Rule 69 – Partition

Coverage: Rule 69 Partition Cases:

1. Russel v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999

-Dina Necesito

2. Diego Ruguian et al v. Roman Ruguian, G.R. No. L-

3603, January 9, 1908 -Louisejeane Miguel Cruz

3. Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33007,

June 18, 1976 -Karrenh Jaranilla

4. Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260,

December 22, 1989-Wilfred Lising

5. Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R. No. 172367, June 5,

2009- Jessa O. Main

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 1

6. Maglucot-aw v. Maglucot, G.R. No. 132518, March RULING: YES. There is a valid partition in 1952.
28, 2000 -Dendy Macadaya Partition may be inferred from circumstances
sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Thus,
GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW, CATALINA ORCULLO, after a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition
RICHARD ESTANO, NIDA MAGLUCOT, MELANIA may be presumed. It has been held that recitals in
MAGLUCOT-CATUBIG, EMILIANO CATUBIG, deeds, possession and occupation of land,
LADISLAO SALMA, petitioners, improvements made thereon for a long series of years,
vs. and acquiescence for 60 years, furnish sufficient
LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, SEVERO MAGLUCOT, evidence that there was an actual partition of land
WILFREDA MAGLUCOT-ALEJO and CONSTANCIO either by deed or by proceedings in the probate court,
ALEJO, respondents. which had been lost and were not recorded.

FACTS: ANALYSIS: The records show that respondents were

paying rent for the use of a portion of Lot No. 1639-D.
Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery Had they been of the belief that they were co-owners of
of possession and damages alleging, inter alia, that the entire Lot no. 1639 they would not have paid rent.
they are the owners of Lot No. 1639-D. Respondents attempted to counter this point by
presenting an uncorroborated testimony of their sole
Said lot was originally part of Lot No. 1639 which was
witness to the effect that the amount so paid to Roberto
covered by Original Certificate Title No. 6775 issued in Maglucot and, subsequently, to Ruperta Salma were for
the names of Hermogenes Olis, Bartolome Maglucot,
the payment of real property taxes. It is quite
Pascual Olis, Roberto Maglucot, Anselmo Lara and improbable that the parties would be unaware of the
Tomas Maglucot on 16 August 1927.
difference in their treatment of their transactions for so
long a time.
On 19 April 1952, Tomas Maglucot, one of the
registered owners and respondent’s predecessor-in-
Moreover, no evidence was ever presented to show
interest, filed a petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639. that a tax declaration for the entire Lot No. 1639 has
Consequently, on 13 May 1952, then CFI of Negros
ever been made. Replete in the records are tax
Oriental issued an order directing the parties to declarations for specific portions of Lot 1639. It is
subdivide said lot into six portions as follows: Rtcspped
inconceivable that respondents would not be aware of
this. With due diligence on their part, they could have
Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion of Lot No. 1639-D
easily verified this fact. This they did not do for a period
(subject lot). Leopoldo and Severo, both surnamed
spanning more than four decades.
Maglucot, rented portions of subject lot in 1964 and
1969, respectively, and each paying rentals therefor.
The payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they
Said respondents built houses on their corresponding are mere lessees. As such, the possession of
leased lots. They paid the rental amount of P100.00 per
respondents over Lot No. 1639-D is that of a holder and
annum to Mrs. Ruperta Salma, who represented the not in the concept of an owner. One who possesses as
heirs of Roberto Maglucot, petitioners predecessor-in-
a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right
interest. which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief
be right or wrong. Since the possession of respondents
In December 1992, however, said respondents stopped
were found to be that of lessors of petitioners, it goes
paying rentals claiming ownership over the subject lot.
without saying that the latter were in possession of Lot
Petitioners thus filed the complaint a quo. Sdaadsc
No. 1639-D in the concept of an owner from 1952 up to
After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the time the present action was commenced.
petitioners.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.

CONCLUSION: The existence of tax declarations in the
The appellate court ruled that the sketch plan and tax
names of Hermogenes Olis and Pascual Olis
declarations relied upon by petitioners are not
(purported owners of Lot Nos. 1639-A and 1639-B,
conclusive evidence of partition. The CA likewise found
respectively) as indubitable proof that there was a
that the prescribed procedure under Rule 69 of the
subdivision of Lot No. 1639. It likewise found that
Rules of Court was not followed.
Tomas Maglucot, respondents predecessor-in-interest,
ISSUE: WON there was a valid partition in 1952? took active part in the partition as it was he, in fact, who
commenced the action for partition.

