Acap vs. CA

30 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDAcap vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No.118114.December7,1995.*

TEODORO ACAP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALSandEDYDELOSREYES,respondents.

Property; Ownership; An asserted right or claim to ownershipor a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, howeverjustified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the resthat right or title must be completed by fulfilling certainconditions imposed by law; While title is the juridical justification,mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownershipover a thing in question.In the first place, an asserted right orclaim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from ajuridicalact,howeverjustified,isnotper sesufficienttogiverisetoownership over the res. That right or title must be completed byfulfillingcertainconditions imposedby law.Hence,ownershipandreal rights are acquired only pursuant to a legalmode or process.Whiletitleisthejuridicaljustification,modeistheactualprocessofacquisitionortransferofownershipoverathinginquestion.

Same; Same; Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes ofacquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes,namely, the original mode and the derivative mode.UnderArticle712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership aregenerallyclassified into two (2)classes,namely, theoriginal mode(i.e.,throughoccupation,acquisitiveprescription,laworintellectualcreation) and thederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortiscausa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale,barter,donation,assignmentormutuum).

Same; Same; Sales; Succession; Contract of Sale and Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, Distinguished.Inthecaseat bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the natureand effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights,equatingthesame

_____________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

31

VOL.251,DECEMBER7,1995 31

Acap vs. Court of Appeals

withacontract(deed)ofsale.Theyarenotthesame.InaContractofSale, oneof the contractingpartiesobligateshimself to transfertheownershipofandtodeliveradeterminatething,andtheotherparty to pay a price certain inmoney or its equivalent.Upon theotherhand,adeclarationofheirshipandwaiverofrightsoperatesas a public instrument when filed with the Registry of Deedswherebytheintestateheirsadjudicateanddividetheestateleftbythe decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect anextrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of theRulesofCourt.

Same; Same; Same; Same; There is a marked difference betweena sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights; Astranger to succession cannot conclusively claim ownership over alot on the sole basis of a waiver document which does not recite theelements of either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative modeof acquiring ownership.Hence, there is a marked differencebetween a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditaryrights.Thefirstpresumestheexistenceofacontractordeedofsalebetweentheparties.Thesecondis,technicallyspeaking,amodeofextinctionofownershipwherethereisanabdicationorintentionalrelinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existenceandintentiontorelinquishit,in favor of other persons who are coheirs in the succession.Privaterespondent,beingthenastrangertothe successionofCosmePido, cannot conclusively claimownershipoverthesubjectlotonthesolebasisofthewaiverdocumentwhichneither recites theelements of eithera sale, oradonation, oranyotherderivativemodeofacquiringownership.

Same; Same; Land Titles; Adverse Claims; Words and Phrases;A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverseto the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be establishedin court at some future date.A notice of adverse claim, by itsnature,doesnothoweverproveprivaterespondentsownershipoverthetenantedlot.Anoticeofadverseclaimisnothingbutanoticeofaclaimadversetotheregisteredowner,thevalidityofwhichisyettobeestablishedincourtatsomefuturedate,andisnobetterthananoticeoflis pendenswhichisanoticeofacasealreadypendingincourt.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Where a persons right or interest ina lot in question remains an adverse claim, the same cannot by itselfbe sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land.It is tobenoted thatwhiletheexistenceofsaidadverseclaimwasdulyproven,thereisno evidencewhatsoever thatadeed of salewas executedbetweenCosmePidosheirsandprivaterespondenttransferringtherightsofPidosheirsto

32

32 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Acap vs. Court of Appeals

the land in favorofprivate respondent.Private respondents rightor interest therefore in the tenanted lot remains an adverse claimwhich cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel theOCT to the landandtitlethesameinprivaterespondentsname.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.Francisco B. Cruzforpetitioner.Cerewarlito V. Quebrarforprivaterespondent.

PADILLA,J.:

Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecision1of

theCourtofAppeals,2ndDivision, inCAG.R.No.36177,whichaffirmedthedecision

2oftheRegionalTrialCourtof

Himamaylan, Negros Occidental holding that privaterespondentEdydelosReyeshadacquiredownershipofLotNo. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, NegrosOccidental based on a document entitled Declaration ofHeirship and Waiver of Rights, and ordering thedispossessionofpetitionerasleaseholdtenantofthelandforfailuretopayrentals.

Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:The title to Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of

Hinigaran,NegrosOccidentalwasevidencedbyOCTNo.R12179.The lothasanareaof13,720 sq.meters.The titlewas issued and is registered in the name of spousesSantiagoVasquezandLorenzaOruma.Afterbothspousesdied, their only son Felixberto inherited the lot. In 1975,Felixberto executed a duly notarized document entitledDeclarationofHeirshipandDeedofAbsoluteSaleinfavorofCosmePido.

The evidence before the court a quo established thatsince1960,petitionerTeodoroAcaphadbeenthetenantofaportionof

_____________

1 Penned by Purisima, J., Chairman, with Isnani, J. and IbaySomera,J.,concurring.

2PennedbyExecutiveJudgeJoseAguirre,Jr.

33

VOL.251,DECEMBER7,1995 33Acap vs. Court of Appeals

the said land, covering an area of nine thousand fivehundred (9,500) square meters. When ownership wastransferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acapcontinuedtobetheregisteredtenantthereofandreligiouslypaid his leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, uponPidosdeath,tohiswidowLaurenciana.

ThecontroversybeganwhenPidodiedintestateandon27November1981,hissurvivingheirsexecutedanotarizeddocument denominated as Declaration of Heirship andWaiver of Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran Cadastre,whereintheydeclared,toquoteitspertinentportions,that:

x x x Cosme Pido died in theMunicipality of Hinigaran, NegrosOccidental, he died intestate and without any known debts andobligationswhichthesaidparceloflandis(sic)heldliable.

That Cosme Pido was survived by his/her legitimate heirs,namely: LAURENCIANA PIDO, wife, ELY, ERVIN, ELMER, andELECHORallsurnamedPIDO;children;

ThatinvokingtheprovisionofSection1,Rule74oftheRulesofCourt, the abovementioned heirs do hereby declare unto [sic]ourselvestheonlyheirsofthelateCosmePidoandthatweherebyadjudicate unto ourselves the abovementioned parcel of land inequalshares.Now,therefore,WeLAURENCIANA,

3ELY,ELMER,

ERVIN and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO, do hereby waive,quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the saidparcel of land in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES, of legal age,(f)ilipino,married to VIRGINIADE LOS REYES, and resident ofHinigaran,NegrosOccidental,Philippines.xxx

4(Italicssupplied)

The document was signed by all of Pidos heirs. PrivaterespondentEdydelosReyesdidnotsignsaiddocument.

Itwillbenotedthatat thetimeofCosmePidosdeath,titletothepropertycontinuedtoberegisteredinthenameoftheVasquezspouses.UponobtainingtheDeclarationofHeirship with Waiver of Rights in his favor, privaterespondent Edy de los Reyes filed the same with theRegistryofDeedsaspartofanotice

______________

3 The RTC decision used the name Luzviminda. The CA used thenameLaudenciana.

4AnnexA,Petition;Rollo,p.14.

34


of an adverse claimagainsttheoriginalcertificateoftitle.Thereafter, private respondent sought for petitioner

(Acap)topersonally informhimthathe(Edy)hadbecomethenewownerofthelandandthattheleaserentalsthereonshould be paid to him Private respondent further allegedthatheandpetitionerenteredintoanoralleaseagreementwherein petitioner agreed to pay ten (10) cavans of palayper annum as lease rental. In 1982, petitioner allegedlycompliedwithsaidobligation.In1983,however,petitionerrefused to pay any further lease rentals on the land,promptingprivaterespondenttoseektheassistanceofthethen Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Hinigaran,Negros Occidental. The MAR invited petitioner to aconferencescheduledon13October1983Petitionerdidnotattend the conference but sent his wife instead to theconference During themeeting, an officer of theMinistryinformedAcapswifeaboutprivaterespondentsownershipof the said landbut she stated that she andherhusband(Teodoro) did not recognize private respondents claim ofownershipovertheland.

On28April1988,afterthelapseoffour(4)years,privaterespondentfiledacomplaintforrecoveryofpossessionanddamagesagainstpetitioner,alleginginthemainthatashisleasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay the

1.

2.

3.

agreed annual rental of ten (10) cavans of palay despiterepeateddemands.

During the trial before the court a quo, petitionerreiterated his refusal to recognize private respondentsownership over the subject land. He averred that hecontinuestorecognizeCosmePidoastheownerofthesaidland, and having been a registered tenant therein since1960,heneverrenegedonhisrentalobligations.WhenPidodied,hecontinuedtopayrentalstoPidoswidow.Whenthelatter left for abroad, she instructed him to stay in thelandholdingand topay theaccumulated rentals upon herdemandorreturnfromabroad.

