8/12/2019 Acap vs Court of Appealsbv

1/5

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 decision1 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 theCadastral +urve% of $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental ased on a docu"ent entitled Declaration of $eirship andaiver 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(ue and )orena &ru"a. After oth spouses died, their onl% son eli4erto inherited the lot. 5n0!, eli4erto e4ecuted a dul% notaried docu"ent entitled Declaration of $eirship and Deed of Asolute+ale in favor of Cos"e 7ido.

The evidence efore the court a quoestalished that since 06*, petitioner Teodoro Acap had een the tenant ofa portion of the said land, coverin# an area of nine thousand five hundred 80,**9 "eters. hen ownership was

transferred in 0! % eli4erto to Cos"e 7ido, Acap continued to e the re#istered tenant thereof andreli#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 anotaried docu"ent deno"inated as Declaration of $eirship and aiver of Ri#hts of )ot No. 3* $ini#aranCadastre, 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 andwithout an% >nown dets and oli#ations which the said parcel of land is 8sic9 held liale.

That Cos"e 7ido was survived % his?her le#iti"ate heirs, na"el%/ )A@R'NC5ANA 75D&, wife,'), 'R15N, ')='R, and ')'C$&R all surna"ed 75D&< childrenin# the provision of +ection , Rule !B of the Rules of Court, the aove-"entionedheirs do here% declare unto sic ourselves the onl% heirs of the late Cos"e 7ido and that we

here% adEudicate unto ourselves the aove-"entioned parcel of land in e(ual shares.

Now, therefore, e )A@R'NC5ANA$, '), ')='R, 'R15N and ')'C$&R all surna"ed 75D&,do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of landin favor of 'D D' )&+ R''+, of le#al a#e, 8f9ilipino, "arried to 15RG5N5A D' )&+ R''+,

and resident of $ini#aran, Ne#ros &ccidental, 7hilippines. . . . 48'"phasis supplied9

The docu"ent was si#ned % all of 7ido:s heirs. 7rivate respondent 'd% de los Re%es did not si#n saiddocu"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"eof the 1as(ue spouses. @pon otainin# the Declaration of $eirship with aiver of Ri#hts in his favor, private

8/12/2019 Acap vs Court of Appealsbv

2/5

respondent 'd% de los Re%es filed the sa"e with the Re#istr% of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claima#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"ethe new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should e paid to hi". 7rivate respondent furtheralle#ed that he and petitioner entered into an oral lease a#ree"ent wherein petitioner a#reed to pa% ten 8*9cavans of pala%per annumas lease rental. 5n 0;2, petitioner alle#edl% co"plied with said oli#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 invitedpetitioner to a conference scheduled on 3 &ctoer 0;3. 7etitioner did not attend the conference ut sent hiswife instead to the conference. Durin# the "eetin#, an officer of the =inistr% infor"ed Acap:s wife aout privaterespondent:s ownership of the said land ut she stated that she and her husand 8Teodoro9 did not reco#nieprivate 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% ofpossession and da"a#es a#ainst petitioner, alle#in# in the "ain that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refusedand 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#nie private respondent:sownership over the suEect land. $e averred that he continues to reco#nie Cos"e 7ido as the owner of the saidland, and havin# een a re#istered tenant therein since 06*, he never rene#ed on his rental oli#ations. hen7ido died, he continued to pa% rentals to 7ido:s widow. hen the latter left for aroad, she instructed hi" to sta%in the landholdin# and to pa% the accumulated rentalsupon her de"and or return fro" aroad.

7etitioner further clai"ed efore the trial court that he had no >nowled#e aout an% transfer or sale of the lot toprivate respondent in 0; and even the followin# %ear after )aurenciana:s departure for aroad. $e deniedhavin# entered into a veral lease tenanc% contract with private respondent and that assu"in# that the said lotwas indeed sold to private respondent without his >nowled#e, R.A. 3;BB, as a"ended, #rants hi" the ri#ht toredee" the sa"e at a reasonale price. 7etitioner also ewailed private respondent:s eEect"ent action as aviolation 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 ofwhich reads/

$'R'&R', pre"ises considered, the Court renders Eud#"ent in favor of the plaintiff, 'd% delos 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#sewise passed ontheir ownership of )ot 3* to herein plaintiff 8private respondent9. As owner hereof, plaintiff hasthe ri#ht to de"and pa%"ent of rental and the tenant is oli#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 therelationship. There was onl% a chan#e of the personalit% of the lessor in the person of hereinplaintiff 'd% de los Re%es who ein# the purchaser or transferee, assu"es the ri#hts and

oli#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

8/12/2019 Acap vs Court of Appealsbv

3/5

respondent ac(uired ownership of )ot No. 3* and that he, as tenant, should pa% rentals to private respondentand 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! wasdee"ed forfeited.

