62. Maglucot-Aw vs.

Maglucot otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all
the parties interested in the property. This phase may end with a declaration
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a coownership
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, upon the other
G.R. No. 132518. March 28, 2000.* hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is
GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW, CATALINA ORCULLO, RICHARD ESTANO, NIDA proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received by the
MAGLUCOT, MELANIA MAGLUCOTCATUBIG, EMILIANO CATUBIG, defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, the
LADISLAO SALMA, petitioners, vs. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, SEVERO parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by
MAGLUCOT, WILFREDA MAGLUCOT-ALEJO and CONSTANCIO ALEJO, proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so
respondents. agreed upon. In either case—i.e., either the action is dismissed or partition
Courts; Jurisdiction;  Appeals; The jurisdiction of this Court in cases and/or accounting is decreed—the order is a final one, and may be appealed
brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by any party aggrieved thereby.
is limited to reviewing errors of law.—This Court recognizes that “the Same;  Same; Same;  Same; The second phase commences when it
jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals appears that “the parties are unable to agree upon the partition“ directed by
via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. the court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court
Findings of fact of the latter are conclusive, except in the following instances: with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.—The second
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or phase commences when it appears that “the parties are unable to agree
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or upon the partition“ directed by the court. In that event, partition shall be done
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of commissioners. This second stage may well also deal with the rendition of
fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went the accounting itself and its approval by the court after the parties have
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions 80
of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in been accorded opportunity to be heard thereon, and an award for the
the petition as recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled of their just share in the rents
_______________ and profits of the real estate in question. Such an order is, to be sure, final
*
 FIRST DIVISION. and appealable.
79 Same;  Same; Same;  Same; The present rule on the question of finality
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 79 and appealability of a decision or order decreeing partition is that it is final
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot and appealable.—The present rule on the question of finality and
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the appealability of a decision or order decreeing partition is that it is final and
respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed appealable. The order of partition is a final determination of the co-ownership
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.” This case over Lot No. 1639 by the parties and the propriety of the partition thereof.
falls under exceptions (7), (8) and (10) in that the findings of facts of the CA Hence, if the present rule were applied, the order not having been appealed
are in conflict with that of the RTC, are mere conclusions without citation of or questioned by any of the parties to the case, it has become final and
specific evidence on which they are based and are premised on absence of executory and cannot now be disturbed.
evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record. For these reasons, Same;  Same; Same;  Same; The true test to ascertain whether or not
we shall consider the evidence on record to determine whether indeed there an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave something to
was partition. be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
Courts; Civil Law; Property; Partition; The first phase of a partition and interlocutory; if it does not, it is final.—The true test to ascertain whether or
lor accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co- not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave something
ownership in fact exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it
made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property.— is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. The key test to what is interlocutory is
The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up with the when there is something more to be done on the merits of the case. An order
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, (i.e., not
for partition is final and not interlocutory and, hence, appealable because it which arises when a party, knowing that he is not bound by a defective
decides the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted. proceeding, and is free to repudiate it if he will, upon knowledge, and while
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Under the present rule, the proceedings under no disability, chooses to adopt such defective proceeding as his own.
of the commissioners without being confirmed by the court are not binding 82
upon the parties.—Under the present rule, the proceedings of the 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
commissioners without being confirmed by the court are not binding upon the Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
parties. However, this rule does not apply in case where the parties Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Words and
themselves actualized the supposedly unconfirmed sketch/subdivision plan. Phrases; Ratification; Ratification means that one under no disability
The purpose of court approval is to give effect to the sketch/subdivision plan. voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some unauthorized act of defective
In this case, the parties themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest proceeding, which without his sanction would not be binding on him.—
implemented the sketch plan made pursuant to a court order for partition by Ratification means that one under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives
actually occupying specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in 1952 and continue to sanction to some unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without his
do so until the present until this case was filed, clearly, sanction would not be binding on him. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly
81 made, which amounts to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized,
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 81 and becomes the authorized act of the party so making the ratification.
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot Same;  Same; Same;  Same; One who possesses as a mere holder
the purpose of the court approval has been met. This statement is not acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership,
to be taken to mean that confirmation of the commissioners may be whether his belief be right or wrong.—The payment of rentals by respondents
dispensed with but only that the parties herein are estopped from raising this reveal that they are mere lessees. As such, the possession of respondents
question by their own acts of ratification of the supposedly non-binding over Lot No. 1639 D is that of a holder and not in the concept of an owner.
sketch/subdivision plan. One who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Estoppel;  Parties to a partition right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.
proceeding, who elected to take under partition, and who took possession of Since the possession of respondents were found to be that of lessees of
the portion allotted to them, are estopped to question title to portion allotted petitioners, it goes without saying that the latter were in possession of Lot No.
to another party.—Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take 1639-D in the concept of an owner from 1952 up to the time the present
under partition, and who took possession of the portion allotted to them, are action was commenced.
estopped to question title to portion allotted to another party. A person cannot Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Registration; The purpose of registration
claim both under and against the same instrument. In other words, they is to notify and protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction, who
accepted the lands awarded them by its provisions, and they cannot accept may be ignorant thereof, but the non-registration of the deed evidencing such
the decree in part, and repudiate it in part. They must accept all or none. transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations
Parties who had received the property assigned to them are precluded from thereunder.—We are not persuaded. The purpose of registration is to notify
subsequently attacking its validity or any part of it. Here, respondents, by and protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction, who may be
themselves and/or through their predecessors-in-interest, already occupied ignorant thereof, but the non-registration of the deed evidencing such
of the lots in accordance with the sketch plan. This occupation continued until transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations
this action was filed. They cannot now be heard to question the possession thereunder. As originally conceived, registration is merely a species of notice.
and ownership of the other coowners who took exclusive possession of Lot The act of registering a document is never necessary in order to give it legal
1639-D also in accordance with the sketch plan. effect as between the parties. Requirements for the recording of the
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Same;  In technical estoppel, the party to instruments are designed to prevent frauds and to permit and require the
be estopped must knowingly have acted so as to mislead his adversary, and public to act with the presumption that recorded instruments exist and are
the adversary must have placed reliance on the action and acted as he genuine.
would otherwise not have done.—In technical estoppel, the party to be Same;  Same; Same;  Same; In cases involving oral partition under
estopped must knowingly have acted so as to mislead his adversary, and the which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of owner-
adversary must have placed reliance on the action and acted as he would 83
otherwise not have done. Some authorities, however, hold that what is VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 83
tantamount to estoppel may arise without this reliance on the part of the Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
adversary, and this is called, ratification or election by acceptance of benefits,
 ship, or otherwise partly performed the partition agreement, equity will that the sketch/subdivision plan was submitted to the then Court of First
confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance with Instance for its approval or that a decree or order was registered in the
the possession in severalty.—On general principle, independent and in spite Register of Deeds.
of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
has been completely or partly performed. Regardless of whether a parol Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of possession and
partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will damages alleging, inter alia, that they are the owners of Lot No. 1639-D. Said
in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by lot was originally part of Lot No. 1639 which was covered by Original
the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the Certificate Title No. 6775 issued in the names of Hermogenes Olis,
parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such Bartolome Maglucot, Pascual Olis, Roberto Maglucot, Anselmo Lara and
parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder. Thus, it has been held Tomas Maglucot on 16 August 1927. 1 On 19 April 1952, Tomas Maglucot,
or stated in a number of cases involving an oral partition under which the one of the registered owners and respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, filed
parties went into possession, exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly a petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639. 2 Consequently, on 13 May 1952, then
performed the partition agreement, that equity will confirm such partition and CFI of Negros Oriental issued an order3 directing the parties to subdivide said
in a proper case decree title in accordance with the possession in severalty. lot into six portions as follows:
Same;  Lawyers; Code of Professional Conduct; A lawyer shall abstain ________________
1
from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the  Exhibit “J,” Records, p. 89.
2
courts.—Any court when it renders a decision does so as an arm of the  Exhibits “A-4,” “A-4-a” to “A-4-c” and “B,” Records, pp. 48-50.
3
justice system and as an institution apart from the persons that comprise it.  Exhibit “A,” id., pp. 45-47.