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 2

The court a quo cited Article 1431 of the Civil Code exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may
which states that "through estoppel an admission or be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person interested in the property.—The first phase of a partition
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as and/or accounting suit is taken up with the
against the person relying thereon." Applying said determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact
provision of law, it held that while there was no court exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may
order showing that Lot No. 1639 was partitioned, its be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties
absence could not be used by Tomas Maglucot, or interested in the property. This phase may end with a
respondents as his successors-in-interest, to deny the declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition
existence of an approved partition against the other co- either because a coownership does not exist, or
owners who claim that there was oneSaid court, partition is legally prohibited. It may end, upon the other
likewise, ruled that the tax declarations over the houses hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in
of respondents, expressly stating that the same are truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an
constructed on the lots of Roberto Maglucot, constitute accounting of rents and profits received by the
a conclusive admission by them of the ownership of the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In
subject lot by the latter. the latter case, the parties may, if they are able to
agree, make partition among themselves by proper
SYLLABUS instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm
the partition so agreed upon. In either case—i.e., either
Jurisdiction; Appeals; The jurisdiction of this Court in the action is dismissed or partition and/or accounting is
cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via decreed—the order is a final one, and may be appealed
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing by any party aggrieved thereby.
errors of law.—This Court recognizes that “the
jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from The second phase commences when it appears that
the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court “the parties are unable to agree upon the partition“
is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of directed by the court. In that event, partition shall be
the latter are conclusive, except in the following done for the parties by the court with the assistance of
instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely not more than three (3) commissioners.—The second
on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the phase commences when it appears that “the parties are
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or unable to agree upon the partition“ directed by the
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; court. In that event, partition shall be done for the
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension parties by the court with the assistance of not more
of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) than three (3) commissioners. This second stage may
when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went well also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are and its approval by the court after the parties have been
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the accorded opportunity to be heard thereon, and an
appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the
without citation of specific evidence on which they are real estate in question. Such an order is, to be sure,
based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well final and appealable.
as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings The present rule on the question of finality and
of fact are premised on the supposed absence of appealability of a decision or order decreeing partition is
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.” that it is final and appealable.—The present rule on the
This case falls under exceptions (7), (8) and (10) in that question of finality and appealability of a decision or
the findings of facts of the CA are in conflict with that of order decreeing partition is that it is final and
the RTC, are mere conclusions without citation of appealable. The order of partition is a final
specific evidence on which they are based and are determination of the co-ownership over Lot No. 1639 by
premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted the parties and the propriety of the partition thereof.
by the evidence on record. For these reasons, we shall Hence, if the present rule were applied, the order not
consider the evidence on record to determine whether having been appealed or questioned by any of the
indeed there was partition. parties to the case, it has become final and executory
and cannot now be disturbed.
Courts; Civil Law; Property; Partition; The first phase of
a partition and lor accounting suit is taken up with the The true test to ascertain whether or not an order or a
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact judgment is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 3

something to be done in the trial court with respect to
the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it
does not, it is final.—The true test to ascertain whether In technical estoppel, the party to be estopped must
or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: knowingly have acted so as to mislead his adversary,
Does it leave something to be done in the trial court and the adversary must have placed reliance on the
with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is action and acted as he would otherwise not have done.
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. The key test to —In technical estoppel, the party to be estopped must
what is interlocutory is when there is something more to knowingly have acted so as to mislead his adversary,
be done on the merits of the case. An order for partition and the adversary must have placed reliance on the
is final and not interlocutory and, hence, appealable action and acted as he would otherwise not have done.
because it decides the rights of the parties upon the Some authorities, however, hold that what is
issue submitted. tantamount to estoppel may arise without this reliance
on the part of the adversary, and this is called,
Under the present rule, the proceedings of the ratification or election by acceptance of benefits, which
commissioners without being confirmed by the court are arises when a party, knowing that he is not bound by a
not binding upon the parties.—Under the present rule, defective proceeding, and is free to repudiate it if he
the proceedings of the commissioners without being will, upon knowledge, and while under no disability,
confirmed by the court are not binding upon the parties. chooses to adopt such defective proceeding as his
However, this rule does not apply in case where the own.
parties themselves actualized the supposedly
unconfirmed sketch/subdivision plan. The purpose of Words and Phrases; Ratification; Ratification means
court approval is to give effect to the sketch/subdivision that one under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives
plan. In this case, the parties themselves or through sanction to some unauthorized act of defective
their predecessors-in-interest implemented the sketch proceeding, which without his sanction would not be
plan made pursuant to a court order for partition by binding on him.—Ratification means that one under no
actually occupying specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some
1952 and continue to do so until the present until this unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without
case was filed, clearly, he purpose of the court approval his sanction would not be binding on him. It is this
has been met. This statement is not to be taken to voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a
mean that confirmation of the commissioners may be ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and
dispensed with but only that the parties herein are becomes the authorized act of the party so making the
estopped from raising this question by their own acts of ratification.
ratification of the supposedly non-binding
sketch/subdivision plan. One who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in
another a superior right which he believes to be
Estoppel; Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.—The
to take under partition, and who took possession of the payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they are
portion allotted to them, are estopped to question title to mere lessees. As such, the possession of respondents
portion allotted to another party.—Parties to a partition over Lot No. 1639 D is that of a holder and not in the
proceeding, who elected to take under partition, and concept of an owner. One who possesses as a mere
who took possession of the portion allotted to them, are holder acknowledges in another a superior right which
estopped to question title to portion allotted to another he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right
party. A person cannot claim both under and against or wrong. Since the possession of respondents were
the same instrument. In other words, they accepted the found to be that of lessees of petitioners, it goes without
lands awarded them by its provisions, and they cannot saying that the latter were in possession of Lot No.
accept the decree in part, and repudiate it in part. They 1639-D in the concept of an owner from 1952 up to the
must accept all or none. Parties who had received the time the present action was commenced.
property assigned to them are precluded from
subsequently attacking its validity or any part of it. Here, Registration; The purpose of registration is to notify and
respondents, by themselves and/or through their protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction,
predecessors-in-interest, already occupied of the lots in who may be ignorant thereof, but the non-registration of
accordance with the sketch plan. This occupation the deed evidencing such transaction does not relieve
continued until this action was filed. They cannot now the parties thereto of their obligations thereunder.—We
be heard to question the possession and ownership of are not persuaded. The purpose of registration is to
the other coowners who took exclusive possession of notify and protect the interests of strangers to a given
Lot 1639-D also in accordance with the sketch plan. transaction, who may be ignorant thereof, but the non-

