his favor, private respondent 'd% de los Re%es filed
the sa"e with the Re#istr% of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claim a#ainst the
ori#inal certificate of title.
Thereafter, private respondent sou#ht for petitioner 8Acap9 to personall% infor" hi" that
he 8'd%9 had ,eco"e the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon
should ,e paid to hi". 7rivate respondent further alle#ed that he and petitioner entered
into an oral lease a#ree"ent wherein petitioner a#reed to pa% ten 8*9 cavans of pala%
per annum as lease rental. 5n 0;2, petitioner alle#edl% co"plied with said o,li#ation. 5n
0;3, however, petitioner refused to pa% an% further lease rentals on the land,
pro"ptin# private respondent to see> the assistance of the then =inistr% of A#rarian
Refor" 8=AR9 in $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental. The =AR invited petitioner to a
conference scheduled on 3 &cto,er 0;3. 7etitioner did not attend the conference ,ut
sent his wife instead to the conference. Durin# the "eetin#, an officer of the =inistr%
infor"ed Acap:s wife a,out private respondent:s ownership of the said land ,ut she
stated that she and her hus,and 8Teodoro9 did not reco#ni2e private respondent:s clai"
of ownership over the land.
&n 2; April 0;;, after the lapse of four 8B9 %ears, private respondent filed a co"plaint
for recover% of possession and da"a#es a#ainst petitioner, alle#in# in the "ain that as
his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pa% the a#reed annual rental of ten
8*9 cavans of pala% despite repeated de"ands.
Durin# the trial ,efore the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to reco#ni2e
private respondent:s ownership over the su,Eect land. $e averred that he continues to
reco#ni2e Cos"e 7ido as the owner of the said land, and havin# ,een a re#istered
tenant therein since 06*, he never rene#ed on his rental o,li#ations. .hen 7ido died,
he continued to pa% rentals to 7ido:s widow. .hen the latter left for a,road, she
instructed hi" to sta% in the landholdin# and to pa% the accumulated rentals upon her
de"and or return fro" a,road.
7etitioner further clai"ed ,efore the trial court that he had no >nowled#e a,out an%
transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent in 0; and even the followin# %ear after
)aurenciana:s departure for a,road. $e denied havin# entered into a ver,al lease
tenanc% contract with private respondent and that assu"in# that the said lot was indeed
sold to private respondent without his >nowled#e, R.A. 3;BB, as a"ended, #rants hi"
the ri#ht to redee" the sa"e at a reasona,le price. 7etitioner also ,ewailed private
respondent:s eEect"ent action as a violation of his ri#ht to securit% of tenure under 7.D.
2!.
&n 2* Au#ust 00, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent,
the dispositive part of which reads/
.$'R'3&R', pre"ises considered, the Court renders Eud#"ent in favor of the plaintiff,
'd% de los Re%es, and a#ainst the defendant, Teodoro Acap, orderin# the followin#, to
wit/
. Declarin# forfeiture of defendant:s preferred ri#ht to issuance of a Certificate of )and
Transfer under 7residential Decree No. 2! and his far"holdin#s<
2. &rderin# the defendant Teodoro Acap to deliver possession of said far" to plaintiff,
and<
3. &rderin# the defendant to pa% 76,***.** as attorne%:s fees, the su" of 7,***.** as
e4penses of liti#ation and the a"ount of 7*,***.** as actual da"a#es.
5
5n arrivin# at the a,ove-"entioned Eud#"ent, the trial court stated that the evidence had
esta,lished that the su,Eect land was -sold- ,% the heirs of Cos"e 7ido to private
respondent. This is clear fro" the followin# dis(uisitions contained in the trial court:s si4
869 pa#e decision/
There is no dou,t that defendant is a re#istered tenant of Cos"e 7ido. $owever, when
the latter died their tenanc% relations chan#ed since ownership of said land was passed
on to his heirs who, ,% e4ecutin# a Deed of Sale, which defendant ad"itted in his
affidavit, li>ewise passed on their ownership of )ot 3* to herein plaintiff 8private
respondent9. As owner hereof, plaintiff has the ri#ht to de"and pa%"ent of rental and the
tenant is o,li#ated to pa% rentals due fro" the ti"e de"and is "ade. . . .
