017-acap v ca (1995)

Upload: evreynoso

Post on 01-Jun-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/9/2019 017-Acap v CA (1995)

    1/5

    FIRST DIVISION

    G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995

    TEODORO ACAP, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS an ED! DE LOS RE!ES, respondents.

    PAD"LLA, J.:

    This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, nd Division, in CA!".R. No. #$%&&,which affir'ed the decision # of the Re(ional Trial Court of )i'a'a*lan, Ne(ros Occidental holdin( that privaterespondent +d* de los Re*es had ac uired ownership of -ot No. %%# of the Cadastral Surve* of )ini(aran,Ne(ros Occidental /ased on a docu'ent entitled 0Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts0, and orderin( thedispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the land for failure to pa* rentals.

    The facts of the case are as follows2

    The title to -ot No. %%# of the Cadastral Surve* of )ini(aran, Ne(ros Occidental was evidenced /* OCT No. R!% %&3. The lot has anarea of %#,& s . 'eters. The title was issued and is re(istered in the na'e of spouses Santia(o Vas ue4 and -oren4a Oru'a. After/oth spouses died, their onl* son Feli5/erto inherited the lot. In %3&6, Feli5/erto e5ecuted a dul* notari4ed docu'ent entitled0Declaration of )eirship and Deed of A/solute Sale0 in favor of Cos'e 7ido.

    The evidence /efore the court a quo esta/lished that since %3$ , petitioner Teodoro Acap had /een the tenant of a portion of the saidland, coverin( an area of nine thousand five hundred 83,6 9 'eters. 1hen ownership was transferred in %3&6 /* Feli5/erto to Cos'e7ido, Acap continued to /e the re(istered tenant thereof and reli(iousl* paid his leasehold rentals to 7ido and thereafter, upon 7ido:sdeath, to his widow -aurenciana.

    The controvers* /e(an when 7ido died intestate and on & Nove'/er %3;%, his survivin( heirs e5ecuted a notari4ed docu'ent

    deno'inated as 0Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts of -ot No. %%# )ini(aran Cadastre,0 wherein the* declared< to uote itspertinent portions, that2

    . . . Cos'e 7ido died in the =unicipalit* of )ini(aran, Ne(ros Occidental, he died intestate and without an* >nownde/ts and o/li(ations which the said parcel of land is 8 sic 9 held lia/le.

    That Cos'e 7ido was survived /* his?her le(iti'ate heirs, na'el*2 -A@R+NCIANA 7IDO, wife, +- , +RVIN,+-=+R, and +-+C)OR all surna'ed 7IDO< childrenin( the provision of Section %, Rule &B of the Rules of Court, the a/ove!'entioned heirs do here/*declare unto sic ourselves the onl* heirs of the late Cos'e 7ido and that we here/* adEudicate unto ourselves thea/ove!'entioned parcel of land in e ual shares.

    Now, therefore, 1e -A@R+NCIANA $ , +- , +-=+R, +RVIN and +-+C)OR all surna'ed 7IDO, do

    hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of land infavor of +D D+ -OS R+ +S, of le(al a(e, 8f9ilipino, 'arried to VIR"INIA D+ -OS R+ +S, andresident of )ini(aran, Ne(ros Occidental, 7hilippines. . . . 4 8+'phasis supplied9

    The docu'ent was si(ned /* all of 7ido:s heirs. 7rivate respondent +d* de los Re*es did not si(n said docu'ent.

    It will /e noted that at the ti'e of Cos'e 7ido:s death, title to the propert* continued to /e re(istered in the na'e of the Vas ue4spouses. @pon o/tainin( the Declaration of )eirship with 1aiver of Ri(hts in his favor, private respondent +d* de los Re*es filed thesa'e with the Re(istr* of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claim a(ainst the ori(inal certificate of title.

  • 8/9/2019 017-Acap v CA (1995)

    2/5

    Thereafter, private respondent sou(ht for petitioner 8Acap9 to personall* infor' hi' that he 8+d*9 had /eco'e the new owner of theland and that the lease rentals thereon should /e paid to hi'. 7rivate respondent further alle(ed that he and petitioner entered into anoral lease a(ree'ent wherein petitioner a(reed to pa* ten 8% 9 cavans of pala* per annum as lease rental. In %3; , petitioneralle(edl* co'plied with said o/li(ation. In %3;#, however, petitioner refused to pa* an* further lease rentals on the land, pro'ptin(private respondent to see> the assistance of the then =inistr* of A(rarian Refor' 8=AR9 in )ini(aran, Ne(ros Occidental. The =ARinvited petitioner to a conference scheduled on %# Octo/er %3;#. 7etitioner did not attend the conference /ut sent his wife instead tothe conference. Durin( the 'eetin(, an officer of the =inistr* infor'ed Acap:s wife a/out private respondent:s ownership of the saidland /ut she stated that she and her hus/and 8Teodoro9 did not reco(ni4e private respondent:s clai' of ownership over the land.

    On ; April %3;;, after the lapse of four 8B9 *ears, private respondent filed a co'plaint for recover* of possession and da'a(esa(ainst petitioner, alle(in( in the 'ain that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pa* the a(reed annual rental of ten8% 9 cavans of pala* despite repeated de'ands.

    Durin( the trial /efore the court a quo , petitioner reiterated his refusal to reco(ni4e private respondent:s ownership over the su/Eectland. )e averred that he continues to reco(ni4e Cos'e 7ido as the owner of the said land, and havin( /een a re(istered tenanttherein since %3$ , he never rene(ed on his rental o/li(ations. 1hen 7ido died, he continued to pa* rentals to 7ido:s widow. 1hen thelatter left for a/road, she instructed hi' to sta* in the landholdin( and to pa* the accumulated rentals upon her de'and or return f ro'a/road.

    7etitioner further clai'ed /efore the trial court that he had no >nowled(e a/out an* transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent in%3;% and even the followin( *ear after -aurenciana:s departure for a/road. )e denied havin( entered into a ver/al lease tenanc*contract with private respondent and that assu'in( that the said lot was indeed sold to private respondent without his >nowled(e, R.A.#;BB, as a'ended, (rants hi' the ri(ht to redee' the sa'e at a reasona/le price. 7etitioner also /ewailed private respondent:seEect'ent action as a violation of his ri(ht to securit* of tenure under 7.D. &.

    On Au(ust %33%, the lower court rendered a decis ion in favor of private respondent, the dispositive part of which reads2

    1)+R+FOR+, pre'ises considered, the Court renders Eud('ent in favor of the plaintiff, +d* de los Re*es, anda(ainst the defendant, Teodoro Acap, orderin( the followin(, to wit2

    %. Declarin( forfeiture of defendant:s preferred ri(ht to issuance of a Certificate of -and Transfer under 7residentialDecree No. & and his far'holdin(sewise passed on their ownership of -ot %%# to herein plaintiff 8privaterespondent9. As owner hereof, plaintiff has the ri(ht to de'and pa*'ent of rental and the tenant is o/li(ated to pa*rentals due fro' the ti'e de'and is 'ade. . . . %

    555 555 555

    Certainl*, the sale of the 7ido fa'il* of -ot %%# to herein plaintiff does not of itself e5tin(uish the relationship.There was onl* a chan(e of the personalit* of the lessor in the person of herein plaintiff +d* de los Re*es who/ein( the purchaser or transferee, assu'es the ri(hts and o/li(ations of the for'er landowner to the tenantTeodoro Acap, herein defendant. 7

    A((rieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, i'putin( error to the lower court when it ruled that private respondent ac uiredownership of -ot No. %%# and that he, as tenant, should pa* rentals to private respondent and that failin( to pa* the sa'e fro' %3;#to %3;&, his ri(ht to a certificate of land transfer under 7.D. & was dee'ed forfeited.

    The Court of Appeals /rushed aside petitioner:s ar(u'ent that the Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts 8+5hi/it 0D09, thedocu'ent relied upon /* private respondent to prove his ownership to the lot, was e5cluded /* the lower court in its order dated &

    Au(ust %33 . The order indeed noted that the docu'ent was not identified /* Cos'e 7ido:s heirs and was not re(istered with the

  • 8/9/2019 017-Acap v CA (1995)

    3/5

    Re(istr* of Deeds of Ne(ros Occidental. Accordin( to respondent court, however, since the Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver ofRi(hts appears to have /een dul* notari4ed, no further proof of its due e5ecution was necessar*. -i>e the trial court, respondent courtwas also convinced that the said docu'ent stands as prima facie proof of appellee:s 8private respondent:s9 ownership of the land indispute.

    1ith respect to its non!re(istration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual >nowled(e of the su/Eect sale of the land indispute to private respondent /ecause as earl* as %3;#, he 8petitioner9 alread* >new of private respondent:s clai' over the said land/ut which he thereafter denied, and that in %3; , he 8petitioner9 actuall* paid rent to private respondent. Otherwise stated, respondentcourt considered this fact of rental pa*'ent in %3; as estoppel on petitioner:s part to thereafter refute private respondent:s clai' ofownership over the said land. @nder these circu'stances, respondent court ruled that indeed there was deli/erate refusal /* petitioner to pa* rent for a continued period of five *ears that 'erited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred ri(ht to the issuance of a certificate ofland transfer.

    In the present petition, petitioner i'pu(ns the decision of the Court of Appeals as not in accord with the law and evidence when it rulesthat private respondent ac uired ownership of -ot No. %%# throu(h the afore'entioned Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts.

    )ence, the issues to /e resolved presentl* are the followin(2

    %. 1)+T)+R OR NOT T)+ S@ G+CT D+C-ARATION OF )+IRS)I7 AND 1AIV+R OF RI")TS IS AR+CO"NIH+D =OD+ OF AC @IRIN" O1N+RS)I7 7RIVAT+ R+S7OND+NT OV+R T)+ -OT IN

    @+STION.

    . 1)+T)+R OR NOT T)+ SAID DOC@=+NT CAN + CONSID+R+D A D++D OF SA-+ IN FAVOR OF7RIVAT+ R+S7OND+NT OF T)+ -OT IN @+STION.

    7etitioner ar(ues that the Re(ional Trial Court, in its order dated & Au(ust %33 , e5plicitl* e5cluded the docu'ent 'ar>ed as +5hi/it0D0 8Declaration of )eirship, etc.9 as private respondent:s evidence /ecause it was not re(istered with the Re(istr* of Deeds and wasnot identified /* an*one of the heirs of Cos'e 7ido. The Court of Appeals, however, held the sa'e to /e ad'issi/le, it /ein( anotari4ed docu'ent, hence, a prima facie proof of private respondents: ownership of the lot to which it refers.

    7etitioner points out that the Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts is not one of the reco(ni4ed 'odes of ac uirin( ownershipunder Article &% of the Civil Code. Neither can the sa'e /e considered a deed of sale so as to transfer ownership of the land toprivate respondent /ecause no consideration is stated in the contract 8assu'in( it is a contract or deed of sale9.

    7rivate respondent defends the decision of respondent Court of Appeals as in accord with the evidence and the law. )e posits thatwhile it 'a* indeed /e true that the trial court e5cluded his +5hi/it 0D0 which is the Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts as partof his evidence, the trial court declared hi' nonetheless owner of the su/Eect lot /ased on other evidence adduced durin( the trial,na'el*, the notice of adverse clai' 8+5hi/it 0+09 dul* re(istered /* hi' with the Re(istr* of Deeds, which contains the uestionedDeclaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts as an inte(ral part thereof.

    1e find the petition i'pressed with 'erit.

    In the first place, an asserted ri(ht or clai' to ownership or a real ri(ht over a thin( arisin( fro' a Euridical act, however Eustified, isnot per se sufficient to (ive rise to ownership over the res . That ri(ht or title 'ust /e co'pleted /* fulfillin( certain conditions i'posed/* law. )ence, ownership and real ri(hts are ac uired onl* pursuant to a le(al 'ode or process. 1hile title is the Euridical Eustification,'ode is the actual process of ac uisition or transfer of ownership over a thin( in uestion. 8

    @nder Article &% of the Civil Code, the 'odes of ac uirin( ownership are (enerall* classified into two 8 9 classes , na'el*, the original mode 8i .e ., throu(h occupation, ac uisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation9 and the derivative mode 8i .e ., throu(hsuccession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, /arter, donation, assi(n'ent or 'utuu'9.