Decisions are rendered by the courts and not the persons or personnel that 85
may participate therein by virtue of their office. It is highly improper and VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 85
unethical for counsel for petitioners to berate the researcher in his appeal. Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
Counsel for petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of the legal a) Hermogenes Olis — lot 1639-A
profession regarding respect for the courts by the use of proper language in b) Pascual Olis — lot 1639-B
its pleadings and admonished for his improper references to the researcher c) Bartolome Maglucot — lot 1639-C
of the CA in his petition. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or d) Roberto (Alberto) Maglucot — lot l639-D
menacing language or behavior before the courts. e) Anselmo Lara — lot l639-E
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. f) Tomas Maglucot — lot 1639-F.4
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Sometime in 1963, Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion of Lot No. 1639-D
     Leo B. Diocos for petitioners. (subject lot). Subsequently, Leopoldo and Severo, both surnamed Maglucot,
     Nilo L. Ruperto for respondents. rented portions of subject lot in 1964 and 1969, respectively, and each
84 paying rentals therefor. Said respondents built houses on their corresponding
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED leased lots. They paid the rental amount of P100.00 per annum to Mrs:
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot Ruperta Salma, who represented the heirs of Roberto Maglucot, petitioners’
KAPUNAN, J.: predecessor-in-interest. In December 1992, however, said respondents
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision, dated 11 November stopped paying rentals claiming ownership over the subject lot. Petitioners
1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 48816 which reversed and thus filed the complaint a quo.
set aside the Decision, dated 13 December 1994, of the Regional Trial Court, After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. The
Branch 30 of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental in an action for recovery of RTC found the existence of tax declarations in the names of Hermogenes
possession and damages. Olis and Pascual Olis (purported owners of Lot Nos. 1639-A and 1639-B,
The core issue in this case is whether a partition of Lot No. 1639 had respectively)5 as indubitable proof that there was a subdivision of Lot No.
been effected in 1952. Petitioners contend that there was already a partition 1639. It likewise found that Tomas Maglucot, respondents’ predecessor-in-
of said lot; hence, they are entitled to exclusive possession and ownership of interest, took active part in the partition as it was he, in fact, who commenced
Lot No. 1639-D, which originally formed part of Lot No. 1639 until its partition. the action for partition.6 The court a quo cited Article 1431 of the Civil Code
Private respondents, upon the other hand, claim that there was no partition; which states that “[t]hrough estoppel an admission or representation is
hence, they are co-owners of Lot No. 1639-D. Notably, this case presents a rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or
unique situation where there is an order for partition but there is no showing disproved as against the person relying thereon.” Applying said provision of
law, it held that while there was no court order showing that Lot No. 1639 Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
was partitioned, its absence could not be used by Tomas Maglucot, or II
respondents as his successors-in-interest, to deny the existence of an IN VIOLATING THE LAW ON ESTOPPEL; THE FACT OF PAYMENT OF
approved partition against the other co-owners who claim that RENTALS AND OFFER TO BUY BY THE DEFENDANTS IS ADMISSION
________________ THAT THE AREA IN LOT 1639-D, HAD LONG BEEN ADJUDICATED TO
4
 Rollo, p. 24. PLAINTIFFS;
5
 Exhibits “K” and “L,” Records, pp. 90-91. III
6
 RTC Decision, 13 December 1994, p. 10; Rollo, p. 42. IN DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO PRIOR PARTITION,
86 CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AND AGAINST
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, OF WHICH IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE;
there was one.7 Said court, likewise, ruled that the tax declarations 8 over the IV
houses of respondents, expressly stating that the same are constructed on IN DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE
the lots of Roberto Maglucot, constitute a conclusive admission by them of APPLICABLE UNDER THE PREMISES; THIS WOULD ONLY SHOW THAT
the ownership of the subject lot by the latter.9 THE RECORD OF THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SCRUTINIZED, AND
The dispositive portion of the lower court’s decision reads as follows: THE LAW WAS NOT PROPERLY STUDIED, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing discussion, judgment is hereby AT BENCH THAT THE ORAL AND MUTUAL PARTITION HAPPENED
rendered in favor, of the plaintiffs against the defendants ordering the latter: DURING THE REGIME OF THE OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE. 12
1. 1.To demolish their houses inside lot 1639-D, vacate the Petitioners maintain that Lot No. 1639 was mutually partitioned and
premises thereof and deliver the possession of the same to physically subdivided among the co-owners and that majority of them
Plaintiffs; participated in the actual execution of the subdivision. Further, the co-owners
2. 2.To jointly and solidarily pay plaintiffs the sum of accepted their designated shares in 1946 as averred by Tomas Maglucot in
P15,000.00 for attorney’s fees; his petition for partition.13 Petitioners opine that in 1952, Tomas Maglucot
3. 3.To each pay plaintiffs the sum of P100.00 every year himself initiated a court proceeding for a formal subdivision of Lot No. 1639.
from 1993 for actual damages representing the amount of In said petition, he averred that only Hermogenes Olis and the heirs of
unpaid rentals up to the time they actually vacate the Pascual Olis were not agreeable to the partition. 14 Petitioners further contend
premises in question; that respondents admitted in their tax declarations covering their respective
4. 4.To pay the costs.10 houses that they are “constructed on the land of
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court ________________
12
ruled that the sketch plan and tax declarations relied upon by petitioners are  Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 8.