%
444 444 444
Certainl%, the sale of the 7ido fa"il% of )ot 3* to herein plaintiff does not of itself
e4tin#uish the relationship. There was onl% a chan#e of the personalit% of the lessor in
the person of herein plaintiff 'd% de los Re%es who ,ein# the purchaser or transferee,
assu"es the ri#hts and o,li#ations of the for"er landowner to the tenant Teodoro Acap,
herein defendant.
7
A##rieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, i"putin# error to the lower court
when it ruled that private respondent ac(uired ownership of )ot No. 3* and that he,
as tenant, should pa% rentals to private respondent and that failin# to pa% the sa"e fro"
0;3 to 0;!, his ri#ht to a certificate of land transfer under 7.D. 2! was dee"ed
forfeited.
The Court of Appeals ,rushed aside petitioner:s ar#u"ent that the Declaration of
$eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts 8'4hi,it -D-9, the docu"ent relied upon ,% private
respondent to prove his ownership to the lot, was e4cluded ,% the lower court in its
order dated 2! Au#ust 00*. The order indeed noted that the docu"ent was not
identified ,% Cos"e 7ido:s heirs and was not re#istered with the Re#istr% of Deeds of
Ne#ros &ccidental. Accordin# to respondent court, however, since the Declaration of
$eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts appears to have ,een dul% notari2ed, no further proof of
its due e4ecution was necessar%. )i>e the trial court, respondent court was also
convinced that the said docu"ent stands as prima facie proof of appellee:s 8private
respondent:s9 ownership of the land in dispute.
.ith respect to its non-re#istration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual
>nowled#e of the su,Eect sale of the land in dispute to private respondent ,ecause as
earl% as 0;3, he 8petitioner9 alread% >new of private respondent:s clai" over the said
land ,ut which he thereafter denied, and that in 0;2, he 8petitioner9 actuall% paid rent
to private respondent. &therwise stated, respondent court considered this fact of rental
pa%"ent in 0;2 as estoppel on petitioner:s part to thereafter refute private
respondent:s clai" of ownership over the said land. @nder these circu"stances,
respondent court ruled that indeed there was deli,erate refusal ,% petitioner to pa% rent
for a continued period of five %ears that "erited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred ri#ht
to the issuance of a certificate of land transfer.
5n the present petition, petitioner i"pu#ns the decision of the Court of Appeals as not in
accord with the law and evidence when it rules that private respondent ac(uired
ownership of )ot No. 3* throu#h the afore"entioned Declaration of $eirship and
.aiver of Ri#hts.
$ence, the issues to ,e resolved presentl% are the followin#/
. .$'T$'R &R N&T T$' +@FG'CT D'C)ARAT5&N &3 $'5R+$57 AND .A51'R
&3 R5G$T+ 5+ A R'C&GN5H'D =&D' &3 ACI@5R5NG &.N'R+$57 FA 7R51AT'
R'+7&ND'NT &1'R T$' )&T 5N I@'+T5&N.
2. .$'T$'R &R N&T T$' +A5D D&C@='NT CAN F' C&N+5D'R'D A D''D &3
+A)' 5N 3A1&R &3 7R51AT' R'+7&ND'NT &3 T$' )&T 5N I@'+T5&N.
7etitioner ar#ues that the Re#ional Trial Court, in its order dated ! Au#ust 00*,
e4plicitl% e4cluded the docu"ent "ar>ed as '4hi,it -D- 8Declaration of $eirship, etc.9 as
private respondent:s evidence ,ecause it was not re#istered with the Re#istr% of Deeds
and was not identified ,% an%one of the heirs of Cos"e 7ido. The Court of Appeals,
however, held the sa"e to ,e ad"issi,le, it ,ein# a notari2ed docu"ent, hence, a
prima facie proof of private respondents: ownership of the lot to which it refers.
