Case Summary (G.R. No. 132518)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant dates and events appearing in the record: original title issued 16 August 1927; alleged oral partition among co‑owners in 1946; petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639 filed by Tomas Maglucot on 19 April 1952; Cadastral Court/CFI order directing subdivision into six portions on 13 May 1952; respondents began occupying/renting portions in the 1960s (rents paid in 1963, 1964, 1969); respondents ceased paying rent in December 1992; RTC decision in favor of petitioners dated 13 December 1994; Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC dated 11 November 1997; Supreme Court grant of petition and reinstatement of RTC judgment (decision text as provided).
Primary Legal Issue
Whether a valid partition of Lot No. 1639 occurred in 1952 (and by implication through prior oral agreement and long possession since 1946), such that petitioners are entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of Lot No. 1639‑D and respondents are merely occupiers/lessees rather than co‑owners.
Essential Facts Established by the Record
Lot No. 1639 was originally owned jointly by several persons under OCT No. 6775. In 1946 co‑owners allegedly agreed orally to a tentative partition and occupied specific portions in accordance with that oral arrangement. In 1952 Tomas Maglucot filed a petition to subdivide; the CFI issued an order directing subdivision into six portions (1639‑A through 1639‑F) and appointed commissioners to approve a sketch/subdivision plan. After 1952, parties and their successors occupied particular portions in accordance with the sketch plan for decades. Respondents rented and built houses on portions identified in tax declarations as being on Roberto Maglucot’s land and paid rent to representatives of Roberto’s heirs until December 1992, when they stopped paying and asserted ownership.
RTC Findings and Ruling
The Regional Trial Court found persuasive evidence of subdivision/partition (including tax declarations in the names of the purported subdivided lot owners and participation by Tomas in the partition petition), applied Article 1431 (estoppel) to bar denial of the partition by those who had acquiesced, and treated respondents’ tax declarations and rental payments as admissions that Roberto (and his heirs) owned Lot No. 1639‑D. The RTC concluded respondents were in possession as holders/lessees, ordered them to vacate and demolish structures on Lot No. 1639‑D, awarded damages and attorney’s fees, and imposed costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that the sketch plan and tax declarations were not conclusive evidence of partition and that the mandatory procedure under Rule 69 (partition procedure) had not been followed; consequently, it declared that there was no valid partition of Lot No. 1639.
Petitioners’ Contentions on Review
Petitioners asserted that (1) a mutual/oral partition occurred in 1946 and was later the subject of the 1952 subdivision petition; (2) majority co‑owners physically occupied and accepted their respective lots; (3) the 1952 CFI order recognized the tentative subdivision and directed commissioners to approve the sketch plan; (4) respondents’ payment of rent and offers to buy constituted admissions of petitioners’ ownership; and (5) the CA erred in disregarding estoppel, acquiescence, and long exclusive possession as grounds to recognize the partition.
Respondents’ Contentions on Review
Respondents argued that (1) the tentative sketch plan was never properly notified to and approved by all interested parties; (2) there is no court approval of any partition (commissioners’ report unconfirmed); and (3) the original title (OCT No. 6725 / OCT No. 6775 as referenced) remains uncompromised with no annotation of partition, meaning Lot No. 1639 remained undivided.
Legal Framework Applied by the Supreme Court
The Court outlined the two‑phase nature of partition proceedings: (1) determination whether co‑ownership exists and whether partition is proper (order for partition), and (2) execution and judicial confirmation of the sketch/subdivision plan or commissioners’ report. The Court discussed finality and appealability of partition orders, acknowledging that an order for partition is generally final and appealable but also noting historical precedent (Fuentebella v. Carrascoso) that had treated certain partition orders as interlocutory and that commissioners’ unconfirmed reports are generally not binding. The Court emphasized established doctrines that an oral (parol) partition, once consummated by part performance (possession in severalty and acts of ownership), can be enforced and may be confirmed by equity.
