Case Summary (G.R. No. 170829)
Procedural Posture
Petitioner and Marcelino Marc filed for partition before RTC Branch 78 (Q-01-44038). RTC ordered partition and public auction. Marcelino III’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially affirmed but, upon reconsideration, dismissed the partition suit, holding that under Family Code Article 159 the family home continues while a minor beneficiary resides therein.
Issue
Whether the family home may be partitioned despite the presence of a minor grandson beneficiary.
Family Home: Nature, Beneficiaries and Duration
• Definition (Art. 153): Dwelling house and land where spouses or an unmarried head of family reside.
• Beneficiaries (Art. 154): Constitutors (husband and wife or unmarried head) and their parents, ascendants, descendants, siblings who actually reside there and depend on the head for legal support.
• Continuance (Art. 159): Survives death of constitutors for ten years or as long as a minor beneficiary resides therein. Partition barred unless compelling reasons exist.
Analysis of Minor Beneficiary Status
Three requisites under Art. 154 must concur: (1) relationship (descendant includes grandchildren); (2) actual residence; (3) legal support dependency on the family head. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV satisfies relationship and residence but not dependency on Petitioner. His legal support obligation rests primarily on his parents, especially his father (private respondent). No evidence shows the grandmother’s duty to support him or inability of parents to do so. Thus the minor grandson is not a beneficiary within Article 154 and Article 159’s protection does not extend to him.
Co-ownership and Right to Partition
Under New Civil Code Articles 494, 495 and 498 and Rule 69, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, any co-owner may demand partition at any time. If physical division prejudices parties, the court may assign the whole to one party upon payment of an equitable cash equivalent or order public sale. Partition is imprescriptible and not barred by co-owner laches. No legal i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170829)
Facts of the Case
- On July 5, 1987, Marcelino V. Dario died intestate, survived by his wife Perla G. Patricio (petitioner) and two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino G. Dario III (private respondent).
- The decedent owned a 755-square-meter parcel in Cubao, Quezon City, bearing TCT No. RT-30731 (175992), improved with a residential house and a pre-school building.
- On August 10, 1987, the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate; the original TCT was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. R-213963 in the names of petitioner, Marcelino Marc, and private respondent.
- Petitioner and Marcelino Marc notified private respondent of their intention to partition the property; he refused, prompting the filing of Civil Case No. Q-01-44038 for partition before the RTC, Branch 78, Quezon City.
Procedural History
- October 3, 2002: RTC ordered partition of the property in shares of 4/6 to petitioner, 1/6 to Marcelino Marc, and 1/6 to private respondent, and directed public auction if consensus failed.
- August 11, 2003: RTC denied private respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
- October 19, 2005: Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- December 9, 2005: Upon motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed its earlier ruling and dismissed the complaint for partition, invoking the Family Code’s protection of the family home while a minor beneficiary resides therein.
- November 20, 2006: Supreme Court granted certiorari under Rule 45 to review the CA’s December 9, 2005 Resolution.
Legal Issues
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the partition complaint despite its earlier decision affirming the RTC.
- Whether the CA improperly applied Articles 154 and 159 of the Family Code on family home, instead of Articles 494, 495, and 498 of the Civil Code on co-ownership.
- Whether the family home may be partitioned when a minor beneficiary—specifically the private respondent’s son and the decedent’s grandson—still resides therein.
Parties’ Contentions
- Private respondent:
- The property is the family home constituted by spouses Marcelino V. Dario and Perla G. Patricio.
- Under Article 159 of the Family Code, the home continues for ten years from the death of the spouses or as long as a m