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 4

registration of the deed evidencing such transaction
does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations
thereunder. As originally conceived, registration is
merely a species of notice. The act of registering a
document is never necessary in order to give it legal
effect as between the parties. Requirements for the
recording of the instruments are designed to prevent
frauds and to permit and require the public to act with
the presumption that recorded instruments exist and
are genuine.

Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases involving oral

partition under which the parties went into possession,
exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly
performed the partition agreement, equity will confirm
such partition and in a proper case decree title in
accordance with the possession in severalty.—On
general principle, independent and in spite of the
statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral
partition when it has been completely or partly
performed. Regardless of whether a parol partition or
agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law,
equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has
actually been consummated by the taking of
possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership
by the parties of the respective portions set off to each,
recognize and enforce such parol partition and the
rights of the parties thereunder. Thus, it has been held
or stated in a number of cases involving an oral
partition under which the parties went into possession,
exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly
performed the partition agreement, that equity will
confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title
in accordance with the possession in severalty.

Same; Lawyers; Code of Professional Conduct; A

lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or
menacing language or behavior before the courts.—
Any court when it renders a decision does so as an arm
of the justice system and as an institution apart from the
persons that comprise it. Decisions are rendered by the
courts and not the persons or personnel that may
participate therein by virtue of their office. It is highly
improper and unethical for counsel for petitioners to
berate the researcher in his appeal. Counsel for
petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of
the legal profession regarding respect for the courts by
the use of proper language in its pleadings and
admonished for his improper references to the
researcher of the CA in his petition. A lawyer shall
abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 5

 Sometime in 1963, Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion
of Lot No. 1639-D (subject lot). Subsequently, Leopoldo
KAPUNAN, J.: and Severo, both surnamed Maglucot, rented portions
of subject lot in 1964 and 1969, respectively, and each
This petition for review on certiorari assails the paying rentals therefor. Said respondents built houses
Decision, dated 11 November 1997, of the Court of on their corresponding leased lots. They paid the rental
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48816 which reversed and amount of P100.00  per annum  to Mrs. Ruperta Salma,
set aside the Decision, dated 13 December 1994, of the who represented the heirs of Roberto Maglucot,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 30 of Dumaguete City, petitioners predecessors-in-interest. In December 1992,
Negros Oriental in an action for recovery of possession however, said respondents stopped paying rentals
and damages. claiming ownership over the subject lot. Petitioners thus
filed the complaint a quo.
The core issue in this case is whether a partition of Lot
No. 1639 had been effected in 1952. Petitioners After trail, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of
contend that there was already a partition of said lot; petitioners. The RTC found the existence of tax
hence, they are entitled to exclusive possession and declarations in the names of Hermogenes Olis and
ownership of Lot No. 1639-D which originally formed Pascual Oils (purported owners of Lot Nos. 1639-A and
part of Lot No. 1639 until its partition. Private 1639-B, respectively) 5 as indubitable proof that there
respondents, upon the other hand, claim that there was was a subdivision of Lot No. 1639. It likewise found that
no partition; hence, they are co-owners of Lot No. 1639- Tomas Maglucot, respondents' predecessors-in-
D. Notably, this case presents a unique situation where interest, took active part in the partition as it was he, in
there is an order for partition but there is no showing fact, who commenced the action for partition. 6 The
that the sketch/subdivision plan was submitted to the court a quo cited Article 1431 of the Civil Code which
then Court of First Instance for its approval or that a states that "[t]hrough estoppel an admission or
decree or order was registered in the Register of representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
Deeds. making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon." Applying said
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: provision of law, it held that while there was no court
order showing that Lot No. 1639 was partitioned, its
Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery
absence could not be used by Tomas Maglucot, or
of possession and damages alleging, inter alia, that
respondents as his successors-in-interest, to deny the
they are the owners of Lot No. 1639-D. Said lot was
existence of an approved partitioned against the other
originally part of Lot No. 1639 which was covered by
co-owners who claim that there was one. 7 Said court,
Original Certificate Title No. 6775 issued in the names
likewise, ruled that the tax declarations 8 over the
of Hermogenes Olis, Bartolome Maglucot. Pascual Olis,
houses of respondents, expressly stating that the same
Roberto Maglucot, Anselmo Lara and Tomas Maglucot
are constructed on the lots of Roberto Maglucot,
on 16 August 1927. 1 On 19 April 1952, Tomas
constitute a conclusive admission by them of the
Maglucot, one of the registered owners and
ownership of the subject lot by the latter. 9
respondents predecessors-in-interest, filed a petition to
subdivide lot No. 1639. 2 Consequently, on 13 May
The dispositive portion of the lower court's decision
1952, then CFI of Negros Oriental issued an reads as follows:
order 3 directing the parties to subdivide said lot into six
portions as follows: WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing
discussion, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
a) Hermogenes Olis — lot 1639-A
plaintiffs against the defendants ordering the latter:
b) Pascual Olis — lot 1639-B 1. To demolish their houses inside lot 1639-D, vacate
the premises thereof and deliver the possession of the
c) Bartolome Maglucot — lot 1639-C
same to Plaintiffs;
d) Roberto (Alberto) Maglucot — lot 1639-D
2. To jointly and solidarily pay plaintiffs the sum of
e) Anselmo Lara — lot 1639-E P15,000.00 for attorney's fees:

f) Tomas Maglucot — lot 1639-F. 4

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 6

3. To each pay plaintiffs the sum of P100.00 every year partition. 14 Petitioners further contend that respondents
from 1993 for actual damages representing the amount admitted in their tax declarations covering their
of unpaid rentals up to the time they actually vacate the respective houses that they are "constructed on the
premises in question; land of Roberto Maglucot." 15 Simply put, petitioners
vigorously assert that respondents are estopped from
4. To pay the costs. 10 claiming to be co-owners of the subject lot in view of the
mutual agreement in 1946, judicial confirmation in
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. 1952, and respondents' acquiescence because they
The appellate court ruled that the sketch plan and tax themselves exclusively exercised ownership over Lot
declarations relied upon by petitioners are not No. 1639-A beginning 1952 up to the present. 16
conclusive evidence of partition. 11 The CA likewise
found that the prescribed procedure under Rule 69 of For their part, respondents posit three points in support
the Rules of Court was not followed. It thus declared of their position. First, they emphasize that petitioners
that there was no partition of Lot No. 1639. failed to show that the interested parties were apprised,
or notified of the tentative subdivision contained in the
Petitioners filed this petition for review sketch and that the CFI subsequently confirmed the
on certiorari alleging that the CA committed the same. 17 Second, they point to the fact that petitioners
following reversible errors: were unable to show any court approval of any
partition. 18 Third, they maintain that Lot No. 1639
I. IN VIOLATING THE LAW ON ACQUISITIVE remain undivided since to date, OCT No. 6275 is still an
PRESCRIPTION PLAINTIFFS HAVING POSSESSED
existing and perfectly valid title, containing no
LOT 1639-D SINCE 1946; annotation of any encumbrance or partition
whatsoever. 19
II. IN VIOLATING THE LAW ON ESTOPPEL, THE
FACT OF PAYMENT OF RENTALS AND OFFER TO After a careful consideration of the pleadings filed by
BUY THE DEFENDANTS IS ADMISSION THAT THE
the parties and the evidence on record, we find that the
AREA IN LOT 1639-D. HAD LONG BEEN petition is meritorious. As stated earlier, the core issue
ADJUDICATED TO PLAINTIFFS;
in this case is whether there was a valid partition in
1952.
III. IN DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO PRIOR
PARTITION, CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE
Preliminary, this Court recognizes that "the jurisdiction
TRIAL COURT, AND AGAINST THE EVIDENCE ON of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of
RECORD, OF WHICH IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED
Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to
WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE; reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are
conclusive, except in the following instances: (1) when
IV. IN DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO LAW OR
the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE UNDER THE
surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made
PREMISES; THIS WOULD ONLY SHOW THAT THE
is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when
RECORD OF THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
SCRUTINIZED, AND THE LAW WAS NOT
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
PROPERLY STUDIED; ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE
when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in
AT BENCH THAT THE ORAL AND MUTUAL
making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond
PARTITION HAPPENED DURING THE REGIME OF
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
THE OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE; 12
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7)
Petitioners maintain that Lot No. 1639 was mutually when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
partitioned and physically subdivided among the co- (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
owners and that majority of them participated in the specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when
actual execution of the subdivision. Further, the co- the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
owners accepted their designated shares in 1946 as petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by
averred by Tomas Maglucot in his petition for the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are
partition. 13 Petitioners opine that in 1952, Tomas premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
Maglucot himself initiated a court proceeding for a contradicted by the evidence on record." 20 This case
formal subdivision of Lot No. 1639. In said petition, he falls under exceptions (7), (8) and (10) in that the
averred that only Hermogenes Olis and the heirs of findings of facts of the CA are in conflict with that of the
Pascual Olis were not agreeable to the RTC, are mere conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based and are premised on