The Court of Appeals rushed aside petitioner:s ar#u"ent that the Declaration of $eirship and aiver of Ri#hts8'4hiit D9, 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%notaried, no further proof of its due e4ecution was necessar%. )i>e the trial court, respondent court was alsoconvinced that the said docu"ent stands asprima facieproof of appellee:s 8private respondent:s9 ownership ofthe land in dispute.

ith respect to its non-re#istration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual >nowled#e of the suEectsaleof the land in dispute to private respondent ecause as earl% as 0;3, he 8petitioner9 alread% >new ofprivate respondent:s clai" over the said land ut which he thereafter denied, and that in 0;2, he 8petitioner9actuall% paid rent to private respondent. &therwise stated, respondent court considered this fact of rentalpa%"ent in 0;2 as estoppel on petitioner:s part to thereafter refute private respondent:s clai" of ownership overthe said land. @nder these circu"stances, respondent court ruled that indeed there was delierate refusal %petitioner to pa% rent for a continued period of five %ears that "erited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred ri#ht tothe 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 andevidence when it rules that private respondent ac(uired ownership of )ot No. 3* throu#h the afore"entionedDeclaration of $eirship and aiver of Ri#hts.

$ence, the issues to e resolved presentl% are the followin#/

. $'T$'R &R N&T T$' +@F'CT D'C)ARAT5&N & $'5R+$57 AND A51'R &R5G$T+ 5+ A R'C&GN5H'D =&D' & ACI@5R5NG &N'R+$57 F 7R51AT'R'+7&ND'NT &1'R T$' )&T 5N I@'+T5&N.

2. $'T$'R &R N&T T$' +A5D D&C@='NT CAN F' C&N+5D'R'D A D''D & +A)' 5NA1&R & 7R51AT' R'+7&ND'NT & T$' )&T 5N I@'+T5&N.

7etitioner ar#ues that the Re#ional Trial Court, in its order dated ! Au#ust 00*, e4plicitl% e4cluded thedocu"ent "ar>ed as '4hiit D 8Declaration of $eirship, etc.9 as private respondent:s evidence ecause it wasnot 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"issile, it ein# a notaried docu"ent, hence, a prima facieproof 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#nied "odes ofac(uirin# ownership under Article !2 of the Civil Code. Neither can the sa"e e considered a deed of sale soas to transfer ownership of the land to private respondent ecause no consideration is stated in the contract8assu"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 thelaw. $e posits that while it "a% indeed e true that the trial court e4cluded his '4hiit D which is theDeclaration of $eirship and aiver of Ri#hts as part of his evidence, the trial court declared hi" nonethelessowner of the suEect lot ased on other evidence adduced durin# the trial, na"el%, the notice of adverse clai"8'4hiit '9 dul% re#istered % hi" with the Re#istr% of Deeds, which contains the (uestioned Declaration of$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 eco"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 829classes, na"el%, the original mode8i.e., throu#h occupation, ac(uisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation9and the derivative mode 8i.e., throu#h succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such

8/12/2019 Acap vs Court of Appealsbv

4/5

as sale, arter, donation, assi#n"ent or "utuu"9.

5n the case at ench, the trial court was oviousl% 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 oli#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 pulic instru"ent when filed

with the Re#istr% of Deeds where% the intestate heirs adEudicate and divide the estate left % the decedenta"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 saleof 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.11The second is, technicall%spea>in#, a "ode of e4tinction of ownership where there is an adication 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, cannotconclusivel% clai" ownership over the suEect lot on the sole asis of the waiver docu"ent which neither recites

the ele"ents of either a sale,1$or a donation,14or an% other derivative "ode of ac(uirin# ownership.