    In the case at /ench, the trial court was o/viousl* confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver ofRi(hts, e uatin( the sa'e with a contract 8deed9 of sale. The* are not the sa'e.

    In a Contract of Sale, one of the contractin( parties o/li(ates hi'self to transfer the ownership 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 waiver of ri(hts operates as a pu/lic instru'ent when filed with the Re(istr* ofDeeds where/* the intestate heirs adEudicate and divide the estate left /* the decedent a'on( the'selves as the* see fit. It is in effectan e5traEudicial settle'ent /etween the heirs under Rule &B of the Rules of Court. 1&

    )ence, there is a 'ar>ed difference /etween a sale of hereditar* ri(hts and a waiver of hereditar* ri(hts. The first presu'es the

  • 8/9/2019 017-Acap v CA (1995)

    4/5

    e5istence of a contract or deed of sale /etween the parties. 11 The second is, technicall* spea>in(, a 'ode of e5tinction ofownership where there is an a/dication or intentional relin uish'ent of a >nown ri(ht with >nowled(e of itse5istence and intention to relin uish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession . 1# 7rivaterespondent, /ein( then a stran(er to the succession of Cos'e 7ido, cannot conclusivel* clai' ownership over thesu/Eect lot on the sole /asis of the waiver docu'ent which neither recites the ele'ents of either a sale, 1$ or adonation, 14 or an* other derivative 'ode of ac uirin( ownership.

    uite surprisin(l*, /oth the trial court and pu/lic respondent Court of Appeals concluded that a 0sale0 transpired /etween Cos'e7ido:s heirs and private respondent and that petitioner ac uired actual >nowled(e of said sale when he was su''oned /* the =inistr*of A(rarian Refor' to discuss private respondent:s clai' over the lot in uestion. This conclusion has no /asis /oth in fact and in law.

    On record, +5hi/it 0D0, which is the 0Declaration of )eirship and 1aiver of Ri(hts0 was excluded /* the trial court in its order dated 27 August !!" /ecause the docu'ent was neither re(istered with the Re(istr* of Deeds nor identified /* the heirs of Cos'e 7ido. Thereis no showin( that private respondent had the sa'e docu'ent attached to or 'ade part of the record. 1hat the trial court ad'ittedwas Anne5 0+0, a notice of adverse clai' filed with the Re(istr* of Deeds which contained the Declaration of )eirship with 1aiver ofri(hts and was annotated at the /ac> of the Ori(inal Certificate of Title to the land in uestion.

    A notice of adverse clai', /* its nature, does not however prove private respondent:s ownership over the tenanted lot. 0A notice ofadverse clai' is nothin( /ut a notice of a clai' adverse to the re(istered owner, the validit* of which is *et to /e esta/lished in court atso'e future date, and is no /etter than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case alread* pendin( in court.0 15

    It is to /e noted that while the e5istence of said adverse clai' was dul* proven, there is no evidence whatsoever that a deed of salewas e5ecuted /etween Cos'e 7ido:s heirs and private respondent transferrin( the ri(hts of 7ido:s heirs to the land in favor of privaterespondent. 7rivate respondent:s ri(ht or interest therefore in the tenanted lot re'ains an adverse clai' which cannot /* itself /esufficient to cancel the OCT to the land and title the sa'e in private respondent:s na'e.

    Conse uentl*, while the transaction /etween 7ido:s heirs and private respondent 'a* /e /indin( on /oth parties, the ri(ht ofpetitioner as a re(istered tenant to the land cannot /e perfunctoril* forfeited on a 'ere alle(ation of private respondent:sownership without the correspondin( proof thereof.

    7etitioner had /een a re(istered tenant in the su/Eect land since %3$ and reli(iousl* paid lease rentals thereon. In his 'ind, hecontinued to /e the re(istered tenant of Cos'e 7ido and his fa'il* 8after 7ido:s death9, even if in %3; , private respondent alle(edl*infor'ed petitioner that he had /eco'e the new owner of the land.

