Acap vs CA

7/18/2019 Acap vs CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/acap-vs-ca-5691a84de121b 1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995

TEODORO ACAP, Petitioner , vs. COURT OF APPEALS a! ED" DE LOS RE"ES, Respondents.

PAD#LLA, J.: chanrobles virtual law librar

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the !ecision 1 of the "ourt of #ppeals, $n! Division, in "#%&.R.

No. '()**, which affir+e! the !ecision $

of the Reional Trial "ourt of -i+a+alan, Neros Occi!entalhol!in that private respon!ent ! !e los Rees ha! ac/uire! ownership of 0ot No. ))'1 of the"a!astral Surve of -iniaran, Neros Occi!ental base! on a !ocu+ent entitle! 2Declaration of -eirshipan! 3aiver of Rihts2, an! or!erin the !ispossession of petitioner as leasehol! tenant of the lan! forfailure to pa rentals.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

The facts of the case are as follows4 chanrobles virtual law librar

The title to 0ot No. ))'1 of the "a!astral Surve of -iniaran, Neros Occi!ental was evi!ence! b O"TNo. R%)$)*5. The lot has an area of )',*$1 s/. +eters. The title was issue! an! is reistere! in the na+eof spouses Santiao Vas/ue6 an! 0oren6a Oru+a. #fter both spouses !ie!, their onl son Feli7bertoinherite! the lot. In )5*8, Feli7berto e7ecute! a !ul notari6e! !ocu+ent entitle! 2Declaration of -eirshipan! Dee! of #bsolute Sale2 in favor of "os+e Pi!o.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law

librar

The evi!ence before the court a quo establishe! that since )5(1, petitioner Teo!oro #cap ha! been thetenant of a portion of the sai! lan!, coverin an area of nine thousan! f ive hun!re! 95,811: +eters. 3henownership was transferre! in )5*8 b Feli7berto to "os+e Pi!o, #cap continue! to be the reistere!tenant thereof an! reliiousl pai! his leasehol! rentals to Pi!o an! thereafter, upon Pi!o;s !eath, to hiswi!ow 0aurenciana.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

The controvers bean when Pi!o !ie! intestate an! on $* Nove+ber )5<), his survivin heirs e7ecute!a notari6e! !ocu+ent !eno+inate! as 2Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts of 0ot No. ))'1-iniaran "a!astre,2 wherein the !eclare!= to /uote its pertinent portions, that4

. . . "os+e Pi!o !ie! in the Municipalit of -iniaran, Neros Occi!ental, he !ie!intestate an! without an >nown !ebts an! obliations which the sai! parcel of lan! is9sic : hel! liable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

That "os+e Pi!o was survive! b his?her leiti+ate heirs, na+el4 0#@RN"I#N#PIDO, wife, 0A, RVIN, 0MR, an! 0"-OR all surna+e! PIDO= chil!ren= chanrobles virtual law librar

That invo>in the provision of Section ), Rule *B of the Rules of "ourt, the above%+entione! heirs !o hereb !eclare unto Csic ourselves the onl heirs of the late "os+e



Pi!o an! that we hereb a!Eu!icate unto ourselves the above%+entione! parcel of lan! ine/ual shares.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

Now, therefore, 3e 0#@RN"I#N# %, 0A, 0MR, RVIN an! 0"-OR all surna+e!PIDO, do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said

parcel of land in favor of DA D 0OS RAS, of leal ae, 9f:ilipino, +arrie! to

VIR&INI# D 0OS RAS, an! resi!ent of -iniaran, Neros Occi!ental,Philippines. . . . 4 9+phasis supplie!:

The !ocu+ent was sine! b all of Pi!o;s heirs. Private respon!ent ! !e los Rees !i! not sin sai!!ocu+ent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

