Maglucot- Aw v. Maglucot [Case Digest]

 

Maglucot- Aw v. Maglucot

G.R. No. 132518

 

 

Facts:

Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of possession and damages alleging, inter alia, that they are the owners of Lot No. 1639-D. Said lot was originally part of Lot No. 1639 which was covered by OCT issued in the names of Hermogenes Olis, Bartolome Maglucot. Pascual Olis, Roberto Maglucot, Anselmo Lara and Tomas Maglucot. Tomas Maglucot, one of the registered owners and respondents predecessors-in-interest, filed a petition to subdivide lot. CFI of Negros Oriental issued an order 3 directing the parties to subdivide said lot into six portions which apportioned Roberto (Alberto) Maglucot the lot 1639-D.

Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion of Lot No. 1639-D (subject lot). Subsequently, Leopoldo and Severo, both surnamed Maglucot, rented portions of subject lot. Said respondents built houses on their corresponding leased lots.

After trail, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners.  CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the sketch plan and tax declarations relied upon by petitioners are not conclusive evidence of partition.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Respondents (Leopoldo MAglucot and others) were co-owners of the subject property.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take under partition, and who took possession of the portion allotted to them, are estopped to question title to portion allotted to another party.  A person cannot claim both under and against the same instrument.  In other words, they accepted the lands awarded them by its provisions, and they cannot accept the decree in part, and repudiate it in part. They must accept all or none.  Parties who had received the property assigned to them are precluded from subsequently attacking its validity of any part of it.  Here, respondents, by themselves and/or through their predecessors-in-interest, already occupied of the lots in accordance with the sketch plan. This occupation continued until this action was filed. They cannot now be heard to question the possession and ownership of the other co-owners who took exclusive possession of Lot 1639-D also in accordance with the sketch plan.

The records show that respondents were paying rent for the use of a portion of Lot No. 1639-D. Had they been of the belief that they were co-owners of the entire Lot No. 1639 they would not have paid rent. The payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they are mere lessees.