Petitionerfurtherclaimedbeforethetrialcourtthathehadno knowledge about any transfer or sale of the lot toprivate respondent in 1981 and even the following yearafterLaurencianasdepartureforabroad.Hedeniedhavingentered into a verbal lease tenancy contract with privaterespondentandthatassumingthatthesaidlotwasindeedsoldtoprivaterespondent

35


withouthisknowledge,R.A.3844,asamended,grantshimthe right to redeem the same at a reasonable price.Petitioner also bewailed private respondents ejectmentactionasaviolationofhisrighttosecurityoftenureunderP.D.27.

On20August1991,thelowercourtrenderedadecisioninfavorofprivaterespondent,thedispositivepartofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgmentin favor of the plaintiff, Edy de los Reyes, and against thedefendant,TeodoroAcap,orderingthefollowing,towit:

Declaring forfeiture of defendants preferred right toissuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer underPresidentialDecreeNo.27andhisfarmholdings;Ordering thedefendantTeodoroAcap todeliverpossessionofsaidfarmtoplaintiff,and;OrderingthedefendanttopayP5,000.00asattorneysfees,the sum of P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation and theamountofP10,000.00asactualdamages.

5

In arriving at the abovementioned judgment, the trialcourt stated that the evidence had established that thesubjectlandwassoldbytheheirsofCosmePidotoprivaterespondent. This is clear from the following disquisitionscontainedinthecourtssix(6)pagedecision:

There isnodoubt thatdefendant is a registered tenant ofCosmePido. However, when the latter died their tenancy relationschanged since ownership of said land was passed on to his heirswho,byexecutingaDeed of Sale,whichdefendantadmittedinhisaffidavit, likewisepassedon theirownershipofLot1130 tohereinplaintiff (private respondent). As owner hereof, plaintiff has the

right to demand payment of rental and the tenant is obligated topayrentalsduefromthetimedemandismade.xxx

6

xxxxxxxxxCertainly, the sale of the Pido family of Lot 1130 to herein

plaintiff does not of itself extinguish the relationship. There wasonlya

_____________

5AnnexD,Petition;Rollo,p.29.6Ibid.,p.27.

36


change of the personality of the lessor in the person of hereinplaintiff Edy de los Reyeswho being the purchaser or transferee,assumes therightsandobligationsof the former landowner to thetenantTeodoroAcap,hereindefendant.

7

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals,imputingerrortothelowercourtwhenitruledthatprivaterespondentacquiredownershipofLotNo.1130andthathe,astenant,shouldpayrentalstoprivaterespondentandthatfailing to pay the same from 1983 to 1987, his right to acertificate of land transfer under P.D. 27 was deemedforfeited.

The Court of Appeals brushed aside petitionersargument that theDeclaration ofHeirship andWaiver ofRights (Exhibit D), thedocument relieduponbyprivaterespondenttoprovehisownershiptothelot,wasexcludedbythe lowercourt in itsorderdated27August1990.TheorderindeednotedthatthedocumentwasnotidentifiedbyCosmePidosheirsandwasnotregisteredwiththeRegistryof Deeds of Negros Occidental. According to respondentcourt, however, since the Declaration of Heirship andWaiverofRightsappears tohavebeendulynotarized,nofurther proof of its due executionwas necessary. Like thetrial court, respondent court was also convinced that thesaid document stands as prima facie proof of appellees(privaterespondents)ownershipofthelandindispute.

With respect to its nonregistration, respondent courtnoted that petitioner had actual knowledge of the subjectsaleofthelandindisputetoprivaterespondentbecauseasearly as 1983, he (petitioner) already knew of privaterespondents claim over the said land but which hethereafterdenied,andthatin1982,he(petitioner)actuallypaid rent to private respondent. Otherwise stated,respondentcourt considered this factof rentalpayment in1982 as estoppel on petitioners part to thereafter refuteprivaterespondentsclaimofownershipoverthesaidland.Under these circumstances, respondent court ruled thatindeedtherewasdeliberaterefusalbypetitionertopayrentforacontinuedperiodoffiveyearsthatmeritedforfeitureofhisotherwisepreferredrighttotheissuanceofacertificateoflandtransfer.

1.

2.

______________

7Ibid.,p.28.

37


In thepresentpetition,petitioner impugns thedecision ofthe Court of Appeals as not in accord with the law andevidence when it rules that private respondent acquiredownership of Lot No. 1130 through the aforementionedDeclarationofHeirshipandWaiverofRights.

Hence, the issues to be resolved presently are thefollowing:

WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECTDECLARATIONOFHEIRSHIPANDWAIVEROFRIGHTS IS A RECOGNIZED MODE OFACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BY PRIVATERESPONDENTOVERTHELOTINQUESTION.WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID DOCUMENTCAN BE CONSIDERED A DEED OF SALE INFAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF THELOTINQUESTION.

