Acap v Court of Appeals

• Ownership. Vasquez->Son->Pido->Heirs-> Edy de los Reyyes. Title to

Lot 1130 of Cadastral Survey (13,720 meters) of Hinigran, Negros Occidental
was issued and registered in the name of spouses Santiago Vasquez and
Lorenzo Oruma.

They died and their only son Felixberto inherited the lot.

In 1975, Felixberto sold the land to Cosme Pido.

• Tenant. Since 1960, Acap was tenant of a portion of the land (9,500 meters).
When ownership was transferred in 1975, Acap continued to be the
registered tenant and religiously paid his rentals to Pido, and after his death,
to his widow Laurencia.

Pido died intestate and his surviving heirs (wife and four children) executed a
document (Declaration of heirship with waiver of rights), adjudicating the
land equally amongst themselves, and waiving all their rights in favor of Edy
de los Santos. Edy however did not sign the document.

• Controversy. The title continued to be registered in the name of the

Vasquez spouses. Upon obtaining the Declaration of Heirship with waiver of
rights, Edy filed a it with the Registry of Deeds as part of a notice of adverse
claim against the original certificate of title.

• Alleged new agreement. Edy told Acap personally he was the new owner
of the land and that the lease rentals (10 cavans of palay per annum) were
to be paid to him. Allegedly, Acap agreed and complied. In 1983 however,
Acap refused to pay any further lease rentals, prompting private respondent
to get the assistant of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. A MAR officer
informed Acap’s wife about Edy’s ownership, but she said she and her
husband did not recognize the ownership over the land.

• Complaint. After four years, Edy filed a complaint for recovery of possession
and damages against Acap, as he refused to pay agreed rentals.

• Petitioner’s version. Cosme Pido was the owner of the land and after his
death he paid to Pido’s widow. When she left for abroad, she instructed him
to pay accumulated rentals upon her demand or return from abroad. He said
he had no knowledge of transfer or sale of the loat to private respondent or
entering a verbal lease tenancy. He also said assuming the lot was stolen, RA
3844 granted him the right to redeem at a reasonable price. Edy’s ejectment
action was also a violation of his security of tenure.
• Trial Court. Decided in favor of Edy. It forfeited Acap’s preferred right under
PD 27 and ordered Acap to deliver the farm to Edy. The land was indeed sold
by heirs of Pido to Edy.

• Court of Appeals. Declaration of heirship and waiver was duly notarized.

Issue:

Was the declaration of heirship a recognized mode of acquiring ownership?

No. The Declaration of Heirship was not the same as a contract/deed of sale. In a
contract of sale, one party obligates himself to transfer ownership and to deliver
a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a certain price. A declaration of
heirship and waiver of rights operates as a private instrument when filed with
the Registry of Deeds. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement. There is a
difference between sale of hereditary rights and waiver. The first presumes a
deed of sale. The seond is a mode of extinction of ownrership.

Edy, being a stranger to the sucession of Cosme Pido cannot conclusively claim
ownership on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the
elements of a sale, donation or any other derivative mode of acquiring
ownership.

The fact that the adverse claim was duly proven does not prove ownership. It is
nothing but a notice of adverse claim. In itself is not sufficient to transfer title to
Edy de los Reyes.

Held: Petition granted.