13
not conclusive evidence of partition.11 The CA likewise found that the  Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 6; Rollo, p. 61.
14
prescribed procedure under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court was not followed. It  Ibid.
thus declared that there was no partition of Lot No. 1639. Petitioners filed this 88
petition for review on certiorari alleging that the CA committed the following 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reversible errors: Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
I Roberto Maglucot.”15 Simply put, petitioners vigorously assert that
IN VIOLATING THE LAW ON ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION PLAINTIFFS respondents are estopped from claiming to be co-owners of the subject lot in
HAVING POSSESSED LOT 1639-D SINCE 1946; view of the mutual agreement in 1946, judicial confirmation in 1952, and
________________ respondents’ acquiescence because they themselves exclusively exercised
7
 Ibid. ownership over Lot No. 1639-A beginning 1952 up to the present. 16
8
 Exhibits “G” to “I,” Records, pp. 87-88. For their part, respondents posit three points in support of their position.
9
 See note 5 at 9, Rollo, p. 41. First, they emphasize that petitioners failed to show that the interested
10
 Id., pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 44-45. parties were apprised or notified of the tentative subdivision contained in the
11
 CA Decision, pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 28-29. sketch and that the CFI subsequently confirmed the same. 17 Second, they
87 point to the fact that petitioners were unable to show any court approval of
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 87 any partition.18 Third, they maintain that Lot No. 1639 remain undivided since
to date, OCT No. 6275 is still an existing and perfectly valid title, containing prohibited. It may end, upon the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-
no annotation of any encumbrance or partition whatsoever. 19 ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an
After a careful consideration of the pleadings filed by the parties and the accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate
evidence on record, we find that the petition is meritorious. As stated earlier, in question is in order. In the latter case, the
the core issue in this case is whether there was a valid partition in 1952. _______________
20
Preliminarily, this Court recognizes that “the jurisdiction of this Court in  Sta. Maria vs. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 351 (1998); Medina vs.
cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Asistio, 191 SCRA 218, 223-224 (1990).
21
Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are  See Sections 2 and 6, Rule 69, Rules of Court. See also HERRERA,
conclusive, except in the following instances: (1) when the findings are COMMENTS ON THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the AMENDED, 768-770 (1997).
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there 90
is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by
the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so
________________ agreed upon. In either case—i.e., either the action is dismissed or partition
15
 Id., p. 10; Rollo, p. 65. and/or accounting is decreed—the order is a final one, and may be appealed
16
 Id., p. 12; Rollo, p. 67. by any party aggrieved thereby. 22 The second phase commences when it
17
 Memorandum for Respondents, p. 2; Rollo, p. 79. appears that “the parties are unable to agree upon the partition” directed by
18
 Ibid. the court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court with
19
 Id., pp. 3, 6; Rollo, pp. 81, 83. the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This second stage
89 may well also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 89 by the court after the parties have been accorded opportunity to be heard
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled
the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of of their just share in the rents and profits of the real estate in question. Such
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of an order is, to be sure, final and appealable.23
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the The present rule on the question of finality and appealability of a decision
petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by or order decreeing partition is that it is final and appealable. 23a The order of
the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the partition is a final determination of the co-ownership over Lot No. 1639 by the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on parties and the propriety of the partition thereof. Hence, if the present rule
record.”20 This case falls under exceptions (7), (8) and (10) in that the were applied, the order not having been appealed or questioned by any of
findings of facts of the CA are in conflict with that of the RTC, are mere the parties to the case, it has become final and executory and cannot now be
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based and disturbed.
are premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence The true test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is
on record. For these reasons, we shall consider the evidence on record to interlocutory or final is: Does it leave something to be done in the trial court
determine whether indeed there was partition. with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does
In this jurisdiction, an action for partition is comprised of two phases: first, not, it is final. The key test to what is interlocutory is when there is something
an order for partition which determines whether a co-ownership in fact exists, _______________
22
and whether partition is proper; and, second, a decision confirming the  Municipality of Biñan vs. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576 (1989).
23
sketch or subdivision submitted by the parties or the commissioners  Ibid.
appointed by the court, as the case may be. 21 The first phase of a partition 23a
 See  Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 295 (1976) reiterated
and/or accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a in Valdez vs. Bagaso, 82 SCRA 22 (1978); Lagunzad vs. Gonzales, 92
co-ownership in fact exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may SCRA 476 (1979); Garbo vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA
be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. 616 (1984); Fabrica vs. Court of Appeals, 146 SCRA 250 (1986).
This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a 91
partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 91
 Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot parties herein are estopped from raising this question by their own acts of
more to be done on the merits of the case. 24 An order for partition is final and ratification of the supposedly non-binding sketch/subdivision plan.
not interlocutory and, hence, appealable because it decides the rights of the The records of the case show that sometime in 1946 there was a prior
parties upon the issue submitted.25 oral agreement to tentatively partition Lot No. 1639. 32 By virtue of this
However, this Court notes that the order of partition was issued when the agreement, the original co-owners occupied specific portions of Lot No.
ruling in Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso,26 which held that the order of partition is 1639.33 It was only in 1952 when the petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639 was
interlocutory, was controlling. In addition, the reports of the commissioners filed because two of the co-owners, namely Hermogenes Olis and heirs of
not having been confirmed by the trial court are not binding. 27 In this case, Pascual Olis, refused to have said lot subdivided and have separate
both the order of partition and the unconfirmed sketch plan are, thus, certificates of title. Significantly, after the 1952 proceedings, the parties in this
interlocutory. Nevertheless, where parties do not object to the interlocutory case by themselves and/or through their predecessors-in-interest occupied
decree, but show by their conduct that they have assented thereto, they specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with the sketch plan. Such
cannot thereafter question the decree, 28 especially, where, by reason of their _____________
31
conduct, considerable expense has been incurred in the execution of the  Notably, the provision applied by the Cadastral Court in its Order of
commission.29 Respondents in this case have occupied their respective lots Partition in 1952 was Section 22 of the Cadastral Act. (The Cadastral Court
in accordance with the sketch/subdivision plan. They cannot after was actually referring to Section 19 of the law.) A perusal of this provision
acquiescing to the order for more than forty (40) years be allowed to question would show that the appointed commissioners are empowered to make
the binding effect thereof. partition such part and proportion of the lands as the court shall order.
This case is to be distinguished from the order in the action for partition Significantly, in contrast to the procedure under the Rules of Court, there is
in Arcenas vs. Cinco.30 In that case, the order was clearly interlocutory since no requirement of confirmation of the report of the commissioners by the
it required the parties “to submit the corresponding deed of partition to the Cadastral Court. It is not, however, necessary to make any declaration on
Court for its approval.” Here, the order appointed two commissioners and this matter since whatever rule may have been applicable, the defendants
directed them merely to approve the sketch plan already existing and are now estopped from raising this question.
32
tentatively followed by the parties.  Exhibit B for petitioners, Rollo, p. 51.
33
Under the present rule, the proceedings of the commissioners without  Exhibit A-4; Rollo, p. 49.
being confirmed by the court are not binding upon 93
_______________ VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 93
24
 Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, supra. Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
25
 Id., p. 9; See also Valdez vs. Bagaso, supra; Fabrica, et al. vs. Court of possession remained so until this case arose, or about forty (40) years later.
Appeals, supra. From its order in 1952, it can be gleaned that the CFI took notice of the
26
 G.R. No. 48102, May 27, 1942. tentative subdivision plan by oral partition of the parties therein. Further, it
27
 RULES OF COURT, Rule 69, Sec. 2, par. 1 and Sec. 6. appears that said court was aware that the parties therein actually took
28
 Godwin v. Banks, 43 A. 863, 89 Md. 679. possession of the portions in accordance with the sketch/subdivision plan.
