Patricio v. Dario III

PERLA G. PATRICIO v. MARCELINO G.
DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division

20 November 2006 | Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
On 5 July 1987, Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife Perla G. Patricio and his two sons
Marcelino Marc Dario and R Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties he left was a parcel of land with a residential
house and a pre-school building built theron in Cubao, QC, covering an area of 755 sq. m., more or less.
On 10 August 1987, P Perla, Marcelino Marc, and R Marcelino extrajudicially settled the estate of Marcelino V Dario. The
TCT of the above-mentioned parcel of lands was cancelled and a new one was issued in the names of the three heirs.
Thereafter, P Perla and Marcelino Marc formally advised R Marcelino of their intention to partition the subject property &
terminate the co-ownership. R refused to partition the property, hence P Perla and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for
partition before the RTC of Quezon City.
RTC: Ordered the partition of the subject property in the ff. manner: Perla, 4/6; Marcelino Marc, 1/6; Marcelino, 1/6. It also
ordered the sale of the property by public auction wherein all parties may put up their bids. In case of failure, the subject
property should be distributed accordingly in the aforestated manner. RTC denied MR.
CA: Initially denied Rs appeal. In its MR, CA partially reconsidered its decision and dismissed the complaint for partition
for lack of merit. It held that the family home should continue despite the death of one or both spouses as long as there is
a minor beneficiary thereof. The heir could not partition the property unless the court found compelling reasons to rule
otherwise. It held that Rs minor son, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, who is a grandson of P Perla and Marcelino V. Dario,
was a minor beneficiary of the family home.
SUB-ISSUE: W/N partition of the family home is proper where one of the co-owners refuse to accede to such partition on
the ground that a minor beneficiary still resides in the said home.
ISSUE: W/N Rs minor son can be considered a beneficiary under FC 154.
RULING ON THE SUB-ISSUE:
The family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that last during ones
lifetime. It is the dwelling house where husband and wife, or by an unmarried head of a family, reside, including the land
on which it is situated. It is constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family. The family
home is deemed constituted from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of its constitution and so
long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law.
The law explicitly provides that occupancy of the family home either by the owner thereof or by any of its beneficiaries
must be actual. That which is actual is something real, or actually existing, as opposed to something merely possible, or
to something which is presumptive or constructive. Actual occupancy, however, need not be by the owner of the house
specifically. Rather, the property may be occupied by the beneficiaries enumerated in Article 154 of the Family Code,
which may include the in-laws where the family home is constituted jointly by the husband and wife. But the law definitely
excludes maids and overseers. They are not the beneficiaries contemplated by the Code.
The rule in Article 159 of the Family Code may thus be expressed in this wise: If there are beneficiaries who survive
and are living in the family home, it will continue for 10 years, unless at the expiration of 10 years, there is still a
minor beneficiary, in which case the family home continues until that beneficiary becomes of age.
As a general rule, 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 of the spouse who consented to the constitution of his or her
separate property as family home. After 10 years and a minor beneficiary still lives therein, the family home shall be
preserved only until that minor beneficiary reaches the age of majority. The intention of the law is to safeguard and protect
the interests of the minor beneficiary until he reaches legal age and would now be capable of supporting himself.
However, three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the benefits of Art. 159: (1) the relationship
enumerated in Art. 154 of the Family Code; (2) they live in the family home, and (3) they are dependent for legal support
upon the head of the family.
RULING ON THE ISSUE: No. He does not satisfy all three requisites to be considered a beneficiary.
(1) Must be among the relationships enumerated in FC 154.
The term descendants contemplates all descendants of the person or persons who constituted the family home without
distinction; hence, it must necessarily include the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the spouses who constitute a
family home. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos. Where the law does not distinguish, we should not
distinguish. Thus, private respondents minor son, who is also the grandchild of deceased Marcelino V. Dario satisfies the
first requisite.
(2) They must actually live in the family home.
Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, also known as Ino, the son of private respondent and grandson of the decedent Marcelino
V. Dario, has been living in the family home since 1994, or within 10 years from the death of the decedent, hence, he
satisfies the second requisite.
(3) They must be dependent upon the head of the family for legal support.
Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV cannot demand support from his paternal grandmother if he has parents who are capable
of supporting him. The liability for legal support falls primarily on Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IVs parents, especially his
father, herein private respondent who is the head of his immediate family. The law first imposes the obligation of legal
support upon the shoulders of the parents, especially the father, and only in their default is the obligation imposed on the
grandparents. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV is dependent on legal support not from his grandmother, but from his father,
who must now establish his own family home separate and distinct from that of his parents, being of legal age.
Legal support, also known as family support, is that which is provided by law, comprising everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of
the family. Legal support has the following characteristics: (1) It is personal, based on family ties which bind the obligor
and the obligee; (2) It is intransmissible; (3) It cannot be renounced; (4) It cannot be compromised; (5) It is free from
attachment or execution; (6) It is reciprocal; (7) It is variable in amount.
There is no showing that private respondent is without means to support his son; neither is there any evidence to prove
that petitioner, as the paternal grandmother, was willing to voluntarily provide for her grandsons legal support. On the
contrary, herein petitioner filed for the partition of the property which shows an intention to dissolve the family home, since
there is no more reason for its existence after the 10-year period ended in 1997.
With this finding, there is no legal impediment to partition the subject property.
The partition of the subject property should be made in accordance with the rule embodied in Art. 996 of the Civil Code.
Under the law of intestate succession, if the widow and legitimate children survive, the widow has the same share as that
of each of the children. However, since only one-half of the conjugal property which is owned by the decedent is to be
allocated to the legal and compulsory heirs (the other half to be given exclusively to the surviving spouse as her conjugal
share of the property), the widow will have the same share as each of her two surviving children. Hence, the respective
shares of the subject property, based on the law on intestate succession are: (1) Perla Generosa Dario, 4/6; (2) Marcelino
Marc G. Dario II, 1/6 and (3) Marcelino G. Dario III, 1/6.

Patricio v. Dario III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patricio v. Dario III

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patricio v. Dario III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERLA G. PATRICIO v. MARCELINO G.

DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division

You might also like