7/29/2019 Acap v CA Case Digest

1/2

G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995

ACAP vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Felixberto, an only son, inherited from his parents a lot. He executed a dulynotarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of AbsoluteSale" in favor of Pido.When ownership was transferred, Acap continued to be the tenant of aportion of the said land and religiously paid his leasehold rentals to Pido.

When Pido died intestate his surviving heirs executed a notarized

Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights of the said lot to de los Reyes.

De los Reyes informed Acap that, as the new owner, the lease rentals shouldbe paid to him. When petitioner refused and failed to pay any further leaserentals after repeated demands, he filed a complaint for recovery ofpossession and damages.

The lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent which waseventually affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Hence, this present petition.

ISSUES:

1. WON the subject Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is arecognized mode of acquiring ownership by private respondent overthe lot in question.

2. WON the said document can be considered as Deed of Sale in favor ofprivate respondent of the lot in question.

HELD:

The Court GRANTS the petition and SET ASIDE the decision of the CA.

On Issue No. 1

No.

7/29/2019 Acap v CA Case Digest

2/2

Private respondent cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject loton the sole basis of the waiver document.

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership aregenerally classified into 2 classes: (1) original mode (i.e., through

occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and (2) thederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a resultof certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum).

In a contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself totransfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the otherparty to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Whereas, adeclaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrumentwhen filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicateand divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit.

Hence, private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Pido,cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis ofthe waiver which neither recites the elements of either a sale, or a donation,or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.

On Issue No. 2

No.

A notice of adverse claim was filed with the Registry of Deeds whichcontained the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of rights and was

annotated at the back of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) to the land inquestion.

This said notice, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent'sownership over the tenanted lot. The Court emphasized that while theexistence of said adverse claim was duly proven, there was no evidencewhatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between the partiestransferring the rights in favor of private respondent. An adverse claimcannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land and title the samein private respondent's name.