Anda di halaman 1dari 2

ACAP V.

CA
Facts:
Felixberto Oruma sold his inherited land to Cosme Pido, which land is rented by petitioner Teodoro Acap. When Cosme died intestate,
his heirs executed a “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” in favor of private respondent Edy delos Reyes. Respondent
informed petitioner of his claim over the land, and petitioner paid the rental to him in 1982. However in subsequent years, petitioner
refused to pay the rental, which prompted respondent to file a complaint for the recovery of possession and damages. Petitioner
averred that he continues to recognize Pido as the owner of the land, and that he will pay the accumulated rentals to Pido’s widow
upon her return from abroad. The lower court ruled in favor of private respondent.
Issues:
(1) Whether the “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” is a recognized mode of acquiring ownership by private respondent
(2) Whether the said document can be considered a deed of sale in favor of private respondent
Held:
An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per sesufficient
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
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 pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in
court. 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.

Facts:
· Lot 1130 is registered in the name of Spouses Vasquez, they died. Their son, Felixberto inherited the lot, he then executed a DEED
OF SALE to Cosmo Pido. Teodoro Acap a tenant that occupies 9,500m still occupied the lot even after the transfer of ownership,
he paid his rentals religiously, even after Pido died. Pido’s heris waived their rights (via the DOCUMENT) in favor of Edy.
· Edy informed Ted that he is the owner and that the monthly should be paid to him, Ted agreed to pay the annual RENTAL.
· Come 1983, Ted refused to pay anymore monthly lease, this prompted Ed to ask for assistance from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform
(MAR).
· MAR invited Ted to a conference to discuss the matter but he did not attend, however, he sent his wife, MAR told the wife that Ed is
the new owner of the lot but she said that they do not recognize Ed’s ownership.
· After 4 years, Edy filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Ted.
· During Trial, Ted contended that he does not recognize the ownership of Edy but still recognize the ownership of Pido, he as well
told that Pido’s widow told him that he should stay in the lot and withhold any monthly payment until she arrives or demands it (The
widow is in USA).
· RTC ruled in favor of Edy. CA brushed aside Ted’s argument.
Issue: W/ON the DOCUMENT can be considered as a deed of sale?

Held: No. IN A CONTRACT OF SALE, ONE OF THE PARTIES OBLIGATES HIMSELF TO TRANSFERAND DELIVER, THE
OTHER TO PAY THE PRICE. Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights operates as a public instrument when filed with the
Registry of Deeds whereby the instestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the descendant.

Sale = Presumes the existence of a contract

Waiver = mode of extinction of ownershi

SSUE: Whether delos Reyes acquired ownership over the lot in question.
HELD: NO. The Court noted that an asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over
at h i n g a r i s i n g f r o m a j u r i d i c a l a c t , h o w e v e r j u s t i f i e d , i s n o t p e r s e s u f f i c i e n t t o g i v e r i s e t o ow
nership ove r the res. That right or title m ust be com pleted by fulfilling certain conditi ons imposed by law. Hence,
ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. W hile title is the juridical justification, m ode is the
actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question. Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, modes
of acquisition may either be original or derivative. Original modes of acquisition include occupation,acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation.
Derivative modes of acquisition on the other hand include succession mortis causa and tradition as a result of certain contracts such as sale,barter,
donatio n, assignm ent or m utuum . In the instant case, the Court det erm ined whether delos Reyes acquired ownership over
the lot in question through any of the modes mentioned. Itwas ruled that he had not acquired ownership by virtue of sale, as opposed to the
ruling of bothRTC and CA. The e xecution of the heirs of Pido the Declaration of Hei rshi p and W aiver of Rights
was held to be not tantam ount to sale. Such declaration is only one whereby heirs adjudicate and divide the estate
left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. TheCourt further noted that waiver of hereditary rights is different from sale of hereditary rights.
Saleof hereditary rights presupposes an existence of a contract of sale whereas waiver of hereditaryrights is an abdication or
intention al reli nquishm ent of a kno wn rig ht with a knowledge of
itse x i s t e n c e a n d i n t e n t i o n t o r e l i n q u i s h i t i n f a v o r o f o t h e r p e r s o n s w h o a r e c o -
h e i r s i n t h e succession. As delos Reyes is a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, he cannot claimownership over the lot
on the sole basis of the document executed. Hence, private respondentdelos Reyes had not acquired ownership over Lot 1130
and consequently had no right to exactlease rentals from petitioner Acap.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai