Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

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

PAD#LLA, J.:
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision 1 of the !ourt of "ppeals, #nd Division, in !"$%.R. No. &'()), hich
affir*ed the decision $ of the Re+ional Trial !ourt of ,i*a*a-lan, Ne+ros Occidental holdin+ that private respondent .d- de los
Re-es had ac/uired onership of 0ot No. ((&1 of the !adastral Surve- of ,ini+aran, Ne+ros Occidental based on a docu*ent
entitled 2Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts2, and orderin+ the dispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the
land for failure to pa- rentals.
The facts of the case are as follos4
The title to 0ot No. ((&1 of the !adastral Surve- of ,ini+aran, Ne+ros Occidental as evidenced b- O!T No. R$(#()5. The lot
has an area of (&,)#1 s/. *eters. The title as issued and is re+istered in the na*e of spouses Santia+o Vas/ue6 and 0oren6a
Oru*a. "fter both spouses died, their onl- son Feli7berto inherited the lot. In (5)8, Feli7berto e7ecuted a dul- notari6ed docu*ent
entitled 2Declaration of ,eirship and Deed of "bsolute Sale2 in favor of !os*e Pido.
The evidence before the court a quo established that since (5'1, petitioner Teodoro "cap had been the tenant of a portion of the
said land, coverin+ an area of nine thousand five hundred 95,811: *eters. 3hen onership as transferred in (5)8 b- Feli7berto
to !os*e Pido, "cap continued to be the re+istered tenant thereof and reli+iousl- paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and
thereafter, upon Pido;s death, to his ido 0aurenciana.
The controvers- be+an hen Pido died intestate and on #) Nove*ber (5<(, his survivin+ heirs e7ecuted a notari6ed docu*ent
deno*inated as 2Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts of 0ot No. ((&1 ,ini+aran !adastre,2 herein the- declared= to
/uote its pertinent portions, that4
. . . !os*e Pido died in the Municipalit- of ,ini+aran, Ne+ros Occidental, he died intestate and ithout an- >non
debts and obli+ations hich the said parcel of land is 9sic: held liable.
That !os*e Pido as survived b- his?her le+iti*ate heirs, na*el-4 0"@R.N!I"N" PIDO, ife, .0A, .RVIN,
.0M.R, and .0.!,OR all surna*ed PIDO= children=
That invo>in+ the provision of Section (, Rule )B of the Rules of !ourt, the above$*entioned heirs do hereb-
declare unto CsicD ourselves the onl- heirs of the late !os*e Pido and that e hereb- adEudicate unto ourselves
the above$*entioned parcel of land in e/ual shares.
No, therefore, 3e 0"@R.N!I"N" %, .0A, .0M.R, .RVIN and .0.!,OR all surna*ed PIDO, do hereby
waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of land in favor of .DA D. 0OS
R.A.S, of le+al a+e, 9f:ilipino, *arried to VIR%INI" D. 0OS R.A.S, and resident of ,ini+aran, Ne+ros
Occidental, Philippines. . . . 4 9.*phasis supplied:
The docu*ent as si+ned b- all of Pido;s heirs. Private respondent .d- de los Re-es did not si+n said docu*ent.
It ill be noted that at the ti*e of !os*e Pido;s death, title to the propert- continued to be re+istered in the na*e of the Vas/ue6
spouses. @pon obtainin+ the Declaration of ,eirship ith 3aiver of Ri+hts in his favor, private respondent .d- de los Re-es filed
the sa*e ith 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 9"cap: to personall- infor* hi* that he 9.d-: had beco*e the ne oner of
the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to hi*. Private respondent further alle+ed that he and petitioner entered
into an oral lease a+ree*ent herein petitioner a+reed to pa- ten 9(1: cavans of pala- per annum as lease rental. In (5<#,
petitioner alle+edl- co*plied ith said obli+ation. In (5<&, hoever, petitioner refused to pa- an- further lease rentals on the land,
pro*ptin+ private respondent to see> the assistance of the then Ministr- of "+rarian Refor* 9M"R: in ,ini+aran, Ne+ros
Occidental. The M"R invited petitioner to a conference scheduled on (& October (5<&. Petitioner did not attend the conference
but sent his ife instead to the conference. Durin+ the *eetin+, an officer of the Ministr- infor*ed "cap;s ife about private
respondent;s onership of the said land but she stated that she and her husband 9Teodoro: did not reco+ni6e private respondent;s
clai* of onership over the land.
On #< "pril (5<<, after the lapse of four 9B: -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 9(1: cavans of pala- despite repeated de*ands.
Durin+ the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to reco+ni6e private respondent;s onership over the
subEect land. ,e averred that he continues to reco+ni6e !os*e Pido as the oner of the said land, and havin+ been a re+istered
tenant therein since (5'1, he never rene+ed on his rental obli+ations. 3hen Pido died, he continued to pa- rentals to Pido;s
ido. 3hen the latter left for abroad, she instructed hi* to sta- in the landholdin+ and to pa- the accumulated rentals upon her
de*and or return fro* abroad.
Petitioner further clai*ed before the trial court that he had no >noled+e about an- transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent
in (5<( and even the folloin+ -ear after 0aurenciana;s departure for abroad. ,e denied havin+ entered into a verbal lease
tenanc- contract ith private respondent and that assu*in+ that the said lot as indeed sold to private respondent ithout his
>noled+e, R.". &<BB, as a*ended, +rants hi* the ri+ht to redee* the sa*e at a reasonable price. Petitioner also beailed
private respondent;s eEect*ent action as a violation of his ri+ht to securit- of tenure under P.D. #).
On #1 "u+ust (55(, the loer court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, the dispositive part of hich reads4
3,.R.FOR., pre*ises considered, the !ourt renders Eud+*ent in favor of the plaintiff, .d- de los Re-es, and
a+ainst the defendant, Teodoro "cap, orderin+ the folloin+, to it4
(. Declarin+ forfeiture of defendant;s preferred ri+ht to issuance of a !ertificate of 0and Transfer under
Presidential Decree No. #) and his far*holdin+s=
#. Orderin+ the defendant Teodoro "cap to deliver possession of said far* to plaintiff, and=
&. Orderin+ the defendant to pa- P8,111.11 as attorne-;s fees, the su* of P(,111.11 as e7penses of liti+ation and
the a*ount of P(1,111.11 as actual da*a+es. 5
In arrivin+ at the above$*entioned Eud+*ent, the trial court stated that the evidence had established that the subEect land as
2sold2 b- the heirs of !os*e Pido to private respondent. This is clear fro* the folloin+ dis/uisitions contained in the trial court;s
si7 9': pa+e decision4
There is no doubt that defendant is a re+istered tenant of !os*e Pido. ,oever, hen the latter died their
tenanc- relations chan+ed since onership of said land as passed on to his heirs ho, b- e7ecutin+ a Deed of
Sale, hich defendant ad*itted in his affidavit, li>eise passed on their onership of 0ot ((&1 to herein plaintiff
9private respondent:. "s oner hereof, plaintiff has the ri+ht to de*and pa-*ent of rental and the tenant is
obli+ated to pa- rentals due fro* the ti*e de*and is *ade. . . . &
777 777 777
!ertainl-, the sale of the Pido fa*il- of 0ot ((&1 to herein plaintiff does not of itself e7tin+uish the relationship.
There as onl- a chan+e of the personalit- of the lessor in the person of herein plaintiff .d- de los Re-es ho
bein+ the purchaser or transferee, assu*es the ri+hts and obli+ations of the for*er landoner to the tenant
Teodoro "cap, herein defendant. 7
"++rieved, petitioner appealed to the !ourt of "ppeals, i*putin+ error to the loer court hen it ruled that private respondent
ac/uired onership of 0ot No. ((&1 and that he, as tenant, should pa- rentals to private respondent and that failin+ to pa- the
sa*e fro* (5<& to (5<), his ri+ht to a certificate of land transfer under P.D. #) as dee*ed forfeited.
The !ourt of "ppeals brushed aside petitioner;s ar+u*ent that the Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts 9.7hibit 2D2:, the
docu*ent relied upon b- private respondent to prove his onership to the lot, as e7cluded b- the loer court in its order dated
#) "u+ust (551. The order indeed noted that the docu*ent as not identified b- !os*e Pido;s heirs and as not re+istered ith
the Re+istr- of Deeds of Ne+ros Occidental. "ccordin+ to respondent court, hoever, since the Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver
of Ri+hts appears to have been dul- notari6ed, no further proof of its due e7ecution as necessar-. 0i>e the trial court, respondent
court as also convinced that the said docu*ent stands as prima facie proof of appellee;s 9private respondent;s: ownership of the
land in dispute.
3ith respect to its non$re+istration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual >noled+e of the subEect sale of the land in
dispute to private respondent because as earl- as (5<&, he 9petitioner: alread- >ne of private respondent;s clai* over the said
land but hich he thereafter denied, and that in (5<#, he 9petitioner: actuall- paid rent to private respondent. Otherise stated,
respondent court considered this fact of rental pa-*ent in (5<# as estoppel on petitioner;s part to thereafter refute private
respondent;s clai* of onership over the said land. @nder these circu*stances, respondent court ruled that indeed there as
deliberate refusal b- petitioner to pa- rent for a continued period of five -ears that *erited forfeiture of his otherise preferred ri+ht
to the issuance of a certificate of land transfer.
In the present petition, petitioner i*pu+ns the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals as not in accord ith the la and evidence hen it
rules that private respondent ac/uired onership of 0ot No. ((&1 throu+h the afore*entioned Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver
of Ri+hts.
,ence, the issues to be resolved presentl- are the folloin+4
(. 3,.T,.R OR NOT T,. S@FG.!T D.!0"R"TION OF ,.IRS,IP "ND 3"IV.R OF RI%,TS IS "
R.!O%NIH.D MOD. OF "!I@IRIN% O3N.RS,IP FA PRIV"T. R.SPOND.NT OV.R T,. 0OT IN
I@.STION.
#. 3,.T,.R OR NOT T,. S"ID DO!@M.NT !"N F. !ONSID.R.D " D..D OF S"0. IN F"VOR OF
PRIV"T. R.SPOND.NT OF T,. 0OT IN I@.STION.
Petitioner ar+ues that the Re+ional Trial !ourt, in its order dated ) "u+ust (551, e7plicitl- e7cluded the docu*ent *ar>ed as
.7hibit 2D2 9Declaration of ,eirship, etc.: as private respondent;s evidence because it as not re+istered ith the Re+istr- of
Deeds and as not identified b- an-one of the heirs of !os*e Pido. The !ourt of "ppeals, hoever, held the sa*e to be
ad*issible, it bein+ a notari6ed docu*ent, hence, a prima facie proof of private respondents; onership of the lot to hich it
refers.
Petitioner points out that the Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts is not one of the reco+ni6ed *odes of ac/uirin+
onership under "rticle )(# of the !ivil !ode. Neither can the sa*e be considered a deed of sale so as to transfer onership of
the land to private respondent because no consideration is stated in the contract 9assu*in+ it is a contract or deed of sale:.
Private respondent defends the decision of respondent !ourt of "ppeals as in accord ith the evidence and the la. ,e posits that
hile it *a- indeed be true that the trial court e7cluded his .7hibit 2D2 hich is the Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts as
part of his evidence, the trial court declared hi* nonetheless oner of the subEect lot based on other evidence adduced durin+ the
trial, na*el-, the notice of adverse clai* 9.7hibit 2.2: dul- re+istered b- hi* ith the Re+istr- of Deeds, hich contains the
/uestioned Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts as an inte+ral part thereof.
3e find the petition i*pressed ith *erit.
In the first place, an asserted ri+ht or clai* to onership or a real ri+ht over a thin+ arisin+ fro* a Euridical act, hoever Eustified, is
not per se sufficient to +ive rise to onership over the res. That ri+ht or title *ust be co*pleted b- fulfillin+ certain conditions
i*posed b- la. ,ence, onership and real ri+hts are ac/uired onl- pursuant to a le+al *ode or process. 3hile title is the Euridical
Eustification, *ode is the actual process of ac/uisition or transfer of onership over a thin+ in /uestion. 8
@nder "rticle )(# of the !ivil !ode, the *odes of ac/uirin+ onership are +enerall- classified into to 9#: classes, na*el-,
the original mode 9i.e., throu+h occupation, ac/uisitive prescription, la or intellectual creation: and thederivative mode 9i.e.,
throu+h succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assi+n*ent or
*utuu*:.
In the case at bench, the trial court as obviousl- confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver
of Ri+hts, e/uatin+ the sa*e ith a contract 9deed: of sale. The- are not the sa*e.
In a !ontract of Sale, one of the contractin+ parties obli+ates hi*self to transfer the onership 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 aiver of ri+hts operates as a public instru*ent hen filed ith the Re+istr- of
Deeds hereb- the intestate heirs adEudicate and divide the estate left b- the decedent a*on+ the*selves as the- see fit. It is in
effect an e7traEudicial settle*ent beteen the heirs under Rule )B of the Rules of !ourt. 1'
,ence, there is a *ar>ed difference beteen a sale of hereditar- ri+hts and a waiver of hereditar- ri+hts. The first presu*es the
e7istence of a contract or deed of sale beteen the parties. 11 The second is, technicall- spea>in+, a *ode of e7tinction of
onership here there is an abdication or intentional relin/uish*ent of a >non ri+ht ith >noled+e of its e7istence and intention
to relin/uish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. 1$ Private respondent, bein+ then a stran+er to the
succession of !os*e Pido, cannot conclusivel- clai* onership over the subEect lot on the sole basis of the aiver docu*ent
hich neither recites the ele*ents of either a sale, 1% or a donation, 14 or an- other derivative *ode of ac/uirin+ onership.