It will be note! that at the ti+e of "os+e Pi!o;s !eath, title to the propert continue! to be reistere! inthe na+e of the Vas/ue6 spouses. @pon obtainin the Declaration of -eirship with 3aiver of Rihts in hisfavor, private respon!ent ! !e los Rees file! the sa+e with the Reistr of Dee!s as part of a noticeof an adverse claim aainst the oriinal certificate of title.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual lawlibrar

Thereafter, private respon!ent souht for petitioner 9#cap: to personall infor+ hi+ that he 9!: ha!

beco+e the new owner of the lan! an! that the lease rentals thereon shoul! be pai! to hi+. Privaterespon!ent further allee! that he an! petitioner entere! into an oral lease aree+ent wherein petitioneraree! to pa ten 9)1: cavans of pala per annum as lease rental. In )5<$, petitioner allee!l co+plie!with sai! obliation. In )5<', however, petitioner refuse! to pa an further lease rentals on the lan!,pro+ptin private respon!ent to see> the assistance of the then Ministr of #rarian Refor+ 9M#R: in-iniaran, Neros Occi!ental. The M#R invite! petitioner to a conference sche!ule! on )' October )5<'.Petitioner !i! not atten! the conference but sent his wife instea! to the conference. Durin the +eetin,an officer of the Ministr infor+e! #cap;s wife about private respon!ent;s ownership of the sai! lan! butshe state! that she an! her husban! 9Teo!oro: !i! not reconi6e private respon!ent;s clai+ of ownershipover the lan!.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

On $< #pril )5<<, after the lapse of four 9B: ears, private respon!ent file! a co+plaint for recover ofpossession an! !a+aes aainst petitioner, allein in the +ain that as his leasehol! tenant, petitioner

refuse! an! faile! to pa the aree! annual rental of ten 9)1: cavans of pala !espite repeate!!e+an!s.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

Durin the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterate! his refusal to reconi6e private respon!ent;sownership over the subEect lan!. -e averre! that he continues to reconi6e "os+e Pi!o as the owner ofthe sai! lan!, an! havin been a reistere! tenant therein since )5(1, he never renee! on his rentalobliations. 3hen Pi!o !ie!, he continue! to pa rentals to Pi!o;s wi!ow. 3hen the latter left for abroa!,she instructe! hi+ to sta in the lan!hol!in an! to pa the accumulated rentals upon her !e+an! orreturn fro+ abroa!.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

Petitioner further clai+e! before the trial court that he ha! no >nowle!e about an transfer or sale of thelot to private respon!ent in )5<) an! even the followin ear after 0aurenciana;s !eparture for abroa!. -e!enie! havin entere! into a verbal lease tenanc contract with private respon!ent an! that assu+in

that the sai! lot was in!ee! sol! to private respon!ent without his >nowle!e, R.#. '<BB, as a+en!e!,rants hi+ the riht to re!ee+ the sa+e at a reasonable price. Petitioner also bewaile! privaterespon!ent;s eEect+ent action as a violation of his riht to securit of tenure un!er P.D.$*.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

On $1 #uust )55), the lower court ren!ere! a !ecision in favor of private respon!ent, the !ispositivepart of which rea!s4



3-RFOR, pre+ises consi!ere!, the "ourt ren!ers Eu!+ent in favor of the plaintiff,! !e los Rees, an! aainst the !efen!ant, Teo!oro #cap, or!erin the followin, towit4 chanrobles virtual law librar

). Declarin forfeiture of !efen!ant;s preferre! riht to issuance of a "ertificate of 0an!Transfer un!er Presi!ential Decree No. $* an! his far+hol!ins= chanrobles virtual law

librar

$. Or!erin the !efen!ant Teo!oro #cap to !eliver possession of sai! far+ to plaintiff,an!= chanrobles virtual law librar

'. Or!erin the !efen!ant to pa P8,111.11 as attorne;s fees, the su+ of P),111.11 ase7penses of litiation an! the a+ount of P)1,111.11 as actual !a+aes. 5 chanroblesvirtual law librar

