View full case

VILMA G. ARRIOLA and ANT RONALD G. ARRIOLA v. JOHN NABOR C. ARRIOLA

FACTS:

John Nabor C. Arriola filed a petition for judicial partition against Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola, seeking to divide the properties of the decedent Fidel Arriola. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the partition of the land among the heirs and awarded attorney’s fees to John Nabor C. Arriola. However, the parties failed to agree on how to partition the land. John Nabor C. Arriola sought the sale of the land through public auction, but the petitioners refused to include the house in the auction. John Nabor C. Arriola filed a motion for contempt of court, arguing that the petitioners violated court orders. The RTC denied the motion, stating that the court did not include the house in its decision. John Nabor C. Arriola filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition and ordered the auction of the land including the house. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it. The petitioners now claim that the CA erred in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for contempt of court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the RTC erred in taking jurisdiction over the indirect contempt proceeding initiated by the respondent.

  2. Whether the subject house should be included in the public auction of the subject land.

  3. Whether the subject house should be sold at public auction as ordered by the RTC.

  4. Whether the subject house is considered a family home under The Family Code.

  5. Whether the subject house can be partitioned at this time.

  6. Whether or not the house standing on the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 383714 is part of the family home.

  7. Whether or not the house and the portion of the land on which it is standing can be immediately partitioned.

RULING:

  1. The RTC erred in taking jurisdiction over the indirect contempt proceeding initiated by the respondent. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 4, Rule 71. The unverified motion for contempt should have been dismissed outright by the RTC. The CA also committed the same oversight by granting the relief sought in the unverified motion. The proper disposition is the reversal of the CA decision and the dismissal of the unverified motion for contempt.

  2. The subject house should be included in the public auction of the subject land. The subject house is deemed part of the subject land under the provisions of the Civil Code. The right to accession is automatic, requiring no prior act on the part of the owner or principal. The lot subject to judicial partition includes the house which is permanently attached to it. Respondent's claim that the subject house was built by the deceased was not disputed by the petitioners. The subject house is part of the estate of the deceased and is owned in common by the heirs, any one of whom may demand its partition.

  3. The Court did not authorize the actual partition of the subject house by public auction at this time. An action for partition involves two phases: the declaration of the existence of a state of co-ownership, and the actual termination of that state of co-ownership through the segregation of the common property. The fact that the subject house is part of the co-ownership of the parties is settled, but the sale at public auction depends on the exact nature of the subject house.

  4. The subject house is considered a family home under The Family Code. The evidence on record shows that the subject house was built by the decedent on his exclusive property and has been the residence of the petitioners for 20 years. The subject house and the portion of the subject land on which it stands are deemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and petitioner Vilma from the moment they began occupying it as a family residence. The family home is exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment, and this protection extends to the dwelling structure and the lot on which it stands.

  5. The family home, including the subject house, cannot be immediately partitioned. Article 159 of The Family Code states that the family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or the unmarried head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary. The heirs cannot partition the family home unless the court finds compelling reasons to do so. In this case, no compelling reason has been alleged or found by the court to order the partition of the family home. The rights of the individual co-owner or owner of the family home cannot subjugate the rights granted under Article 159 to the beneficiaries of the family home.

  6. The house standing on the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 383714 is declared part of the co-ownership of the parties.

  7. The house and the portion of the land on which it is standing cannot be immediately partitioned.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The requirements of Section 4, Rule 71 must be complied with in initiating an indirect contempt proceeding.

  • The subject house is deemed part of the subject land under the principle of accession.

  • The right to accession is automatic and does not require prior act on the part of the owner or principal.

  • A property owned in common by the heirs may be subject to partition by any one of them.

  • An action for partition involves the declaration of the existence of a state of co-ownership and the actual termination of that state of co-ownership through the segregation of the common property.

  • The automatic constitution of the family home is effective from the time it is occupied as a family residence, without the need for judicial or extrajudicial processes.

  • The family home is not only limited to the dwelling structure but also extends to the lot on which it stands.

  • The family home is exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment, and this protection is granted to both the dwelling structure and the lot.

  • The family home cannot be immediately partitioned for a period of ten years from the death of one or both spouses or the unmarried head of the family, or for a longer period if there is still a minor beneficiary residing therein, unless the court finds compelling reasons to do so.

  • The family home is constituted on a house and the land on which it is situated, and is exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment, except as provided by law (Article 153, Family Code).

  • The actual and immediate partition of the family home cannot be sanctioned until the lapse of a period of 10 years from the death of the owner, or until March 10, 2013 (Article 159, Family Code).