7etitioner points out that the Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts is not one of
the reco#ni2ed "odes of ac(uirin# ownership under Article !2 of the Civil Code.
Neither can the sa"e ,e considered a deed of sale so as to transfer ownership of the
land to private respondent ,ecause no consideration is stated in the contract 8assu"in#
it is a contract or deed of sale9.
7rivate respondent defends the decision of respondent Court of Appeals as in accord
with the evidence and the law. $e posits that while it "a% indeed ,e true that the trial
court e4cluded his '4hi,it -D- which is the Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts
as part of his evidence, the trial court declared hi" nonetheless owner of the su,Eect lot
,ased on other evidence adduced durin# the trial, na"el%, the notice of adverse clai"
8'4hi,it -'-9 dul% re#istered ,% hi" with the Re#istr% of Deeds, which contains the
(uestioned Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts as an inte#ral part thereof.
.e find the petition i"pressed with "erit.
5n the first place, an asserted ri#ht or clai" to ownership or a real ri#ht over a thin#
arisin# fro" a Euridical act, however Eustified, is not per se sufficient to #ive rise to
ownership over the res. That ri#ht or title "ust ,e co"pleted ,% fulfillin# certain
conditions i"posed ,% law. $ence, ownership and real ri#hts are ac(uired onl% pursuant
to a le#al "ode or process. .hile title is the Euridical Eustification, "ode is the actual
process of ac(uisition or transfer of ownership over a thin# in (uestion.
8
@nder Article !2 of the Civil Code, the "odes of ac(uirin# ownership are #enerall%
classified into two 829 classes, na"el%, the original mode 8i.e., throu#h occupation,
ac(uisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation9 and the derivative mode 8i.e.,
throu#h succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as
sale, ,arter, donation, assi#n"ent or "utuu"9.
5n the case at ,ench, the trial court was o,viousl% confused as to the nature and effect
of the Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts, e(uatin# the sa"e with a contract
8deed9 of sale. The% are not the sa"e.
5n a Contract of +ale, one of the contractin# parties o,li#ates hi"self to transfer the
ownership of and to deliver a deter"inate thin#, and the other part% to pa% a price
certain in "one% or its e(uivalent.
9
@pon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of ri#hts operates as a pu,lic
instru"ent when filed with the Re#istr% of Deeds where,% the intestate heirs adEudicate
and divide the estate left ,% the decedent a"on# the"selves as the% see fit. 5t is in
effect an e4traEudicial settle"ent ,etween the heirs under Rule !B of the Rules of Court.

1&
$ence, there is a "ar>ed difference ,etween a sale of hereditar% ri#hts and a waiver of
hereditar% ri#hts. The first presu"es the e4istence of a contract or deed of sale ,etween
the parties.
11
The second is, technicall% spea>in#, a "ode of e4tinction of ownership
where there is an a,dication or intentional relin(uish"ent of a >nown ri#ht with
>nowled#e of its e4istence and intention to relin(uish it, in favor of other persons who
are co-heirs in the succession.
1#
7rivate respondent, ,ein# then a stran#er to the
succession of Cos"e 7ido, cannot conclusivel% clai" ownership over the su,Eect lot on
the sole ,asis of the waiver docu"ent which neither recites the ele"ents of either a
sale,
1$
or a donation,
14
or an% other derivative "ode of ac(uirin# ownership.
Iuite surprisin#l%, ,oth the trial court and pu,lic respondent Court of Appeals concluded
that a -sale- transpired ,etween Cos"e 7ido:s heirs and private respondent and that
petitioner ac(uired actual >nowled#e of said sale when he was su""oned ,% the
=inistr% of A#rarian Refor" to discuss private respondent:s clai" over the lot in
(uestion. This conclusion has no ,asis ,oth in fact and in law.
&n record, '4hi,it -D-, which is the -Declaration of $eirship and .aiver of Ri#hts- was
excluded ,% the trial court in its order dated 27 August !!" ,ecause the docu"ent was
neither re#istered with the Re#istr% of Deeds nor identified ,% the heirs of Cos"e 7ido.