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 7

absence of evidence but are contradicted by the something to be done in the trial court with respect to
evidence on record. For these reasons, we shall the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it
consider the evidence on record to determine whether does not, it is final. The key test to what is interlocutory
indeed there was partition. is when there is something more to be done on the
merits of the case. 24 An order for partition is final and
In this jurisdiction, an action for partition is comprised of not interlocutory and, hence, appealable because it
two phases: first, an order for partition which decides the rights of the parties upon the issue
determines whether a co-ownership in fact exists, and submitted. 25
whether partition is proper, and, second, a decision
confirming the sketch or subdivision submitted by the However, this Court notes that the order of partition was
parties or the commissioners appointed by the court, as issued when the ruling in Fuentebella
the case may be. 21 The first phase of a partition and/or vs. Carrascoso, 26 which held that the order of partition
accounting suit is taken up with the determination of is interlocutory, was controlling. In addition, the reports
whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, ( i.e., not of the commissioners not having been confirmed by the
otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by trial court are not binding. 27 In this case, both the order
voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the of partition and the unconfirmed sketch plan are, thus,
property. This phase may end with a declaration that interlocutory. Nevertheless, where parties do not object
plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because to the interlocutory decree, but show by their conduct
a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally that they have assented thereto, they cannot thereafter
prohibited. It may end, upon the other hand, with an question the decree, 28 especially, where, by reason of
adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, their conduct, considerable expense has been incurred
partition is proper in the premises and an accounting of in the execution of the commission. 29 Respondents in
rents and profits received by the defendant from the this case have occupied their respective lots in
real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, "the accordance with the sketch/subdivision plan. They
parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition cannot after acquiescing to the order for more than forty
among themselves by proper instruments of (40) years be allowed to question the binding effect
conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so thereof.
agreed upon. In either case — i.e., either the action is
dismissed or partition and/or accounting is decreed — This case is to be distinguished from the order in the
the order is a final one, and may be appealed by any action for partition in Arcenas vs. Cinco. 30 In that case,
party aggrieved thereby. 22 The second phase the order was clearly interlocutory since it required the
commences when it appears that "the parties are parties "to submit the corresponding deed of partition to
unable to agree upon the partition" directed by the the Court for its approval." Here, the order appointed
court. In that event, partition shall be done for the two commissioners and directed them merely to
parties by the court with the assistance of not more approve the sketch plan already existing and tentatively
than three (3) commissioners. This second stage may followed by the parties.
well also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself
and its approval by the court after the parties have been Under the present rule, the proceedings of the
accorded opportunity to be heard thereon, and an commissioners without being confirmed by the court are
award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto not binding upon the parties. 31 However, this rule does
entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the not apply in case where the parties themselves
real estate in question." Such an order is, to be sure, actualized the supposedly unconfirmed
final and appealable. 23 sketch/subdivision plan. The purpose of the court
approval is to give effect to the sketch/subdivision plan.
The present rule on the question of finality and In this case, the parties themselves or through their
appealability of a decision or order decreeing partition is predecessors-in-interest implemented the sketch plan
that it is final and appealable. 23 The order of partition is made pursuant to a court order for partition by actually
a final determination of the co-ownership over Lot No. occupying specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in 1952 and
1639 by the parties and the propriety of the partition continue to do so until the present until this case was
thereof. Hence, if the present rule were applied, the filed, clearly, the purpose of the court approval has
order not having been appealed or questioned by any been met. This statement is not to be taken to mean
of the parties to the case, it has become final and that confirmation of the commissioners may be
executory and cannot be disturbed. dispensed with but only that the parties herein are
estopped from raising this question by their own acts of
The true test to ascertain whether or not an order or a ratification of the supposedly non-binding
judgment is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave sketch/subdivision plan.