In arrivin at the above%+entione! Eu!+ent, the trial court state! that the evi!ence ha! establishe! thatthe subEect lan! was 2sol!2 b the heirs of "os+e Pi!o to private respon!ent. This is clear fro+ thefollowin !is/uisitions containe! in the trial court;s si7 9(: pae !ecision4

There is no !oubt that !efen!ant is a reistere! tenant of "os+e Pi!o. -owever, whenthe latter !ie! their tenanc relations chane! since ownership of sai! lan! was passe!on to his heirs who, b e7ecutin a Deed of Sale, which !efen!ant a!+itte! in hisaffi!avit, li>ewise passe! on their ownership of 0ot ))'1 to herein plaintiff 9privaterespon!ent:. #s owner hereof, plaintiff has the riht to !e+an! pa+ent of rental an! thetenant is obliate! to pa rentals !ue fro+ the ti+e !e+an! is +a!e. . . . &

777 777 777 chanrobles virtual law librar

"ertainl, the sale of the Pi!o fa+il of 0ot ))'1 to herein plaintiff !oes not of itselfe7tinuish the relationship. There was onl a chane of the personalit of the lessor in theperson of herein plaintiff ! !e los Rees who bein the purchaser or transferee,assu+es the rihts an! obliations of the for+er lan!owner to the tenant Teo!oro #cap,herein !efen!ant. 7 chanrobles virtual law librar

#rieve!, petitioner appeale! to the "ourt of #ppeals, i+putin error to the lower court when it rule! thatprivate respon!ent ac/uire! ownership of 0ot No. ))'1 an! that he, as tenant, shoul! pa rentals toprivate respon!ent an! that failin to pa the sa+e fro+ )5<' to )5<*, his riht to a certificate of lan!transfer un!er P.D. $* was !ee+e! forfeite!.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

The "ourt of #ppeals brushe! asi!e petitioner;s aru+ent that the Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver ofRihts 97hibit 2D2:, the !ocu+ent relie! upon b private respon!ent to prove his ownership to the lot,was e7clu!e! b the lower court in its or!er !ate! $* #uust )551. The or!er in!ee! note! that the!ocu+ent was not i!entifie! b "os+e Pi!o;s heirs an! was not reistere! with the Reistr of Dee!s ofNeros Occi!ental. #ccor!in to respon!ent court, however, since the Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver

of Rihts appears to have been !ul notari6e!, no further proof of its !ue e7ecution was necessar. 0i>ethe trial court, respon!ent court was also convince! that the sai! !ocu+ent stan!s as prima facie proof of appellee;s 9private respon!ent;s: ownership of the lan! in !ispute.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanroblesvirtual law librar

3ith respect to its non%reistration, respon!ent court note! that petitioner ha! actual >nowle!e of thesubEect sale of the lan! in !ispute to private respon!ent because as earl as )5<', he 9petitioner: alrea!>new of private respon!ent;s clai+ over the sai! lan! but which he thereafter !enie!, an! that in )5<$, he9petitioner: actuall pai! rent to private respon!ent. Otherwise state!, respon!ent court consi!ere! thisfact of rental pa+ent in )5<$ as estoppel on petitioner;s part to thereafter refute private respon!ent;s



clai+ of ownership over the sai! lan!. @n!er these circu+stances, respon!ent court rule! that in!ee!there was !eliberate refusal b petitioner to pa rent for a continue! perio! of five ears that +erite!forfeiture of his otherwise preferre! riht to the issuance of a certificate of lan!transfer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

In the present petition, petitioner i+puns the !ecision of the "ourt of #ppeals as not in accor! with the

law an! evi!ence when it rules that private respon!ent ac/uire! ownership of 0ot No. ))'1 throuh theafore+entione! Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanroblesvirtual law librar

-ence, the issues to be resolve! presentl are the followin4

). 3-T-R OR NOT T- S@G"T D"0#R#TION OF -IRS-IP #ND 3#IVR OFRI&-TS IS # R"O&NIHD MOD OF #"@IRIN& O3NRS-IP A PRIV#TRSPONDNT OVR T- 0OT IN @STION.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanroblesvirtual law librar

$. 3-T-R OR NOT T- S#ID DO"@MNT "#N "ONSIDRD # DD OFS#0 IN F#VOR OF PRIV#T RSPONDNT OF T- 0OT IN @STION.