There is no showin# that private respondent had the sa"e docu"ent attached to or
"ade part of the record. .hat the trial court ad"itted was Anne4 -'-, a notice of
adverse clai" filed with the Re#istr% of Deeds which contained the Declaration of
$eirship with .aiver of ri#hts and was annotated at the ,ac> of the &ri#inal Certificate
of Title to the land in (uestion.
A notice of adverse clai", ,% its nature, does not however prove private respondent:s
ownership over the tenanted lot. -A notice of adverse clai" is nothin# ,ut a notice of a
clai" adverse to the re#istered owner, the validit% of which is %et to ,e esta,lished in
court at so"e future date, and is no ,etter than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice
of a case alread% pendin# in court.-
15
5t is to ,e noted that while the e4istence of said adverse clai" was dul% proven, there is
no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was e4ecuted ,etween Cos"e 7ido:s heirs
and private respondent transferrin# the ri#hts of 7ido:s heirs to the land in favor of
private respondent. 7rivate respondent:s ri#ht or interest therefore in the tenanted lot
re"ains an adverse clai" which cannot ,% itself ,e sufficient to cancel the &CT to the
land and title the sa"e in private respondent:s na"e.
Conse(uentl%, while the transaction ,etween 7ido:s heirs and private respondent
"a% ,e ,indin# on ,oth parties, the ri#ht of petitioner as a re#istered tenant to
the land cannot ,e perfunctoril% forfeited on a "ere alle#ation of private
respondent:s ownership without the correspondin# proof thereof.
7etitioner had ,een a re#istered tenant in the su,Eect land since 06* and reli#iousl%
paid lease rentals thereon. 5n his "ind, he continued to ,e the re#istered tenant of
Cos"e 7ido and his fa"il% 8after 7ido:s death9, even if in 0;2, private respondent
alle#edl% infor"ed petitioner that he had ,eco"e the new owner of the land.
@nder the circu"stances, petitioner "a% have, in #ood faith, assu"ed such state"ent
of private respondent to ,e true and "a% have in fact delivered * cavans of pala% as
annual rental for 0;2 to private respondent. Fut in 0;3, it is clear that petitioner had
"is#ivin#s over private respondent:s clai" of ownership over the said land ,ecause in
the &cto,er 0;3 =AR conference, his wife )aurenciana cate#oricall% denied all of
private respondent:s alle#ations. 5n fact, petitioner even secured a certificate fro" the
=AR dated 0 =a% 0;; to the effect that he continued to ,e the re#istered tenant of
Cos"e 7ido and not of private respondent. The reason is that private respondent never
registered the Declaration of $eirship with .aiver of Ri#hts with the Re#istr% of Deeds
or with the =AR. 5nstead, he 8private respondent9 sou#ht to do indirectl% what could not
,e done directl%, i.e., file a notice of adverse claim on the said lot to establish ownership
thereover.
5t stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there was no un#ustified or deliberate refusal
,% petitioner to pa% the lease rentals or a"orti2ations to the landowner?a#ricultural
lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to esta,lish in his favor ,% clear and
convincin# evidence.
1%
Conse(uentl%, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred ri#ht to ,e issued a Certificate
of )and Transfer under 7.D. 2! and to the possession of his far"holdin#s should not ,e
applied a#ainst petitioners, since private respondent has not esta,lished a cause of
action for recover% of possession a#ainst petitioner.
.$'R'3&R', pre"ises considered, the Court here,% GRANT+ the petition and the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated =a% 00B which affir"ed the decision of the
RTC of $i"a"a%lan, Ne#ros &ccidental dated 2* Au#ust 00 is here,% +'T A+5D'.
The private respondent:s co"plaint for recover% of possession and da"a#es a#ainst
petitioner Acap is here,% D5+=5++'D for failure to properl% state a cause of action,
without preEudice to private respondent ta>in# the proper le#al steps to esta,lish the
le#al "ode ,% which he clai"s to have ac(uired ownership of the land in (uestion.
+& &RD'R'D.
Davide, $r%, &ellosillo, 'apunan and (ermosisima, $r%, $$%, concur%