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 8

The records of the case show that sometime in 1946 themselves and/or through their predecessors-in-
there was a prior oral agreement to tentatively partition interest, already occupied of the lots in accordance with
Lot No. 1639. 32 By virtue of this agreement, the original the sketch plan. This occupation continued until this
co-owners occupied specific portions of Lot No. action was filed. They cannot now be heard to question
1639.33 It was only in 1952 when the petition to the possession and ownership of the other co-owners
subdivide Lot No. 1639 was filed because two of the co- who took exclusive possession of Lot 1639-D also in
owners, namely Hermogenes Olis and heirs of Pascual accordance with the sketch plan.
Olis, refused to have said lot subdivided and have
separate certificates of title. Significantly, after the 1952 In technical estoppel, the party to be estopped must
proceedings, the parties in this case by themselves knowingly have acted so as to mislead his adversary,
and/or through their predecessors-in-interest occupied and the adversary must have placed reliance on the
specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with the action and acted as he would otherwise not have done.
sketch plan. Such possession remained so until this Some authorities, however, hold that what is
case arose, or about forty (40) years later. tantamount to estoppel may arise without this reliance
on the part of the adversary, and this is called,
From its order in 1952, it can be gleaned that the CFI ratification or election by acceptance or benefits, which
took notice of the tentative subdivision plan by oral arises when a party, knowing that he is not bound by a
partition of the parties therein. Further, it appears that defective proceeding, and is free to repudiate it if he
the court was aware that the parties therein actually will, upon knowledge, and while under no disability,
took possession of the portions in accordance with the chooses to adopt such defective proceeding as his
sketch/subdivision plan. With the factual backdrop, said own. 39 Ratification means that one under no disability
court ordered the partition and appointed two (2) voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some
commissioners to approve the tentative unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without
sketch/subdivision plan. It would not be unreasonable his sanction would not be binding on him. It is this
to presume that the parties therein, having occupied voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts to
specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with the ratification of what was therefore unauthorized, and
sketch/subdivision plan, were aware that it was that becomes the authorized act of the party so making the
same sketch/subdivision plan which would be ratification. 40
considered by the commissioners for approval. There is
no showing that respondents by themselves or through The records show that respondents were paying rent
their predecessors-in-interest raised any objections. On for the use of a portion of Lot No. 1639-D. Had they
the contrary, the records show that the parties been of the belief that they were co-owners of the entire
continued their possession of the specific portions of Lot No. 1639 they would not have paid rent.
Lot No. 1639 pursuant to the sketch/subdivision plan. Respondents attempted to counter this point by
presenting an uncorroborated testimony of their sole
It has been previously held that a co-owner, who, witness to the effect that the amount so paid to Roberto
though not a party to a partition accepts the partition Maglucot and, subsequently, to Ruperta Salma was for
allotted to him, and holds and conveys the same in the payment of real property taxes. We are not
severalty, will not be subsequently permitted to avoid persuaded. In its quite improbable that the parties
partition. 34 It follows that a party to a partition is also would be unaware of the difference in their treatment of
barred from avoiding partition when he has received their transactions for so long a time. Moreover, no
and held a portion of the subdivided land especially in evidence was ever presented to show that a tax
this case where respondents have enjoyed ownership declaration for the entire Lot No. 1639 has ever been
rights over their share for a long time. made. Replete in the records are tax declarations for
specific portions of Lot 1639. It is inconceivable that
Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take respondents would not be aware of this. With due
under partition, and who took possession of the portion diligence on their part, they could have easily verified
allotted to them, are estopped to question title to portion this fact. This they did not do for a period spanning
allotted to another party. 35 A person cannot claim both more than four decades.
under and against the same instrument. 36 In other
words, they accepted the lands awarded them by its The payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they
provisions, and they cannot accept the decree in part, are mere lessees. As such, the possession of
and repudiate it in part. They must accept all or respondents over Lot No. 1639-D is that of a holder and
none. 37 Parties who had received the property assigned not in the concept of an owner. One who possesses as
to them are precluded from subsequently attacking its a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right
validity of any part of it. 38 Here, respondents, by which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 9

be right or wrong. 41 Since the possession of have separate titles issued in lieu of the original title. In
respondents were found to be that of lessors of 1952, an order for partition was issued by the cadastral
petitioners, it goes without saying that the latter were in court. There is no evidence that there has been any
possession of Lot No. 1639-D in the concept of an change in the possession of the parties. The only
owner from 1952 up to the time the present action was significant fact subsequent to the issuance of the order
commenced. of partition in 1952 is that respondents rented portions
of Lot No. 1639-D. It would be safe to conclude,
Partition may be inferred from circumstances therefore, that the oral partition as well as the order of
sufficiently strong to support presumption. 42 Thus, after partition in 1952 were the bases for the finding of actual
a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition may partition among the parties. The legal consequences of
be presumed. 43 It has been held that recitals in deeds, the order of partition in 1952 having been discussed
possession and occupation of land, improvements separately, we now deal with oral partition in 1946.
made thereon for a long series of years, and Given that the oral partition was initially tentative, the
acquiescence for 60 years, furnish sufficient evidence actual possession of specific portions of Lot No. 1639 in
that there was an actual partition of land either by deed accordance with the oral partition and the continuation
or by proceedings in the probate court, which had been of such possession for a very long period indicate the
lost and were not recorded. 44 And where a tract of land permanency and ratification of such oral partition. The
held in common has been subdivided into lots, and one validity of an oral partition is already well-settled.
of the lots has long been known and called by the name In Espina vs. Abaya, 49 we declared that an oral
of one of the tenants in common, and there is no partition is valid. In Hernandez vs. Andal, 50 reiterated
evidence of any subsequent claim of a tenancy in in Tan vs. Lim, 51 this Court has ruled, thus:
common, it may fairly be inferred that there has been a
partition and that such lot was set off to him whose On general principle, independent and in spite of the
name it bears. 45 statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforce oral
partition when it has been completely or partly
Respondents insist that the absence of any annotation performed.
in the certificate of title showing any partition of Lot No.
1639 and that OCT No. 6725 has not been canceled Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to
clearly indicate that no partition took place. The logic of partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will
this argument is that unless partition is shown in the title proper cases where the parol partition has actually
of the subject property, there can be no valid partition or been consummated by the taking of possession in
that the annotation in the title is the sole evidence of severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties
partition. of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and
enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties
Again, we are not persuaded. The purpose of thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a
registration is to notify and protect the interests of number of cases involving an oral partition under which
strangers to a given transaction, who may be ignorant the parties went into possession, exercised acts of
thereof, but the non-registration of the deed evidencing ownership, or otherwise partly performed the partition
such transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of agreement, that equity will confirm such partition and in
their obligations thereunder. 46 As originally conceived, a proper case decree title in accordance with the
registration is merely a species of notice. The act of possession in severalty.
registering a document is never necessary in order to
give it legal effect as between the In numerous cases it has been held or stated that parol
parties. 47 Requirements for the recording of the partition may be sustained on the ground of estoppel of
instruments are designed to prevent frauds and to the parties to assert the rights of a tenant in common as
permit and require the public to act with the to parts of land divided by parol partition as to which
presumption that recorded instrument exist and are possession in severalty was taken and acts of individual
genuine. 48 ownership were exercised. And a court of equity will
recognize the agreement and decree it to be valid and
It must be noted that there was a prior oral partition in effectual for the purpose of concluding the right of the
1946. Although the oral agreement was merely parties as between each other to hold their respective
tentative, the facts subsequent thereto all point to the parts in severalty.
confirmation of said oral partition. By virtue of that
agreement, the parties took possession of specific A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground
portions of the subject lot. The action for partition was that the parties thereto have acquiesced in and ratified
instituted because some of the co-owners refused to the partition by taking possession in severalty,

