View full case

PERLA G. PATRICIO v. MARCELINO G. DARIO III

FACTS:

In this case, the subject property was a family home established by Marcelino and Perla Dario. Marcelino passed away without a will in 1987, leaving behind his wife, Perla, and their two sons, Marcelino Marc and Marcelino III. The subject property was extrajudicially settled and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued under the names of Perla, Marcelino Marc, and Marcelino III.

Perla and Marcelino Marc filed an action for partition before the Regional Trial Court, seeking the partition of the property and its sale through public auction if necessary. The trial court granted their request for partition. However, Marcelino III filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. He appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's decision but later reversed it, ultimately dismissing the complaint for partition. The Court of Appeals held that the family home must continue to exist as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and that the heirs cannot partition the property without compelling reasons. In this case, the minor son of Marcelino III was considered a minor beneficiary of the family home.

Petitioner, Marcelino III, then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul and set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The main issue to be resolved is whether partition of the family home is permissible when one of the co-owners refuses to agree to the partition due to the presence of a minor beneficiary.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, the minor son of the private respondent, can be considered as a beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family Code.

  2. Whether Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV can claim legal support from his grandparents.

  3. Whether the partition of the subject property should be ordered.

RULING:

  1. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV is not considered a beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family Code.

  2. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV cannot claim legal support from his grandparents as he is dependent on support from his father, not his grandmother.

  3. The court orders the partition of the subject property, as there is no legal impediment to do so. The law does not encourage indefinite co-ownership and each co-owner has the right to demand partition at any time. If the parties are unable to agree on a partition, the court should order a partition by commissioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • According to Article 159 of the Family Code, the family home continues to exist despite the death of one or both spouses or the unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years or as long as there is a minor beneficiary living in it. The heirs cannot partition the family home unless there are compelling reasons.

  • The family home may be preserved for a minimum of 10 years following the death of the spouses or the unmarried family head who constituted the family home, or the spouse who consented to the constitution of their separate property as a family home. After 10 years and if a minor beneficiary still lives in the family home, it shall be preserved until the minor beneficiary reaches the age of majority.

  • To be considered a beneficiary, three requisites must concur: (1) the relationship enumerated in Article 154 of the Family Code; (2) the minor beneficiaries must live in the family home; and (3) they must be dependent for legal support upon the head of the family.

  • The liability for legal support falls primarily on the parents, especially the father, and only in their default is the obligation imposed on the grandparents.

  • Support or family support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation.

  • Legal support is personal, intransmissible, cannot be renounced or compromised, and is free from attachment or execution. It is also reciprocal and variable in amount.

  • The order of support under Article 199 of the Civil Code imposes the obligation first on closer relatives, and only in their default is the obligation moved to the next nearer relatives.

  • No co-owner should be compelled to stay in a co-ownership indefinitely and may insist on partition at any time. An action to demand partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches.

  • If the parties are unable to agree on a partition, the court may order a partition by commissioners, who will make the partition and set off the property to the parties as directed by the court.