LAW ON PROPERTY | ACAP V. COURT OF APPEALS 251 SCRA 30, DECEMBER 7, 1995
ACAP V.
COURT OF APPEALS
251 SCRA
30, DECEMBER 7, 1995
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
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.
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 “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights”
in favor of private respondent Edy delos Reyes. Respondent informed petitioner
of his claim over the land, and petitioner paid 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 Pido 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 respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the subject declaration of heirship and
waiver of rights is a recognized mode of acquiring ownership by private
respondent over the lot in question.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that 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 the derivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as
sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum).
Here, the court ruled that 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.