PetitionerarguesthattheRegionalTrialCourt,initsorderdated 7 August 1990, explicitly excluded the documentmarked as Exhibit D (Declaration of Heirship, etc.) asprivaterespondentsevidencebecauseitwasnotregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeedsandwasnotidentifiedbyanyoneoftheheirsofCosmePido.TheCourtofAppeals,however,held the same to be admissible, it being a notarizeddocument,hence,aprima facieproofofprivaterespondentsownershipofthelottowhichitrefers.

PetitionerpointsoutthattheDeclarationofHeirshipandWaiver of Rights is not one of the recognized modes ofacquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code.Neithercanthesamebeconsideredadeedofsalesoastotransfer ownership of the land to private respondentbecausenoconsiderationisstatedinthecontract(assumingitisacontractordeedofsale).

Private respondent defends the decision of respondentCourtofAppealsasinaccordwiththeevidenceandthelaw.He posits that while it may indeed be true that the trialcourtexcludedhisExhibit Dwhich is theDeclarationofHeirshipandWaiverofRightsaspartofhisevidence,thetrialcourtdeclaredhimnonethelessownerofthesubjectlotbasedonotherevidenceadducedduringthetrial,namely,thenoticeofadverseclaim(ExhibitE)dulyregisteredbyhim with the Registry of Deeds, which contains thequestionedDeclarationofHeirshipandWaiver

38


ofRightsasanintegralpartthereof.Wefindthepetitionimpressedwithmerit.Inthefirstplace,anassertedrightorclaimtoownership

or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act,however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise toownership over the res. That right or title must becompleted by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law.Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired onlypursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is thejuridical justification, mode is the actual process ofacquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing inquestion.

8

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes ofacquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2)classes,namely,theoriginal mode(i.e.,throughoccupation,acquisitiveprescription,laworintellectualcreation)andthederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa ortraditionasaresultofcertaincontracts,suchassale,barter,donation,assignmentormutuum).

In the case at bench, the trial court was obviouslyconfused as to the nature and effect of theDeclaration ofHeirshipandWaiver ofRights, equating the samewithacontract(deed)ofsale.Theyarenotthesame.

In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting partiesobligateshimselftotransfertheownershipofandtodelivera determinate thing, and the other party to pay a pricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent.

9

Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship andwaiverofrightsoperatesasapublicinstrumentwhenfiledwith the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirsadjudicateanddividetheestateleftbythedecedentamongthemselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicialsettlementbetweentheheirsunderRule74oftheRulesofCourt.

10

_____________

8Reyes,AnOutlineofPhilippineCivilLaw,Vol.II,p.20.9Article1458,CivilCode.10Paulmitos v. CA, G.R. No. 61584, Nov. 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 867,

868;Uberas v. CFI of Negros,G.R.No.4248,October30,1978,86SCRA145,147;Abrasia v. Carian,G.R.No.9510,October31,1957.

39


Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale ofhereditaryrightsandawaiverofhereditaryrights.Thefirstpresumestheexistenceofacontractordeedofsalebetweentheparties.

11Thesecondis,technicallyspeaking,amodeof

extinction of ownership where there is an abdication orintentional relinquishment of a known right withknowledgeofitsexistenceandintentiontorelinquishit,infavor of other persons who are coheirs in thesuccession.

12Private respondent, being then a stranger to

the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claimownershipoverthesubjectlotonthesolebasisofthewaiverdocument which neither recites the elements of either asale,

13 or a donation,

14 or any other derivative mode of

acquiringownership.Quitesurprisingly,boththetrialcourtand public respondent Court of Appeals concluded that asale transpired between Cosme Pidos heirs and privaterespondentandthatpetitioneracquiredactualknowledgeofsaid sale when he was summoned by the Ministry ofAgrarianReformtodiscussprivaterespondentsclaimoverthelotinquestion.Thisconclusionhasnobasisbothinfactandinlaw.

On record, Exhibit D, which is the Declaration ofHeirship andWaiver ofRightswas excluded by the trialcourt in its order dated 27 August 1990 because thedocumentwasneitherregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeedsnor identified by the heirs of Cosme Pido. There is noshowing that private respondent had the same documentattachedtoormadepartoftherecord.WhatthetrialcourtadmittedwasAnnexE,anoticeofadverseclaimfiledwiththe Registry of Deeds which contained the Declaration ofHeirshipwithWaiver of rights andwas annotated at theback of the Original Certificate of Title to the land inquestion.