29
 Corbett vs. Fleming, 119 N.Y.S. 543, 134 App. Div. 544. With this factual backdrop, said court ordered the partition and appointed two
30
 74 SCRA 118 (1976). (2) commissioners to approve the tentative sketch/subdivision plan. It would
92 not be unreasonable to presume that the parties therein, having occupied
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with the sketch/subdivision
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot plan, were aware that it was that same sketch/subdivision plan which would
the parties.31 However, this rule does not apply in case where the parties be considered by the commissioners for approval. There is no showing that
themselves actualized the supposedly unconfirmed sketch/subdivision plan. respondents by themselves or through’ their predecessors-in-interest raised
The purpose of court approval is to give effect to the sketch/subdivision plan. any objections. On the contrary, the records show that the parties continued
In this case, the parties themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest their possession of the specific portions of Lot No. 1639 pursuant to the
implemented the sketch plan made pursuant to a court order for partition by sketch/subdivision plan.
actually occupying specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in 1952 and continue to It has been previously held that a co-owner, who, though not a party to a
do so until the present until this case was filed, clearly, the purpose of the partition accepts the partition allotted to him, and holds and conveys the
court approval has been met. This statement is not to be taken to mean that same in severalty, will not be subsequently permitted to avoid partition. 34 It
confirmation of the commissioners may be dispensed with but only that the follows that a party to a partition is also barred from avoiding partition when
 39
he has received and held a portion of the subdivided land especially in this  Hampshire County Trust Co. of North Hampton, Mass., et al. v.
case where respondents have enjoyed ownership rights over their share for a Stevenson, et al., 150 N.E. 726.
40
long time.  Ibid.
Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take under partition, and 95
who took possession of the portion allotted to them, are estopped to question VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 95
title to portion allotted to another party. 35 A person cannot claim both under Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
and against the same instrument.36 In other words, they accepted the they would not have paid rent. Respondents attempted to counter this point
______________ by presenting an uncorroborated testimony of their sole witness to the effect
34
 Hampshire County Trust Co. of North Hampton, Mass., et al. v. that the amount so paid to Roberto Maglucot and, subsequently, to Ruperta
Stevenson, et al., 150 N.E. 726 citing Freeman, Cotenancy and Partition, p. Salma were for the payment of real property taxes. We are not persuaded. It
710, Section 535. is quite improbable that the parties would be unaware of the difference in
35
 Jeffries vs. Hignite, et al., 206 Ky. 50, 266 S.W. 901. their treatment of their transactions for so long a time. Moreover, no evidence
36
 Christen, et al. vs. Christen, et al., 184 Ky. 822, 213 S.W. 189. was ever presented to show that a tax declaration for the entire Lot No. 1639
94 has ever been made. Replete in the records are tax declarations for specific
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED portions of Lot 1639. It is inconceivable that respondents would not be aware
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot of this. With due diligence on their part, they could have easily verified this
lands awarded them by its provisions, and they cannot accept the decree in fact. This they did not do for a period spanning more than four decades.
part, and repudiate it in part. They must accept all or none. 37 Parties who had The payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they are mere
received the property assigned to them are precluded from subsequently lessees. As such, the possession of respondents over Lot No. 1639-D is that
attacking its validity or any part of it.38 Here, respondents, by themselves of a holder and not in the concept of an owner. One who possesses as a
and/or through their predecessors-in-interest, already occupied of the lots in mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to
accordance with the sketch plan. This occupation continued until this action be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong. 41 Since the possession of
was filed. They cannot now be heard to question the possession and respondents were found to be that of lessees of petitioners, it goes without
ownership of the other coowners who took exclusive possession of Lot 1639- saying that the latter were in possession of Lot No. 1639-D in the concept of
D also in accordance with the sketch plan. an owner from 1952 up to the time the present action was commenced.
In technical estoppel, the party to be estopped must knowingly have Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support
acted so as to mislead his adversary, and the adversary must have placed the presumption.42 Thus, after a long possession in severalty, a deed of
reliance on the action and acted as he would otherwise not have done. Some partition may be presumed.43 It has been held that recitals in deeds,
authorities, however, hold that what is tantamount to estoppel may arise possession and occupation of land, improvements made thereon for a long
without this reliance on the part of the adversary, and this is called, series of years, and acquiescence for 60 years, furnish sufficient evidence
ratification or election by acceptance of benefits, which arises when a party, that there was an actual partition of land either by deed or by proceedings in
knowing that he is not bound by a defective proceeding, and is free to the probate court, which had been
repudiate it if he will, upon knowledge, and while under no disability, chooses ______________
to adopt such defective proceeding as his own. 39 Ratification means that one 41
 A.M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE
under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 245 (Vol. II, 1995).