Iuite surprisin#l%, oth the trial court and pulic 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 salewhen 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, '4hiit D, which is the Declaration of $eirship and aiver of Ri#hts was excluded% the trial courtin its order dated 27 August !!"ecause the docu"ent was neither re#istered with the Re#istr% of Deeds noridentified % the heirs of Cos"e 7ido. There is no showin# that private respondent had the sa"e docu"entattached 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 wasannotated 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 thetenanted lot. A notice of adverse clai" is nothin# ut a notice of a clai" adverse to the re#istered owner, thevalidit% of which is %et to e estalished in court at so"e future date, and is no etter than a notice of lis

pendenswhich 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 whatsoeverthat a deed of sale was e4ecuted etween Cos"e 7ido:s heirs and private respondent transferrin# the ri#hts of7ido:s heirs to the land in favor of private respondent. 7rivate respondent:s ri#ht or interest therefore in thetenanted lot re"ains an adverse clai" which cannot % itself e sufficient to cancel the &CT to the land and titlethe sa"e in private respondent:s na"e.

Conse(uentl%, while the transaction etween 7ido:s heirs and private respondent "a% e indin# onoth 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 suEect 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 in0;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 toe true and "a% have in fact delivered * cavans of pala% as annual rental for 0;2 to private respondent. Fut in0;3, it is clear that petitioner had "is#ivin#s over private respondent:s clai" of ownership over the said landecause in the &ctoer 0;3 =AR conference, his wife )aurenciana cate#oricall% denied all of privaterespondent:s alle#ations. 5n fact, petitioner even secured a certificate fro" the =AR dated 0 =a% 0;; to theeffect that he continued to e the re#istered tenant of Cos"e 7ido and not of private respondent. The reason isthat private respondent never registeredthe Declaration of $eirship with aiver of Ri#hts with the Re#istr% ofDeeds 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

8/12/2019 Acap vs Court of Appealsbv

5/5

lease rentals or a"ortiations to the landowner?a#ricultural lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to

estalish 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 under7.D. 2! and to the possession of his far"holdin#s should not e applied a#ainst petitioners, since privaterespondent has not estalished a cause of action for recover% of possession a#ainst petitioner.

$'R'&R', pre"ises considered, the Court here% GRANT+ the petition and the decision of the Court ofAppeals 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#esa#ainst petitioner Acap is here% D5+=5++'D for failure to properl% state a cause of action, without preEudice toprivate respondent ta>in# the proper le#al steps to estalish the le#al "ode % which he clai"s to have ac(uiredownership of the land in (uestion.

+& &RD'R'D.

Davide, $r%, &ellosillo, 'apunan and (ermosisima, $r%, $$%, concur%

Foo'no'e(

7enned % 7urisi"a, $., Chair"an, with 5snani, $% and 5a%-+o"era, $% concurrin#.

2 7enned % '4ecutive ud#e ose A#uirre, r.

3 The RTC decision used the na"e )uvi"inda. The CA used the na"e )audenciana.

B Anne4 A, 7etition< )ollo, p. B.

Anne4 D, 7etition )ollo, p. 20.

6 *bid., p. 2!.

! *bid., p. 2;.

; Re%es, An &utline of 7hilippine Civil )aw, 1ol. 55 p. 2*.

0 Article B;, Civil Code.

* 7aul"itos v. CA, G.R. No. 6;B, Nov. 2, 002, 2 +CRA ;6!, ;6;< @eras v. C5 ofNe#ros, G.R. No. B2B;, &ctoer 3*, 0!;, ;6 +CRA B, B!< Arasia v. Carian, G.R. No. 0*,&ctoer 3, 0!.

SeeA#uirre v. Atiena, G.R. No. )-*66, Au#. 3*, 0;< =ari v. Fonilla, G.R. No. ;2, =arch0, 0B0< Roles v. CA, 6B!B0B ;3 +CRA ;, ;2, =a% , 0!;.

2 See Forro"eo $errera v. Forro"eo, G.R. No. )-B!, ul% 23, 0;!, 2 +CRA !.

3 See note * - supra.

B &sorio v. &sorio and nchausti +tea"ship Co. No. 6BB, =arch 2*, 02.

+o"es v. Govern"ent of the 7hilippines, No. B2!B, &ctoer 3*, 03.62 7hil. B32.

6 See )aureto v. CA, G.R. No. 0;3;, Au#ust !, 002, 22 +CRA 30!. Cuno v. CA, G.R. )-620;, April 2, 0;B, 2; +CRA 6!.