Case Digest (A.C. No. 3319)
Facts:
In Gavina Maglucot-Aw, et al. v. Leopoldo Maglucot, et al. (G.R. No. 132518, March 28, 2000), the petitioners, heirs of Roberto Maglucot, sought recovery of possession and damages over Lot No. 1639-D, originally part of Lot No. 1639 under Original Certificate Title No. 6775 issued on August 16, 1927. On April 19, 1952, Tomas Maglucot, co-owner and respondents’ predecessor, filed a petition for subdivision before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. By order dated May 13, 1952, the court directed partition of Lot 1639 into six portions (1639-A to 1639-F), but no sketch was formally approved or registered. From 1963 onward, respondents Leopoldo, Severo, Wilfreda Maglucot-Alejo, and Constancio Alejo leased portions of Lot 1639-D, paying annual rentals until December 1992, when they ceased payment and claimed ownership. The Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City ruled in favor of petitioners, finding a valid partition through estoppel, as evidenced by tax declarations andCase Digest (A.C. No. 3319)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners: Gavina Maglucot-Aw, Catalina Orcullo, Richard Estano, Nida Maglucot, Melania Maglucot-Catubig, Emiliano Catubig, Ladislao Salma—seeking exclusive ownership and possession of Lot No. 1639-D.
- Respondents: Leopoldo Maglucot, Severo Maglucot, Wilfreda Maglucot-Alejo, Constancio Alejo—claiming co-ownership of the same parcel.
- Origin and Partition Proceedings
- Original Lot No. 1639 covered by OCT No. 6775 in names of six co-owners (Hermogenes Olis et al.) since 1927.
- 19 April 1952: Petition by Tomas Maglucot for subdivision; 13 May 1952 CFI order directing partition into six portions (1639-A to 1639-F) and appointing commissioners to approve the sketch plan.
- No formal registration of subdivision in the Register of Deeds; parties nonetheless occupied designated portions per sketch plan.
- Subsequent Possession and Dispute
- 1963–1969: Guillermo, Leopoldo, and Severo Maglucot rented and built on portions of Lot 1639-D, paying annual rent to heirs of Roberto Maglucot until December 1992.
- Petitioners filed complaint for recovery of possession and damages in RTC, alleging valid 1952 partition and exclusive ownership of 1639-D.
- Lower Court Decisions
- RTC (13 December 1994): Found partition effected; applied estoppel (Art. 1431 CC) and admission by tax declarations; rendered judgment for petitioners—possession, demolition, unpaid rentals, attorney’s fees.
- CA (11 November 1997): Reversed—held sketch plan and tax declarations not conclusive; Rule 69 procedures not followed; declared no valid partition.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Petitioners filed Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending CA erred on acquiescence, estoppel, and partition evidence.
Issues:
- Was there a valid partition of Lot No. 1639 in 1952 despite lack of formal registration and confirmation of the sketch plan?
- Are respondents estopped from denying partition by their long-term acquiescence, occupation in severalty, rent payments, and offers to buy?
- Can an earlier oral partition (1946) and part performance validate the subdivision in equity under the statute of frauds?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)