G.R. No.

118114 December 7, 1995

TEODORO ACAP, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and EDY DE LOS REYES, respondent

Spouses Santiago Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma, owned a parcel of land with a registered title. 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. He provided owners duplicate certificate of title to the court, which was approved, and ctc was
transferred to his name. 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 heirs
waived their rights by executing a notarized document as “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of
Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran Cadastre” 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. Hence, the
appeal.

ISSUES:

1. WON 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. WON the said document can be considered as Deed of Sale in favor of private 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.

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

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into 2
classes: (1) original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual
creation) and (2) the derivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of
certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum).

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. Whereas, 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.

Hence, private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Pido, cannot conclusively
claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the 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 which contained the Declaration of
Heirship with Waiver of rights and was annotated at the back of the Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) to the land in question.

This said notice, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent's ownership over the
tenanted lot. The Court emphasized that while the existence of said adverse claim was duly proven,
there was no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between the parties transferring
the rights in favor of private respondent. An adverse claim cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the
OCT to the land and title the same in private respondent's name.