______________

11 SeeAguirre v. Atienza,G.R.No.L10665, Aug. 30, 1958;Mari v.Bonilla,G.R.No.852,March19,1949;Robles v. CA,G.R.No.L47494,83SCRA181,182,May15,1978.

12 See Borromeo Herrera v. Borromeo, G.R. No. L41171, July 23,1987,152SCRA171.

13Seenote10supra.14Osorio v. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co.,No.16544,March

20,1921.

40


Anoticeofadverseclaim,by itsnature,doesnothoweverproveprivaterespondentsownershipoverthetenantedlot.Anoticeofadverseclaimisnothingbutanoticeofaclaimadversetotheregisteredowner,thevalidityofwhichisyetto be established in court at some future date, and is nobetterthananoticeoflis pendenswhichisanoticeofacasealreadypendingincourt.

15

Itistobenotedthatwhiletheexistenceofsaidadverseclaimwasdulyproven,thereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatadeedofsalewasexecutedbetweenCosmePidosheirsandprivaterespondenttransferringtherightsofPidosheirstothelandinfavorofprivaterespondent.Privaterespondentsright or interest therefore in the tenanted lot remains anadverseclaimwhichcannotbyitselfbesufficienttocancelthe OCT to the land and title the same in privaterespondentsname.

Consequently,whilethetransactionbetweenPidosheirs

andprivaterespondentmaybebindingonbothparties,therightofpetitionerasaregisteredtenanttothelandcannotbe perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of privaterespondents ownership without the corresponding proofthereof.

Petitioner had been a registered tenant in the subjectlandsince1960andreligiouslypaidleaserentalsthereon.In his mind, he continued to be the registered tenant ofCosmePido andhis family (afterPidos death), even if in1982,privaterespondentallegedlyinformedpetitionerthathehadbecomethenewowneroftheland.

Under the circumstances, petitionermay have, in goodfaith,assumedsuchstatementofprivate respondent tobetrueandmayhaveinfactdelivered10cavansofpalayasannualrentalfor1982toprivaterespondent.Butin1983,itis clear that petitioner had misgivings over privaterespondentsclaimofownershipoverthesaidlandbecauseintheOctober1983MARconference,hiswifeLaurencianacategoricallydeniedallofprivaterespondentsallegations.Infact,petitionerevensecuredacertificatefromtheMARdated9May1988totheeffectthathe

______________

15Somes v. Government of the Philippines, No. 42754, October 30,1935,62Phil.432.

41


continuedtobetheregisteredtenantofCosmePidoandnotofprivaterespondent.Thereasonisthatprivaterespondentnever registeredtheDeclarationofHeirshipwithWaiverofRightswiththeRegistryofDeedsorwiththeMAR.Instead,he (privaterespondent)sought todo indirectlywhatcouldnotbedonedirectly,i.e.,fileanotice of adverse claim on thesaid lot to establish ownership thereover.

Itstandstoreason,therefore,toholdthattherewasnounjustified or deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay theleaserentalsoramortizationstothelandowner/agriculturallessor which, in this case, private respondent failed toestablishinhisfavorbyclearandconvincingevidence.

16

Consequently, thesanctionof forfeitureofhispreferredrighttobeissuedaCertificateofLandTransferunderP.D.27andtothepossessionofhisfarmholdingsshouldnotbeappliedagainstpetitioners,sinceprivaterespondenthasnotestablished a cause of action for recovery of possessionagainstpetitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court herebyGRANTS the petition and the decision of the Court ofAppeals dated 1May 1994which affirmed the decision ofthe RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental dated 20August 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE. The privaterespondents complaint for recovery of possession anddamagesagainstpetitionerAcapisherebyDISMISSEDforfailuretoproperlystateacauseofaction,withoutprejudice

to private respondent taking the proper legal steps toestablish the legal mode by which he claims to haveacquiredownershipofthelandinquestion.

SOORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Kapunan andHermosisima,Jr., JJ.,concur.

Petition granted. Judgment set aside, complaint forrecovery of possession dismissed.

_______________

16 See Laureto v. CA, G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992, 212 SCRA397;Cuno v. CA,G.R.L62985,April2,1984,128SCRA567.

42

42 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDLaguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals

Notes.The right to a persons succession aretransmittedfromthemomentofhisdeathanddonotvestinhisheirsuntilsuchtime.(Locsin vs. Court of Appeals,206SCRA383[1992])

Inproceedingwiththeactualpartitionofthepropertiesmentionedinthedeedofextrajudicialpartition,thepartiesare duty bound to abide by the mutual waiver of rightsagreeduponinthedocument.(Divina vs. Court of Appeals,220SCRA597[1993])

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

Acap vs. CA