Supreme Court’s Factual and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the case presented exceptions warranting review of factual findings of the Court of Appeals (conflict with RTC findings; CA conclusions without specific citation to evidence; CA premised findings on absence of evidence contradicted by record). The Court accepted that: (a) there was a 1946 oral partition followed by long possession in severalty; (b) the 1952 CFI order acknowledged the tentative partition and appointed commissioners to approve the sketch; (c) parties and predecessors occupied the specific portions in accordance with the sketch for about forty years; and (d) respondents’ long‑continued payment of rent, unrebutted testimony that certain respondents offered to buy Roberto’s share, and tax declarations describing respondents’ houses as being on Roberto’s land amounted to admissions and facts supporting petitioners’ claim. The Court held that the non‑registration or absence of annotation in the title does not negate the legal effect of the parties’ mutual acts and long possession as between them; registration is a species of public notice but is not necessary to give inter partes effect to partition that has been consummated by conduct.
Estoppel, Ratification, and Effect of Long Possession
The Court applied estoppel and ratification doctrines: parties who accepted and took possession of portions allocated by a partition (including an oral/parol partition) are precluded from later denying that partition. Ratification occurs when, with knowledge and while under no disability, a party adopts a defective proceeding such that it becomes binding. The Court found respondents’ conduct (years of rent payments, occupation in conformity with the sketch, offering to buy a share rather than asserting co‑ownership) established ratification/estoppel and that possession was by respondents as holders/lessees, not owners.
Treatment of Tax Declarations and Registration
Tax declarations for the specific portions (not for the entire undivided lot) were treated by the Court as public documents whose contents are presumed true unless attacked. These declarations explicitly stated that respondents’ houses were constructed on the land of Roberto Maglucot; the Court regarded these as strong evidence of respondents’ recognition of Roberto’s ownership of Lot No. 1639‑D. The Court reiterated that lack of registration or annotation in the original certificate does not by itself nullify partition where the parties’ conduct and other evidence show an effective partition and long exclusive possession.
Precedential Support for Oral Partition and Part Performance
The Court relied on existing jurisprudence recognizing the validity and enforceability of oral/parol partitions when there is part performance (possession in severalty, acts of ownership, long acquiescence). The Court cited prior decisions holding parol partition enforceable by equity and that l
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132518)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 48816 dated 11 November 1997, which reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City Decision dated 13 December 1994.
- RTC had rendered judgment in favor of petitioners in an action for recovery of possession and damages regarding Lot No. 1639-D.
- CA reversed the RTC, holding that the sketch plan and tax declarations were not conclusive evidence of partition and that Rule 69 procedure was not followed; thus declaring no valid partition.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, raising legal errors allegedly committed by the CA; the Supreme Court’s review is limited to errors of law except under enumerated factual exceptions invoked by the petitioners.
Antecedent Facts (Property Title and Early Ownership)
- Lot No. 1639 was originally covered by Original Certificate Title No. 6775, issued on 16 August 1927 in the names of Hermogenes Olis, Bartolome Maglucot, Pascual Olis, Roberto Maglucot, Anselmo Lara and Tomas Maglucot (Exhibit "J", Records, p. 89).
- Sometime in 1946, there was an oral, tentative agreement among the co-owners to partition Lot No. 1639 and the parties occupied specific portions pursuant to that agreement (Exhibit "B", Rollo, p. 51; Exhibit A-4, Rollo p. 49).
- On 19 April 1952, Tomas Maglucot filed a petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639 (Exhibits "A-4," "A-4-a" to "A-4-c" and "B," Records, pp. 48-50).
- On 13 May 1952, the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Oriental issued an order directing subdivision of Lot No. 1639 into six portions assigned to: Hermogenes Olis (1639-A), Pascual Olis (1639-B), Bartolome Maglucot (1639-C), Roberto (Alberto) (1639-D), Anselmo Lara (1639-E) and Tomas Maglucot (1639-F) (Exhibit "A," id. at 45-47; Rollo, p. 24).
- Petitioners assert that co-owners accepted their shares in 1946 and that the 1952 petition confirmed that oral division (Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 6; Rollo, p. 61).
