Case Digest (G.R. No. 170829) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Perla G. Patricio v. Marcelino G. Dario III, petitioner Perla G. Patricio and respondents Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino G. Dario III were co‐owners of a residential property in Cubao, Quezon City, originally titled under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT‐30731 in the name of their intestate father, Marcelino V. Dario, who died on July 5, 1987. Through an extrajudicial settlement dated August 10, 1987, the siblings had the TCT cancelled and reissued as TCT No. R‐213963 in their names. When petitioner and Marcelino Marc sought to terminate the co‐ownership and partition the property, private respondent Marcelino III refused. Consequently, petitioner and Marcelino Marc filed Civil Case No. Q‐01‐44038 for partition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78. On October 3, 2002, the RTC granted the partition and public auction of the property, allotting shares of 4/6 to petitioner, 1/6 to Marcelino Marc, and 1/6 to Marcelino III. After his motion Case Digest (G.R. No. 170829) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Marcelino V. Dario died intestate on July 5, 1987, survived by his wife Perla G. Patricio (petitioner) and sons Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino G. Dario III (private respondent).
- The decedent owned a parcel with residential and pre-school buildings in Cubao, Quezon City, TCT No. RT-30731 (175992), about 755 sqm.
- Procedural History
- On August 10, 1987, the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement; TCT No. RT-30731 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. R-213963 in the names of petitioner, private respondent, and Marcelino Marc.
- Petitioner and Marcelino Marc sought partition; the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City Branch 78 in Civil Case No. Q-01-44038 ordered on October 3, 2002, a 4/6-1/6-1/6 partition and public auction if no agreement.
- Private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on August 11, 2003. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on October 19, 2005 affirmed the RTC decision but on December 9, 2005 reversed it, dismissing the partition complaint on the ground that the property remained a family home as long as a minor beneficiary resided therein.
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to annul the CA Resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in reversing its October 19, 2005 Decision and dismissing the partition complaint.
- Whether the CA wrongly applied Articles 154 and 159 of the Family Code on family home instead of Articles 494, 495, and 498 of the Civil Code governing co-ownership.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)