Petitioner arues that the Reional Trial "ourt, in its or!er !ate! * #uust )551, e7plicitl e7clu!e! the!ocu+ent +ar>e! as 7hibit 2D2 9Declaration of -eirship, etc.: as private respon!ent;s evi!ence becauseit was not reistere! with the Reistr of Dee!s an! was not i!entifie! b anone of the heirs of "os+ePi!o. The "ourt of #ppeals, however, hel! the sa+e to be a!+issible, it bein a notari6e! !ocu+ent,hence, a prima facie proof of private respon!ents; ownership of the lot to which itrefers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

Petitioner points out that the Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts is not one of the reconi6e!+o!es of ac/uirin ownership un!er #rticle *)$ of the "ivil "o!e. Neither can the sa+e be consi!ere! a!ee! of sale so as to transfer ownership of the lan! to private respon!ent because no consi!eration isstate! in the contract 9assu+in it is a contract or !ee! of sale:.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanroblesvirtual law librar

Private respon!ent !efen!s the !ecision of respon!ent "ourt of #ppeals as in accor! with the evi!encean! the law. -e posits that while it +a in!ee! be true that the trial court e7clu!e! his 7hibit 2D2 which isthe Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts as part of his evi!ence, the trial court !eclare! hi+nonetheless owner of the subEect lot base! on other evi!ence a!!uce! !urin the trial, na+el, the noticeof a!verse clai+ 97hibit 22: !ul reistere! b hi+ with the Reistr of Dee!s, which contains the/uestione! Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts as an interal partthereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

3e fin! the petition i+presse! with +erit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

In the first place, an asserte! riht or clai+ to ownership or a real riht over a thin arisin fro+ a Euri!ical

act, however Eustifie!, is not per se sufficient to ive rise to ownership over the res. That riht or title +ustbe co+plete! b fulfillin certain con!itions i+pose! b law. -ence, ownership an! real rihts areac/uire! onl pursuant to a leal +o!e or process. 3hile title is the Euri!ical Eustification, +o!e is theactual process of ac/uisition or transfer of ownership over a thin in /uestion. 8

@n!er #rticle *)$ of the "ivil "o!e, the +o!es of ac/uirin ownership are enerall classifie! into two 9$:classes, na+el, the original mode 9i .e., throuh occupation, ac/uisitive prescription, law or intellectualcreation: an! the derivative mode 9i .e., throuh succession mortis causa or tra!ition as a result of certaincontracts, such as sale, barter, !onation, assin+ent or +utuu+:.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanroblesvirtual law librar



In the case at bench, the trial court was obviousl confuse! as to the nature an! effect of the Declarationof -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts, e/uatin the sa+e with a contract 9!ee!: of sale. The are not thesa+e.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

In a "ontract of Sale, one of the contractin parties obliates hi+self to transfer the ownership of an! to!eliver a !eter+inate thin, an! the other part to pa a price certain in +one or its e/uivalent. 9

@pon the other han!, a !eclaration of heirship an! waiver of rihts operates as a public instru+ent whenfile! with the Reistr of Dee!s whereb the intestate heirs a!Eu!icate an! !ivi!e the estate left b the!ece!ent a+on the+selves as the see fit. It is in effect an e7traEu!icial settle+ent between the heirsun!er Rule *B of the Rules of "ourt. 1'

