Title
Acap vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 118114
Decision Date
Dec 7, 1995
Dispute over Lot No. 1130 ownership: heirs' waiver deemed insufficient for transfer; tenant Acap retains rights due to lack of valid ownership proof by claimant.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 118114)

Land and Title History

Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. R-12179) named the Vasquez spouses. Upon their deaths, their sole heir, Felixberto, inherited. In 1975, Felixberto executed a notarized “Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale” in favor of Cosme Pido. Since 1960, Acap had held a registered lease on 9,500 sqm of the 13,720 sqm lot.

Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights

On November 27, 1981, Cosme Pido’s surviving heirs executed a notarized “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” under Rule 74, formally waiving their interests in Lot No. 1130 in favor of Edy de los Reyes. De los Reyes did not sign that waiver instrument but filed it with the Registry of Deeds as part of an adverse claim.

Tenant’s Relationship and Onset of Dispute

After Pido’s intestate death, Acap continued paying rent to Pido’s widow, Laurenciana, then ceased payments in 1983 upon refusal to recognize de los Reyes’s asserted ownership. De los Reyes demanded rent directly, alleged an oral lease at ten cavans of palay per annum, and sought Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) intervention in October 1983. Acap’s wife denied de los Reyes’s claim.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

On April 28, 1988, de los Reyes filed for recovery of possession and damages. In August 1991, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) held that de los Reyes acquired ownership via the heirs’ waiver and ordered Acap’s dispossession, forfeiture of preferred rights under PD 27, and award of damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) in May 1994 affirmed, treating the notarized waiver as prima facie proof of sale and estopping Acap from denying de los Reyes’s title, given Acap’s 1982 rent payment.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether a “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights” constitutes a recognized mode of acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code.
  2. Whether that document operates as a deed of sale transferring title to de los Reyes.

Applicable Law under the 1987 Constitution and Civil Code

– Article 712, Civil Code: Ownership is acquired by original modes (e.g., occupation, prescription) or derivative modes (succession mortis causa, contract).
– A contract of sale (Art. 1458) requires consent, determinate thing, and price.
– Rule 74, Rules of Court: Extrajudicial settlement of inheritance by declaration of heirship.

Nature and Effect of an Heirship Declaration and Waiver

A declaration of heirship and waiver is an extrajudicial settlement among heirs, not a contract of sale or donation. Waiver effects an abdication of hereditary rights among co-heirs; it cannot transfer title to a non-heir. No element of price, consent to sell, or deed of conveyance is present in a waiver instrument.

Insufficiency of a Notice of Adverse Claim

A notice of adverse claim is merely a registrar’s annotation alerting third parties to an unproven dispute over title; it does not vest ownership. De los Reyes’s adverse claim filing, even if annotated on the OCT, did not satisfy the derivative mode of acquisition by sale, donation, or succession.

Security of Tenure and Alleged Forfeit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.