GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW VS LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT

G.R. NO. 132518, March 28, 2000, FIRST DIVISION, (Kapunan, J.)

FACTS:

In 1952, Tomas Maglucot, one of the registered owners and respondents predecessor-in-interest,
filed a petition to subdivide a Lot. Consequently, the CFI or Negros Oriental issued an order directing the
parties to subdivide said lot into 6 portions.

Sometime in 1963, Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion of subject lot. Subsequently, Leopoldo
and Severo Maglucot rented portions of subject lot in 1964 and 1965, respectively, each paying rentals
therefor. Both of them built houses on their corresponding lots and continued paying rentals to Mrs.
Ruperta Salma, who represented Roberto Maglucot, petitioners predecessor-in-interest. In December
1992, however, the respondents stopped paying rentals and claimed ownership of the lot.

The lower court rendered judgement in favor of petitioners having found the existence of tax
declarations as indubitable proof that there was subdivision. It was likewise found that Tomas Maglucot
himself commenced the action for the partition.

The CA revered the decision of the RTC and declared that there was no partition as there was no
conclusive evidence of such.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid partition in 1952.

HELD:

Yes. It must be noted that there was a prior oral partition in 1946. Although the oral agreement
was merely tentative, the facts subsequent thereto all point to the confirmation of said oral partition. By
virtue of that oral agreement, the parties took possession of specific portions of the subject lot. In 1592, an
order for partition was issued by the cadastral court. There is no evidence that there has been any change
in the possession of the parties. The parties actual possession in accordance to the oral agreement
indicates the permanency and ratification of such.

Furthermore, record show that respondents were paying rent for the use the subject lot. Had they
been of the belief that they were co-owners of the entire lot, they would not have paid rent. Since the
possession of the respondents were found to be that of lessees of petitioners, it goes without saying that
the latter were in possession of the lot in the concept of an owner since 1953 up to the time the present
action was commenced.

Finally, the Court takes notice of the language utilized by counsel for petitioners. Thrice in the
petition, counsel made reference to the researcher of the CA. He alluded to the lack of scrutiny and lack
of study, not referring to the record and for doing a poor job in researching. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behaviour before the courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE
and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED.