Acap v.

CA
Facts:
Felixberto Oruma sold his inherited land to Cosme Pido, which land is rented by
petitioner Teodoro Acap. When Cosme died intestate, his heirs executed a Declarat
ion of Heirship and Waiver of Rights in favor of private respondent Edy delos Rey
es. Respondent informed petitioner of his claim over the land, and petitioner pa
id the rental to him in 1982. However in subsequent years, petitioner refused to
pay the rental, which prompted respondent to file a complaint for the recovery
of possession and damages. Petitioner averred that he continues to recognize Pid
o as the owner of the land, and that he will pay the accumulated rentals to Pido s
widow upon her return from abroad. The lower court ruled in favor of private re
spondent.
Issues:
(1) Whether the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is a recognized mode
of acquiring ownership by private respondent
(2) Whether the said document can be considered a deed of SALE in favor of priva
te respondent
Held:
An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising fro
m a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to o
wnership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certa
in 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 thin
g in question.
In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to trans
fer 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 declarati
on of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrument when filed w
ith 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 w
aiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or de
ed of SALE between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a mode of e
xtinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishmen
t of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish i
t, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. Private respond
ent, 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 wh
ich neither recites the elements of either a sale, or a donation, or any other d
erivative mode of acquiring ownership.
A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the regi
stered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some fu
ture 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 sai
d 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 tit
le the same in private respondent's name. Consequently, while the transaction be
tween Pido's heirs and private respondent may be binding on both parties, the ri

ght of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land cannot be perfunctorily for

feited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership without the corres
ponding proof thereof.