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 10

exercising acts of ownership with respect thereto, or No injustice is dealt upon respondents because they
otherwise recognizing the existence of the partition. are entitled to occupy a portion of Lot No. 1639,
particularly Lot No. 1639-A, in their capacity as heirs of
A number of cases have specifically applied the Tomas Maglucot, one of the original co-owners of Lot
doctrine of part performance, or have stated that a part No. 1639 in accordance with the sketch plan of said lot
performance is necessary, to take a parol partition out showing the partition into six portions. 59
of the operation of the statute of frauds. It has been
held that where there was a partition in fact between Finally, this Court takes notice of the language utilized
tenants in common, and a part performance, a court of by counsel for petitioners in their petition for review
equity would have regard to enforce such partition on certiorari.1âwphi1 Thrice in the petition, counsel for
agreed to by the parties. petitioners made reference to the researcher of the
CA. First, he alluded to the lack of scrutiny of the
Two more points have constrained this Court to rule records and lack of study of the law "by the
against respondents. First, respondents Wilfreda researcher." 60 Second, he cited the researcher of the
Maglucot-Alejo and Constancio Alejo offered to buy the CA as having "sweepingly stated without reference to
share of Roberto Maglucot. Second, the tax the record" 61 that "[w]e have scanned the records on
declarations contain statements that the houses of hand and found no evidence of any partition." Finally,
respondents were built on the land owned by Roberto counsel for petitioners assailed the CA decision, stating
Maglucot. that "this will only show that there was no proper study
of the case by the researcher." 62
On the first point, petitioners presented Aida Maglucot
who testified that after respondents were informed that Any court when it renders a decision does so as an arm
petitioners were going to use Lot No. 1639-D belonging of the justice system and as an institution apart from the
to Roberto Maglucot, respondents Wilfreda Maglucot- persons that comprise it. Decisions are rendered by the
Alejo and Constancio Alejo went to the house of said courts and not the persons or personnel that may
witness and offered to buy the share of Roberto participate therein by virtue of their office. It is highly
Maglucot. 52 Aida Maglucot further testified that they improper and unethical for counsel for petitioners to
refused the offer because they also intend to use the lot berate the researcher in his appeal. Counsel for
for a residential purpose. 53 This testimony of Aida petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of
Maglucot is unrebutted by respondents, and the CA did the legal profession regarding respect for the courts by
not touch upon this finding of fact. Hence, the offer to the use of proper language in its pleadings and
buy has been established by the unrebutted evidence admonished for his improper references to the
of the petitioners. Why would they give such offer if they researcher of the CA in his petition. A lawyer shall
claim to be at least a co-owner of the said lot? In effect, abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing
respondents impliedly admit the title of the petitioners language or behavior before the courts. 63
and that they are not co-owners, much less the sole
owners, of Lot No. 1639-D. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision
of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the decision
On the second point, the existence of Tax Declaration of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
No. 04-557 in the names of Constancio Alejo and REINSTATED.1âwphi1.nêt
Godofreda Maglucot, 54 Tax Declaration No. 04-87-13 in
the names of Leopoldo Maglucot and Regina SO ORDERED.
Barot, 55 Tax Declaration No. 04-593 in the names of
Severo Maglucot and Samni Posida 56 showing that the Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago,
houses of the above-mentioned persons are JJ., concur.
constructed on the land of Roberto
Maglucot 57 constitute incontrovertible evidence of
admission by the same persons of the ownership of the
land by Roberto Maglucot. Tax Declarations are public Footnotes
documents. Unless their veracity is directly attacked, 1 
Exhibit "J," Records, p. 89.
the contents therein are presumed to be true and 2 
Exhibits "A-4," "A-4-a" to "A-4-c" and "B," Records, pp. 48-50.
accurate. 58 The lone testimony of Severo Maglucot that
3 
Exhibit "A,'' id.; at 45-47.
4 
Rollo, p. 24.
Roberto Maglucot was only made to appear as owner 5 
Exhibits "K" and "L," Records, pp. 90-91.
of the land in their respective declarations because he 6 
RTC Decision, 13 December 1994, p. 10; Rollo, p. 42.
7 
Ibid.
was the administrator of Lot No. 1639 is uncorroborated 8 
Exhibits "G" to "I" Records, pp. 87-88.
and not supported by any other evidence. 9 
See note 5 at 9, Rollo, p. 41.