-ence, there is a +ar>e! !ifference between a sale of here!itar rihts an! a waiver of here!itar rihts.The first presu+es the e7istence of a contract or !ee! of sale between the parties. 11 The secon! is,technicall spea>in, a +o!e of e7tinction of ownership where there is an ab!ication or intentionalrelin/uish+ent of a >nown riht with >nowle!e of its e7istence an! intention to relin/uish it, in favor ofother persons who are co-heirs in the succession. 1$ Private respon!ent, bein then a straner to thesuccession of "os+e Pi!o, cannot conclusivel clai+ ownership over the subEect lot on the sole basis ofthe waiver !ocu+ent which neither recites the ele+ents of either a sale, 1% or a !onation, 14 or an other

!erivative +o!e of ac/uirin ownership.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

uite surprisinl, both the trial court an! public respon!ent "ourt of #ppeals conclu!e! that a 2sale2transpire! between "os+e Pi!o;s heirs an! private respon!ent an! that petitioner ac/uire! actual>nowle!e of sai! sale when he was su++one! b the Ministr of #rarian Refor+ to !iscuss privaterespon!ent;s clai+ over the lot in /uestion. This conclusion has no basis both in fact an! inlaw.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

On recor!, 7hibit 2D2, which is the 2Declaration of -eirship an! 3aiver of Rihts2 was excluded b thetrial court in its or!er !ate! 2 !ugust "##$ because the !ocu+ent was neither reistere! with theReistr of Dee!s nor i!entifie! b the heirs of "os+e Pi!o. There is no showin that private respon!entha! the sa+e !ocu+ent attache! to or +a!e part of the recor!. 3hat the trial court a!+itte! was #nne722, a notice of a!verse clai+ file! with the Reistr of Dee!s which containe! the Declaration of -eirship

with 3aiver of rihts an! was annotate! at the bac> of the Oriinal "ertificate of Title to the lan! in/uestion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

# notice of a!verse clai+, b its nature, !oes not however prove private respon!ent;s ownership over thetenante! lot. 2# notice of a!verse clai+ is nothin but a notice of a clai+ a!verse to the reistere! owner,the vali!it of which is et to be establishe! in court at so+e future !ate, an! is no better than a notice oflis pendens which is a notice of a case alrea! pen!in in court.2 15

It is to be note! that while the e7istence of sai! a!verse clai+ was !ul proven, there is no evi!encewhatsoever that a !ee! of sale was e7ecute! between "os+e Pi!o;s heirs an! private respon!enttransferrin the rihts of Pi!o;s heirs to the lan! in favor of private respon!ent. Private respon!ent;s rihtor interest therefore in the tenante! lot re+ains an a!verse clai+ which cannot b itself be sufficient tocancel the O"T to the lan! an! title the sa+e in private respon!ent;s na+e.

"onse/uentl, while the transaction between Pi!o;s heirs an! private respon!ent +a be bin!inon both parties, the riht of petitioner as a reistere! tenant to the lan! cannot be perfunctorilforfeite! on a +ere alleation of private respon!ent;s ownership without the correspon!in proofthereof.

Petitioner ha! been a reistere! tenant in the subEect lan! since )5(1 an! reliiousl pai! lease rentalsthereon. In his +in!, he continue! to be the reistere! tenant of "os+e Pi!o an! his fa+il 9after Pi!o;s



!eath:, even if in )5<$, private respon!ent allee!l infor+e! petitioner that he ha! beco+e the newowner of the lan!.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

@n!er the circu+stances, petitioner +a have, in oo! faith, assu+e! such state+ent of privaterespon!ent to be true an! +a have in fact !elivere! )1 cavans of pala as annual rental for )5<$ toprivate respon!ent. ut in )5<', it is clear that petitioner ha! +isivins over private respon!ent;s clai+

of ownership over the sai! lan! because in the October )5<' M#R conference, his wife 0aurencianacateoricall !enie! all of private respon!ent;s alleations. In fact, petitioner even secure! a certificatefro+ the M#R !ate! 5 Ma )5<< to the effect that he continue! to be the reistere! tenant of "os+e Pi!oan! not of private respon!ent. The reason is that private respon!ent never registered the Declaration of-eirship with 3aiver of Rihts with the Reistr of Dee!s or with the M#R. Instea!, he 9privaterespon!ent: souht to !o in!irectl what coul! not be !one !irectl, i .e., file a notice of adverse claim onthe said lot to establish ownership thereover .chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