Iuite surprisin+l-, both the trial court and public respondent !ourt of "ppeals concluded that a 2sale2 transpired beteen !os*e
Pido;s heirs and private respondent and that petitioner ac/uired actual >noled+e of said sale hen he as su**oned b- the
Ministr- of "+rarian Refor* to discuss private respondent;s clai* over the lot in /uestion. This conclusion has no basis both in fact
and in la.
On record, .7hibit 2D2, hich is the 2Declaration of ,eirship and 3aiver of Ri+hts2 as excluded b- the trial court in its order
dated 27 August !!" because the docu*ent as neither re+istered ith the Re+istr- of Deeds nor identified b- the heirs of
!os*e Pido. There is no shoin+ that private respondent had the sa*e docu*ent attached to or *ade part of the record. 3hat
the trial court ad*itted as "nne7 2.2, a notice of adverse clai* filed ith the Re+istr- of Deeds hich contained the Declaration
of ,eirship ith 3aiver of ri+hts and as annotated at the bac> of the Ori+inal !ertificate of Title to the land in /uestion.
" notice of adverse clai*, b- its nature, does not hoever prove private respondent;s onership over the tenanted lot. 2" notice of
adverse clai* is nothin+ but a notice of a clai* adverse to the re+istered oner, the validit- of hich is -et to be established in
court at so*e future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendenshich is a notice of a case alread- pendin+ in court.2 15
It is to be noted that hile the e7istence of said adverse clai* as dul- proven, there is no evidence hatsoever that a deed of
sale as e7ecuted beteen !os*e Pido;s heirs and private respondent transferrin+ the ri+hts of Pido;s heirs to the land in favor of
private respondent. Private respondent;s ri+ht or interest therefore in the tenanted lot re*ains an adverse clai* hich cannot b-
itself be sufficient to cancel the O!T to the land and title the sa*e in private respondent;s na*e.
!onse/uentl-, hile the transaction beteen Pido;s heirs and private respondent *a- be bindin+ on both parties, the ri+ht
of petitioner as a re+istered tenant to the land cannot be perfunctoril- forfeited on a *ere alle+ation of private
respondent;s onership ithout the correspondin+ proof thereof.
Petitioner had been a re+istered tenant in the subEect land since (5'1 and reli+iousl- paid lease rentals thereon. In his *ind, he
continued to be the re+istered tenant of !os*e Pido and his fa*il- 9after Pido;s death:, even if in (5<#, private respondent
alle+edl- infor*ed petitioner that he had beco*e the ne oner of the land.
@nder the circu*stances, petitioner *a- have, in +ood faith, assu*ed such state*ent of private respondent to be true and *a-
have in fact delivered (1 cavans of pala- as annual rental for (5<# to private respondent. Fut in (5<&, it is clear that petitioner had
*is+ivin+s over private respondent;s clai* of onership over the said land because in the October (5<& M"R conference, his ife
0aurenciana cate+oricall- denied all of private respondent;s alle+ations. In fact, petitioner even secured a certificate fro* the M"R
dated 5 Ma- (5<< to the effect that he continued to be the re+istered tenant of !os*e Pido and not of private respondent. The
reason is that private respondent never registered the Declaration of ,eirship ith 3aiver of Ri+hts ith the Re+istr- of Deeds or
ith the M"R. Instead, he 9private respondent: sou+ht to do indirectl- hat could not be done directl-, i.e., file a notice of adverse
claim on the said lot to establish ownership thereover.
It stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there as no un#ustified or deliberate refusal b- petitioner to pa- the lease rentals or
a*orti6ations to the landoner?a+ricultural lessor hich, in this case, private respondent failed to establish in his favor b- clear
and convincin+ evidence. 1&
!onse/uentl-, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred ri+ht to be issued a !ertificate of 0and Transfer under P.D. #) and to the
possession of his far*holdin+s should not be applied a+ainst petitioners, since private respondent has not established a cause of
action for recover- of possession a+ainst petitioner.
3,.R.FOR., pre*ises considered, the !ourt hereb- %R"NTS the petition and the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals dated (
Ma- (55B hich affir*ed the decision of the RT! of ,i*a*a-lan, Ne+ros Occidental dated #1 "u+ust (55( is hereb- S.T "SID..
The private respondent;s co*plaint for recover- of possession and da*a+es a+ainst petitioner "cap is hereb- DISMISS.D for
failure to properl- state a cause of action, ithout preEudice to private respondent ta>in+ the proper le+al steps to establish the
le+al *ode b- hich he clai*s to have ac/uired onership of the land in /uestion.
SO ORD.R.D.