    @nder the circu'stances, petitioner 'a* have, in (ood faith, assu'ed such state'ent of private respondent to /e true and 'a* havein fact delivered % cavans of pala* as annual rental for %3; to private respondent. ut in %3;#, it is clear that petitioner had'is(ivin(s over private respondent:s clai' of ownership over the said land /ecause in the Octo/er %3;# =AR conference, his wife

    -aurenciana cate(oricall* denied all of private respondent:s alle(ations. In fact, petitioner even secured a certificate fro' the =ARdated 3 =a* %3;; to the effect that he continued to /e the re(istered tenant of Cos'e 7ido and not of private respondent. The reasonis that private respondent never registered the Declaration of )eirship with 1aiver of Ri(hts with the Re(istr* of Deeds or with the=AR. Instead, he 8private respondent9 sou(ht to do indirectl* what could not /e done directl*, i .e ., file a notice of adverse claim on thesaid lot to establish ownership thereover .

    It stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there was no un#ustified or deliberate refusal /* petitioner to pa* the lease rentals ora'orti4ations to the landowner?a(ricultural lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to esta/lish in his favor /* clear andconvincin( evidence. 1%

    Conse uentl*, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred ri(ht to /e issued a Certificate of -and Transfer under 7.D. & and to thepossession of his far'holdin(s should not /e applied a(ainst petitioners, since private respondent has not esta/lished a cause ofaction for recover* of possession a(ainst petitioner.

    1)+R+FOR+, pre'ises considered, the Court here/* "RANTS the petition and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated % =a*%33B which affir'ed the decision of the RTC of )i'a'a*lan, Ne(ros Occidental dated Au(ust %33% is here/* S+T ASID+. Theprivate respondent:s co'plaint for recover* of possession and da'a(es a(ainst petitioner Acap is here/* DIS=ISS+D for failure toproperl* state a cause of action, without preEudice to private respondent ta>in( the proper le(al steps to esta/lish the le(al 'ode /*which he clai's to have ac uired ownership of the land in uestion.

    SO ORD+R+D.

    Davide, $r%, &ellosillo, 'apunan and (ermosisima, $r%, $$%, concur%

    Foo'no'e(

  • 8/9/2019 017-Acap v CA (1995)

    5/5

    % 7enned /* 7urisi'a, $ ., Chair'an, with Isnani, $%and I/a*!So'era, $%concurrin(.

    7enned /* +5ecutive Gud(e Gose A(uirre, Gr.

    # The RTC decision used the na'e -u4vi'inda. The CA used the na'e -audenciana.

    B Anne5 A, 7etition< )ollo , p. %B.

    6 Anne5 0D0, 7etition )ollo , p. 3.

    $ *bid ., p. &.

    &*bid ., p. ;.

    ; Re*es, An Outline of 7hilippine Civil -aw, Vol. II p. .

    3 Article %B6;, Civil Code.

    % 7aul'itos v. CA, ".R. No. $%6;B, Nov. 6, %33 , %6 SCRA ;$&, ;$;< @/eras v. CFI of Ne(ros, ".R. No. B B;,Octo/er # , %3&;, ;$ SCRA %B6, %B&< A/rasia v. Carian, ".R. No. 36% , Octo/er #%, %36&.

    %%See A(uirre v. Atien4a, ".R. No. -!% $$6, Au(. # , %36;< =ari v. onilla, ".R. No. ;6 , =arch %3, %3B3< Ro/lesv. CA, $B&B3B ;# SCRA %;%, %; , =a* %6, %3&;.

    % See orro'eo )errera v. orro'eo, ".R. No. -!B%%&%, Gul* #, %3;&, %6 SCRA %&%.

    %# See note % ! supra .

    %B Osorio v. Osorio and nchausti Stea'ship Co. No. %$6BB, =arch , %3 %.

    %6 So'es v. "overn'ent of the 7hilippines, No. B &6B, Octo/er # , %3#6.$ 7hil. B# .

    %$ See -aureto v. CA, ".R. No. 36;#;, Au(ust &, %33 , % SCRA #3&. Cuno v. CA, ".R. -!$ 3;6, April , %3;B,% ; SCRA 6$&.