It stan!s to reason, therefore, to hol! that there was no un%ustified or deliberate refusal b petitioner topa the lease rentals or a+orti6ations to the lan!owner?aricultural lessor which, in this case, privaterespon!ent faile! to establish in his favor b clear an! convincin evi!ence. 1&

"onse/uentl, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferre! riht to be issue! a "ertificate of 0an! Transfer

un!er P.D. $* an! to the possession of his far+hol!ins shoul! not be applie! aainst petitioners, sinceprivate respon!ent has not establishe! a cause of action for recover of possession aainstpetitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

3-RFOR, pre+ises consi!ere!, the "ourt hereb &R#NTS the petition an! the !ecision of the"ourt of #ppeals !ate! ) Ma )55B which affir+e! the !ecision of the RT" of -i+a+alan, NerosOcci!ental !ate! $1 #uust )55) is hereb ST #SID. The private respon!ent;s co+plaint for recoverof possession an! !a+aes aainst petitioner #cap is hereb DISMISSD for failure to properl state acause of action, without preEu!ice to private respon!ent ta>in the proper leal steps to establish the leal+o!e b which he clai+s to have ac/uire! ownership of the lan! in /uestion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrar chanrobles virtual law librar

SO ORDRD.

Davide, &r', (ellosillo, )apunan and *ermosisima, &r', &&', concur'

Endnotes:

) Penne! b Purisi+a, & ., "hair+an, with Isnani, &' an! Iba%So+era, &'concurrin.chanrobles virtual law librar

$ Penne! b 7ecutive Gu!e Gose #uirre, Gr.chanrobles virtual law librar

' The RT" !ecision use! the na+e 0u6vi+in!a. The "# use! the na+e0au!enciana.chanrobles virtual law librar

B #nne7 #, Petition= Rollo, p. )B.chanrobles virtual law librar

8 #nne7 2D2, Petition Rollo, p. $5.chanrobles virtual law librar

( +bid ., p. $*.chanrobles virtual law librar



* +bid ., p. $<.chanrobles virtual law librar

< Rees, #n Outline of Philippine "ivil 0aw, Vol. II p. $1. chanrobles virtual law librar

5 #rticle )B8<, "ivil "o!e.chanrobles virtual law librar

)1 Paul+itos v. "#, &.R. No. ()8<B, Nov. $8, )55$, $)8 S"R# <(*, <(<= @beras v. "FIof Neros, &.R. No. B$B<, October '1, )5*<, <( S"R# )B8, )B*= #brasia v. "arian, &.R.No. 58)1, October '), )58*.chanrobles virtual law librar

)) See #uirre v. #tien6a, &.R. No. 0%)1((8, #u. '1, )58<= Mari v. onilla, &.R. No.<8$, March )5, )5B5= Robles v. "#, (B*B5B <' S"R# )<), )<$, Ma )8,)5*<.chanrobles virtual law librar

)$ See orro+eo -errera v. orro+eo, &.R. No. 0%B))*), Gul $', )5<*, )8$ S"R#)*).chanrobles virtual law librar

)' See note )1 % supra.chanrobles virtual law librar

)B Osorio v. Osorio an! Anchausti Stea+ship "o. No. )(8BB, March $1, )5$).chanroblesvirtual law librar

)8 So+es v. &overn+ent of the Philippines, No. B$*8B, October '1, )5'8.($ Phil.B'$.chanrobles virtual law librar

)( See 0aureto v. "#, &.R. No. 58<'<, #uust *, )55$, $)$ S"R# '5*. "uno v. "#, &.R.0%($5<8, #pril $, )5<B, )$< S"R# 8(*.

Acap vs CA

Documents

Transcript of Acap vs CA