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 11

10 
Id., at 12-13; Rollo, pp. 44-45. Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
63 

11 
CA Decision, pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 28-29.
12 
Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 8.
13 
Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 6; Rollo, p. 61.
14 
Ibid.
15 
Id. at 10; Rollo, p. 65.
16 
Id. at 12; Rollo, p. 67.
17 
Memorandum for Respondents, p. 2; Rollo, p. 79.
18 
Ibid.
19 
Id. at 3, 6; Rollo. pp. 81, 83.
20 
Sta. Maria vs. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 351 (1998); Medina vs.
Asistio, 191 SCRA 218, 223-224 (1990).
21 
See Sections 2 and 6, Rule 69, Rules of Court. See also HERRERA,
COMMENTS ON THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS
AMENDED. 768-770 (1997).
22 
Municipality of Biñan vs. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576 (1989).
23 
Ibid.
23 
See Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 295 (1976) reiterated in
Valdez vs. Bagaso, 82 SCRA 22 (1978); Lagunzad v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA
476 (1979); Garbo vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 616 (1984); Fabrica vs.
Court of Appeals, 146 SCRA 250 (1986).
24 
Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
25 
Id., at 9; See also Valdez vs. Bagaso, supra.; Fabrica, et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.
26 
G.R. No. 48102, May 27, 1942. 7. Quimpo, vs. Abad Vda. de Beltran, G.R. No.
27 
RULE OF COURT, Rule 69, Sec. 2, par. 1 and Sec. 6.
28 
Godwin v. Banks, 43 A. 863, 89 Md. 679.
160956, February 13, 2008 -Satriani De Guzman
29 
Corbett vs. Fleming, 119 N.Y.S. 543, 134 App. Div. 544.
30 
74 SCRA 118 (1976). 8. Heirs of Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464,
31 
Notably, the provision applied by the Cadastral Court in its Order of December 21, 1998 -Regine Del Rosario
Partition in 1952 was section 22 of the Cadastral Act. (The Cadastral Court
was actually referring to section 19 of the law.) A perusal of this provision
would show that the appointed commissioners are empowered to make 9. De Guia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120864,
partition such part and proportion of the lands as the court shall order. October 8, 2003 -Therese Andrea Lacson
Significantly, in contrast to the procedure under the Rules of Court, there is
no requirement of confirmation of the report of the commissioners by the
Cadastral Court. It is not, however, necessary to make any declaration on 10. Heirs of Morales v. Agustin, G.R. No. 224849, June
this matter since whatever rule may have been applicable, the defendants 6, 2018 -Enrico Fulleros
are now estopped from raising this question.
32 
Exhibit B for petitioners, Rollo, p. 51.
33 
Exhibit A-4; Rollo p. 49.
34 
Hampshire County Trust Co. of North Hampton, Mass., et. al., v.
Stevenson et. al., 150 N.E. 726 citing Freeman, Cotenancy and Partition p. *Students are required to close/cover their eyes while
710, Section 535.
35 
Jeffries vs. Hignite et. al., 206 Ky. 50, 266 S.W. 901.
reciting. Atty. will still call students who are not
36 
Christen et. al., vs. Christen et. al., 184 Ky. 822, 213 S.W. 189. assigned to cases, for Q&A re Rule 69 Partition, rules
37 
Clarke et. al., vs. Charles et. al., 55 Neb 202, May 19, 1989. and doctrines. For those who are assigned to recite
38 
Torres vs. Encarnacion, 89 Phil. 678 (1951).
39 
Hampshire County Trust Co. of North Hompton, Mass., et al., v. cases, expect follow up questions.
Stevenson et al., 150 N.E. 726.
40 
Ibid.
41 
A.M. TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 245 (VOL. II, 1995).
42 
Hunt vs. Rabitoay, 125 Mich. 137, 84 NW 59.
43 
Hepburn & Dundas vs. Auld, 9 US 262, 3 L, Ed: 96.
44 
Hunt vs. Rabitoay, 125 Mich. 137, 84 NW 59.
45 
Jackson ex dem. Williams vs. Millr (NY) 6 Wend. 228.
46 
Casica vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957.
47 
PENA, REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS, 9 (1994
Revised Ed., 1997 Reprint).
48 
See 26 C.J. 313.
49 
196 SCRA 313 (1991).
50 
78 Phil. 196, 203 (1974).
51 
296 SCRA 455 (1998).
52 
T.S.N. p. 5, August 18, 1994.
53 
Ibid.
54 
Exhibit "G", Records, p. 87.
55 
Exhibit "H", Id., at 88.
56 
Exhibit "I", Id., at 89.
57 
Exhibits "G-1," "H-1" and "I-1", Id. at 87-88.
58 
RULES OF COURT, RULE 131, SEC. 3 (m), (q), (y) and (ff).
59 
Exhibits "B" and "B-1", Rollo, p. 5.
60 
Rollo, p. 9.
61 
Id., at 10.
62 
Id., at 16.

JDSPECA | Cases | Rule 69 | 12