Topic: Article 712, NCC; In General
1. ACAP vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 118114 (1995)
DOCTRINE:
Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first
presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a
mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with
knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the
succession. Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim
ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the elements of
either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
FACTS:
Lot No. 1130 was registered in the name of Sps. Santiago Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma. 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.
Since 1960, petitioner Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land (9,500 sqm.). When
ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof
and religiously paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon Pido's death, to his widow Laurenciana.
The controversy began when Pido died intestate and on 27 November 1981, his surviving heirs executed a
notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran
Cadastre" in favor of private respondent Edy delos Reyes. The document was signed by all of Pido's heirs. Private
respondent did not sign said document.
It will be noted that at the time of Cosme Pido's death, title to the property continued to be registered in the name
of the Vasquez spouses. Upon obtaining the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights in his favor, private
respondent Edy de los Reyes filed the same with the Registry of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse
claimagainst the original certificate of title.
Thereafter, private respondent sought for Acap to personally inform him that he had become the new owner of the
land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Private respondent further alleged that he and
petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement wherein petitioner agreed to pay 10 cavans of palay per annum as
lease rental. In 1982, petitioner allegedly complied with said obligation.
In 1983, however, petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals on the land, prompting private respondent to
seek the assistance of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The MAR invited
petitioner to a but petitioner did not attend the conference but sent his wife instead to the conference. During the
meeting, an officer of the Ministry informed Acap's wife about private respondent's ownership of the said land but
she stated that she and her husband did not recognize private respondent's claim of ownership over the land.
On 28 April 1988, after the lapse of 4 years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and
damages against petitioner, alleging in the main that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay
the agreed annual rental of 10 cavans of palay despite repeated demands. The lower court rendered a decision in
favor of private respondent. It ordered herein petitioner to deliver possession of said farm to the private
respondent. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” is a recognized mode of acquiring ownership by
private respondent over the lot in question - NO. Petition is Granted. CA Decision is SET ASIDE.
RATIO:
In the first place, an asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act,
however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be
completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired only
pursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of
acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question.
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes,
namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and
thederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale,
barter, donation, assignment or mutuum). In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the
nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed) of
sale. They are not the same.
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. Upon the other hand, 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.
It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first
presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a
mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with
knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the
succession. Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim
ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the elements of
either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