Facts Concerning Possession and Tenancies
- Beginning in 1963, various persons rented portions of Lot No. 1639-D: Guillermo Maglucot (1963), Leopoldo Maglucot (1964), Severo Maglucot (1969). These renters built houses and paid rentals of P100.00 per annum to Mrs. Ruperta Salma, representing the heirs of Roberto Maglucot (petitioners' predecessor-in-interest).
- In December 1992, certain respondents stopped paying rentals and claimed ownership of the subject lot, prompting the filing of the complaint for recovery of possession and damages by petitioners.
Relief Sought by Petitioners in the RTC
- Recovery of possession of Lot No. 1639-D and damages (actual damages in the form of unpaid rentals, attorney’s fees and costs).
- RTC’s dispositive order awarded possession to plaintiffs, demolition and vacation by defendants of houses on lot 1639-D, joint and several attorney’s fees of P15,000.00, P100.00 per year from 1993 for unpaid rentals until vacatur, and costs (RTC Decision, 13 December 1994, Rollo, pp. 44-45).
Trial Court Findings and Rationale (RTC)
- The RTC found that tax declarations in the names of Hermogenes Olis and Pascual Olis (for Lots 1639-A and 1639-B) were indubitable proof of subdivision of Lot No. 1639 (Exhibits "K" and "L", Records, pp. 90-91).
- The RTC emphasized that Tomas Maglucot, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, initiated the petition for partition, showing his active participation in and acquiescence to partition (RTC Decision, 13 December 1994, p. 10; Rollo, p. 42).
- The RTC applied Article 1431 of the Civil Code on estoppel: an admission or representation is rendered conclusive on the person making it and cannot be denied against a person relying on it; the absence of a court order confirming partition could not be used by Tomas or his successors to deny partition against co-owners who rely on it (RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 41).
- The RTC further found that respondents’ tax declarations stating that their houses were constructed on Roberto Maglucot’s land constituted a conclusive admission of ownership by Roberto (Exhibits "G" to "I", Records, pp. 87-88).
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
- The CA reversed the RTC and held that the sketch plan and tax declarations were not conclusive proof of partition (CA Decision, pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 28-29).
- CA found that the prescribed procedure under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court for partition was not followed, and therefore declared that there was no valid partition of Lot No. 1639.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Core legal issue: whether a valid partition of Lot No. 1639 was effected in 1952 so as to vest exclusive ownership and possession of Lot No. 1639-D in petitioners.
- Related issues raised in the petition: whether the CA violated law on acquisitive prescription and estoppel; whether the CA erred in declaring no prior partition contrary to trial court findings and evidence; whether applicable law and jurisprudence were disregarded by the CA.
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
- There was a mutual partition and physical subdivision of Lot No. 1639, with majority participation and acceptance of designated shares since 1946 (Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 6; Rollo, p. 61).
- Tomas Maglucot himself instituted the 1952 court proceeding to formalize subdivision; two co-owners (Hermogenes Olis and heirs of Pascual Olis) were cited as not agreeable (Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 6; Rollo, p. 61).
- Respondents’ tax declarations admitted that their houses were constructed on the land of Roberto Maglucot, and respondents paid rent to Roberto’s heirs, indicating lessee status and recognition of another’s ownership (Rollo, p. 65; Exhibits).
- Petitioners assert respondents are estopped from now claiming co-ownership after long acquiescence, judicial confirmation in 1952, and exclusive possession since 1952 (Rollo, p. 67).
Respondents’ Principal Contentions
- Petitioners failed to show that interested parties were apprised or notified of the tentative subdivision in the sketch plan and that the CFI confirmed it (Memorandum for Respondents, p. 2; Rollo. p. 79).
- There was no court approval of any partition—no confirmation of commissioners’ reports or registered decree—such that partition did not take place (Memorandum for Respondents; Rollo, pp. 81, 83).
- Original title (OCT No. 6275 / 6725 ambiguous in records) remains an existing, valid title with no annotation of partition or encumbran