TEODORO ACAP vs.

CA
G.R. No. 118114. December 7, 1995.

Padilla, J.

Doctrine: 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.

FACTS: Teodoro Acap has been a tenant of a portion of land of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran
Cadastre since 1960. Said lot was formerly owned by Spouses Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma,
which upon their death was inherited by Felixberto. In 1975, Felixberto sold the lot to Cosme
Pido. Acap remained to be a registered tenant of the said land and religiously paid his leasehold
rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon his death, to his widow Laurenciana. On 1981, Pido’s wife
and children executed a notarized document denominated “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver
of Rights” of the land in favor Edy delos Reyes. Delos Reyes alleged that he and Acap entered
into an oral lease agreement whereby Acap undertook to pay him 10 cavans of rice per year as
lease rental. From 1983 onwards Acap refused to pay further lease rentals. In defense, Acap
denied having entered in an oral lease agreement with delos Reyes and that he did not
recognize his ownership over the land. As a matter of fact he alleged that he continued to pay
Laurenciana, Pido’s wife. Delos Reyes filed a suit of recovery of possession against Acap and
for the payment of rentals accruing to him as owner of the said lot. Trial court rendered decision
in favor of delos Reyes ruling that there was a perfected sale between heirs of Pido and delos
Reyes over the said lot and ordered Acap to deliver possession of the same to delos Reyes.
Upon appeal, CA affirmed the lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether delos Reyes acquired ownership over the lot in question.

HELD: NO. The Court noted 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, modes of
acquisition may either be original or derivative. Original modes of acquisition include occupation,
acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation. Derivative modes of acquisition on the other
hand include succession mortis causa and tradition as a result of certain contracts such as sale,
barter, donation, assignment or mutuum. In the instant case, the Court determined whether
delos Reyes acquired ownership over the lot in question through any of the modes mentioned. It
was ruled that he had not acquired ownership by virtue of sale, as opposed to the ruling of both
RTC and CA. The execution of the heirs of Pido the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of
Rights was held to be not tantamount to sale. Such declaration is only one whereby heirs
adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. The
Court further noted that waiver of hereditary rights is different from sale of hereditary rights. Sale
of hereditary rights presupposes an existence of a contract of sale whereas waiver of hereditary
rights is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with a knowledge of its
existence and intention to relinquish it in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the
succession. As delos Reyes is a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, he cannot claim
ownership over the lot on the sole basis of the document executed. Hence, private respondent
delos Reyes had not acquired ownership over Lot 1130 and consequently had no right to exact
lease rentals from petitioner Acap.