Case Digest

GR No.
118114; December 07, 1995

TEODORO ACAP v. CA
PADILLA, J.:
DOCTRINE: The case was dismissed due to failure having proper state a cause of
action, without prejudice to private respondent taking proper legal steps as essential
elements stated that for validity absence of any essential elements negates the
existence of a perfected contract of sale even when earnest money has been done and
also under Article 1475 meeting of the minds is important to make the ownership
transfer.
FACTS: After both spouses died, their only son Felixberto, inherited from his parents a
lot. He executed a duly notarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed
of Absolute Sale" in favor of Pido. When ownership was transferred, Acap continued to
be the tenant of apportion 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 informed Acap that, as the
new owner, the lease rentals should be paid to him 10 cavan of rice. When petitioner
refused and failed to pay any further lease rentals after repeated demands, he filed a
complaint for recovery of possession and damages. The lower court rendered a
decision in favor of private respondent which was eventually affirmed by the Court of
Appeals (CA).
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” is a recognized mode of
acquiring ownership by private respondent over a lot in question.
(2) Whether the said document can be considered a deed of sale in favor of private
respondent of the lot in question.
RULLING:
In a Contract of Sale, is a contract or agreement wherein one party obligates himself to
transfer ownership and to deliver a determinate thing to the other party and the
buyer/purchaser obligates himself to pay the certain price 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. 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.
Quite surprisingly, both the trial court and public respondent Court of Appeals concluded
that a "sale" transpired between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent and that
petitioner acquired actual knowledge of said sale when he was summoned by the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform to discuss private respondent's claim over the lot in
question. This conclusion has no basis both in fact and in law.
A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered
owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is
no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in
court.
It is to be noted that while the existence of said adverse claim was duly proven, there is
no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between Cosme Pido's heirs
and private respondent transferring the rights of Pido's heirs to the land in favor of
private respondent. Private respondent's right or interest therefore in the tenanted lot
remains an adverse claim which cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the
land and title the same in private respondent's name.
Consequently, while the transaction between Pido's heirs and private respondent may
be binding on both parties, the right of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land
cannot be perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership
without the corresponding proof thereof.

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No.

118114; December 07, 1995

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.