Patricio v. Dario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Decedent Marcelino V. Dario died intestate, survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio, and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties left was a parcel of land with a residential house and a pre-school building. The property was subsequently registered in the names of the three heirs after an extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Petitioner and Marcelino Marc proposed to partition the property, but respondent refused, leading to a legal dispute. Procedural History: Petitioner and Marcelino Marc filed an action for partition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC ordered the partition of the property, allocating shares of 4/6 to Perla G. Patricio, 1/6 to Marcelino Marc G. Dario, and 1/6 to Marcelino G. Dario III, and also ordered the sale of the property by public auction. After the RTC denied a motion for reconsideration, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Initially, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, but upon a motion for reconsideration by the respondent, the CA partially reconsidered and dismissed the complaint for partition, holding that the family home should continue due to a minor beneficiary and could not be partitioned without compelling reasons. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to annul the CA's Resolution. The petition raises two main issues: (1) whether the CA erred in reversing its earlier decision and dismissing the partition complaint, and (2) whether the CA erred in applying Articles 159 and 154 of the Family Code concerning family homes instead of Articles 494, 495, and 498 of the Civil Code on co-ownership. The core dispute revolves around whether the family home can be partitioned when one co-owner refuses, citing the presence of a minor beneficiary.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its earlier decision regarding the applicable law (Family Code vs. New Civil Code) concerning the family home and co-ownership. Whether partition of the family home is proper, considering the presence of a minor and the disagreement among co-owners.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78, for partition by commissioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the applicable law: The Court held that the family home status under Article 159 of the Family Code does not subsist because the minor son, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, did not meet the requisites of dependency for legal support upon the head of the family (his grandmother, Perla G. Patricio) as required by Article 154. Legal support is primarily the obligation of the parents. Consequently, the provisions on co-ownership under the New Civil Code, specifically Article 494, which allows any co-owner to demand partition, are applicable. The Court reiterated that no co-owner ought to be compelled to stay in a co-ownership indefinitely. On the issue of partition: Since the family home status under the Family Code does not apply, the property, co-owned by the heirs, can be partitioned. As the parties could not agree on a partition, the Court directed the RTC to order a partition by commissioners pursuant to Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The commissioners are to set off to each party their respective shares (4/6 for Perla G. Patricio, 1/6 for Marcelino Marc G. Dario, and 1/6 for Marcelino G. Dario III). If the property cannot be divided without great prejudice, the commissioners are to recommend its assignment to one party upon payment of equitable compensation to others, or its sale at public auction if requested by an interested party.
Main Doctrine
The family home continues to exist for 10 years or as long as there is a minor beneficiary. However, a grandchild is not considered a beneficiary dependent on the grandparent for legal support if the parents are capable of providing such support, thus precluding the application of Article 159 of the Family Code and allowing partition.