42
unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without his sanction would  Hunt vs. Rabitoay, 125 Mich. 137, 84 NW 59.
43
not be binding on him. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly made, which  Hepburn & Dundas vs. Auld, 9 US 262, 3 L Ed. 96.
amounts to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and becomes 96
the authorized act of the party so making the ratification. 40 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The records show that respondents were paying rent for the use of a Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
portion of Lot No. 1639-D. Had they been of the belief that they were co- lost and were not recorded.44 And where a tract of land held in common has
owners of the entire Lot No. 1639 been subdivided into lots, and one of the lots has long been known and
______________ called by the name of one of the tenants in common, and there is no
37
 Clarke, et al. vs. Charles, et al., 55 Neb 202, May 19, 1898. evidence of any subsequent claim of a tenancy in common, it may fairly be
38
 Torres vs. Encarnacion, 89 Phil. 678 (1951). inferred that there has been a partition and that such lot was set off to him
whose name it bears.45
 Respondents insist that the absence of any annotation in the certificate of On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts
title showing any partition of Lot No. 1639 and that OCT No. 6725 has not of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly
been canceled clearly indicate that no partition took place. The logic of this performed.
argument is that unless partition is shown in the title of the subject property, Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid
there can be no valid partition or that the annotation in the title is the sole and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition
evidence of partition. has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and
Again, we are not persuaded. The purpose of registration is to notify and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off to
protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction, who may be ignorant each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties
thereof, but the non-registration of the deed evidencing such transaction thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases involving
does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations thereunder. 46 As an oral partition under which the parties went into possession, exercised acts
originally conceived, registration is merely a species of notice. The act of of ownership, or otherwise partly performed the partition agreement, that
registering a document is never necessary in order to give it legal effect as equity will confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in
between the parties.47 Requirements for the recording of the instruments are accordance with the possession in severalty.
designed to prevent frauds and to permit and require the public to act with ______________
the presumption that recorded instruments exist and are genuine. 48 49
 196 SCRA 313 (1991).
50
It must be noted that there was a prior oral partition in 1946. Although the  78 Phil. 196, 203 (1947).
51
oral agreement was merely tentative, the facts subsequent thereto all point to  296 SCRA 455 (1998).
the confirmation of said oral partition. By virtue of that agreement, the parties 98
took 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
44
 Hunt vs. Rabitoay, 125 Mich. 137, 84 NW 59. In numerous cases it has been held or stated that parol partition may be
45
 Jackson ex dem. Williams vs. Miller, (NY) 6 Wend. 228. sustained on the ground of estoppel of the parties to assert the rights of a
46
 Casica vs. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957, 101 Phil. 1205. tenant in common as to parts of land divided by parol partition as to which
47
 PENA, REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS, 9 (1994 possession in severalty was taken and acts of individual ownership were
Revised Ed., 1997 Reprint). exercised. And a court of equity will recognize the agreement and decree it to
48
 See 26 C.J. 313. be valid and effectual for the purpose of concluding the right of the parties as
97 between each other to hold their respective parts in severalty.
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 97 A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking possession in
possession of specific portions of the subject lot. The action for partition was severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise
instituted because some of the co-owners refused to have separate titles recognizing the existence of the partition.
issued in lieu of the original title. In 1952, an order for partition was issued by A number of cases have specifically applied the doctrine of part
the cadastral court. There is no evidence that there has been any change in performance, or have stated that a part performance is necessary, to take a
the possession of the parties. The only significant fact subsequent to the parol partition out of the operation of the statute of frauds. It has been held
issuance of the order of partition in 1952 is that respondents rented portions that where there was a partition in fact between tenants in common, and a
of Lot No. 1639-D. It would be safe to conclude, therefore, that the oral part performance, a court of equity would have regard to and enforce such
partition as well as the order of partition in 1952 were the bases for the partition agreed to by the parties.
finding of actual partition among the parties. The legal consequences of the Two more points have constrained this Court to rule against respondents.
order of partition in 1952 having been discussed separately, we now deal First, respondents Wilfreda MaglucotAlejo and Constancio Alejo offered to
with oral partition in 1946. Given that the oral partition was initially tentative, buy the share of Roberto Maglucot. Second, the tax declarations contain
the actual possession of specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with statements that the houses of respondents were built on the land owned by
the oral partition and the continuation of such possession for a very long Roberto Maglucot.
period indicate the permanency and ratification of such oral partition. The On the first point, petitioners presented Aida Maglucot who testified that
validity of an oral partition is already well-settled. In Vda. de Espina vs. after respondents were informed that petitioners were going to use Lot No.
Abaya,49 we declared that an oral partition is valid. In Hernandez vs. 1639-D belonging to Roberto Maglucot, respondents Wilfreda Maglucot-Alejo
Andal,50 reiterated in Tan vs. Lim51 this Court has ruled, thus: and Constancio Alejo went to the house of said witness and offered to buy
the share of Roberto Maglucot.52 Aida Maglucot further testified that they 58
 RULES OF COURT, RULE 131, SEC. 3 (m), (q), (y) and (ff).
59
refused the offer because they also intend to use the lot for a residential  Exhibits “B” and “B-1,” Rollo, p. 5.
purpose.53 This testimony of Aida Maglucot is unrebutted by respondents, 100
and the CA did not touch upon this finding of fact. Hence, the offer to buy has 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
been Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot
_____________ of scrutiny of the records and lack of study of the law “by the
52
 T.S.N., p. 5, August 18, 1994. researcher.60 Second, he cited the researcher of the CA as having
53
 Ibid. “sweepingly stated without reference to the record” 61 that “[w]e have scanned
99 the records on hand and found no evidence of any partition.” Finally, counsel
VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 99 for petitioners assailed the CA decision, stating that “this will only show that
Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot there was no proper study of the case by the researcher.”62
established by the unrebutted evidence of the petitioners. Why would they Any court when it renders a decision does so as an arm of the justice
give such offer if they claim to be at least a co-owner of the said lot? In effect, system and as an institution apart from the persons that comprise it.
respondents impliedly admit the title of the petitioners and that they are not Decisions are rendered by the courts and not the persons or personnel that
coowners, much less the sole owners, of Lot No. 1639-D. may participate therein by virtue of their office. It is highly improper and
On the second point, the existence of Tax Declaration No. 04-557 in the unethical for counsel for petitioners to berate the researcher in his appeal.
names of Constancio Alejo and Godofreda Maglucot, 54 Tax Declaration No. Counsel for petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of the legal
04-87-13 in the names of Leopoldo Maglucot and Regina Barot, 55 Tax profession regarding respect for the courts by the use of proper language in
Declaration No. 04-593 in the names of Severo Maglucot and Samni its pleadings and admonished for his improper references to the researcher
Posida56 showing that the houses of the above-mentioned persons are of the CA in his petition. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or
constructed on the land of Roberto Maglucot 57 constitute incontrovertible menacing language or behavior before the courts. 63
evidence of admission by the same persons of the ownership of the land by WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
Roberto Maglucot. Tax Declarations are public documents. Unless their Appeals is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
veracity is directly attacked, the contents therein are presumed to be true and REINSTATED.
accurate.58 The lone testimony of Severo Maglucot that Roberto Maglucot SO ORDERED.
was only made to appear as owner of the land in their respective declarations      Davide, Jr.  (C.J., Chairman), Puno,  Pardo and YnaresSantiago, JJ.,
because he was the administrator of Lot No. 1639 is uncorroborated and not concur.
supported by any other evidence. Petition granted, judgment set aside. That of the trial court reinstated.
No injustice is dealt upon respondents because they are entitled to Note.—A party, having performed affirmative acts upon which another
occupy a portion of Lot No. 1639, particularly Lot No. 1639-A, in their person based his subsequent actions, cannot
capacity as heirs of Tomas Maglucot, one of the original co-owners of Lot No. _______________
60
1639 in accordance with the sketch plan of said lot showing the partition into  Rollo, p. 9.
six portions.59 61
 Id., p. 10.
62
Finally, this Court takes notice of the language utilized by counsel for  Id., p. 16.
63
petitioners in their petition for review on certiorari. Thrice in the petition,  Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
counsel for petitioners made reference to the researcher of the CA First, he 101
alluded to the lack VOL. 329, MARCH 28, 2000 101
_______________ People vs. Cula
54
 Exhibit “G,” Records, p. 87. thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the
55
 Exhibit “H,” Id., p. 88. prejudice of the latter. (Pureza vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 110 [1998])
56
 Exhibit “I,” Id., p. 89. ——o0o——
57
 Exhibits “G-l,” “H-l” and “1-1,” Id., pp. 87-88.