CASE DIGEST PERLA G. PATRICIO v. MARCELINO G. DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. No. 170829 , November 20, 2006
Facts: On July 5, 1987, Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was
survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio and their two sons,
Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Among
the properties he left was a parcel of land with a residential house and a
pre-school building built thereon situated at 91 Oxford corner Ermin Garcia
Streets in Cubao, Quezon City, (755) square meters
Petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised private respondent of
their intention to partition the subject property and terminate the
co-ownership. Private respondent refused to partition the property hence
petitioner and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition.On October 3,
2002, the
trial court ordered the partition of the subject property in the following
manner: Perla G. Patricio, 4/6; Marcelino Marc G. Dario, 1/6; and Marcelino G.
Dario III, 1/6. The trial court also ordered the sale of the property by
public auction wherein all parties concerned may put up their bids. In
case of failure, the subject property should be distributed accordingly in the
aforestated manner.In
the now assailed Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint for
partition filed by petitioner and Marcelino Marc 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 heirs could
not partition the property unless the court found compelling reasons to rule
otherwise. The appellate court also held that the minor son of private
respondent, who is a grandson of spouses Marcelino V. Dario and Perla G.
Patricio, was a minor beneficiary of the family home.
Issue: whether 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.
Held:
To be a beneficiary of the family home, three requisites must concur:
(1) they must be among the relationships 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.
Moreover, Article 159 of the Family Code provides that the family home
shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried
head of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor
beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds
compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever
owns the property or constituted the family home.
As to the first requisite, the
beneficiaries of the family home are: (1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried
person who is the head of a family; and (2) Their parents, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or
illegitimate. 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.
As to the second requisite, minor beneficiaries must be actually living
in the family home to avail of the benefits derived from Art.
159. 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.
However, as to the third requisite, 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. Thus, despite residing in the family
home and his being a descendant of Marcelino V. Dario, Marcelino Lorenzo R.
Dario IV cannot be considered as beneficiary contemplated under Article 154
because he did not fulfill the third requisite of being dependent on his
grandmother for legal support. It is his father whom he is dependent on
legal support, and 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.[16] 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.[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80680 dated December 9, 2005, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78, who is directed to conduct
a PARTITION BY COMMISSIONERS and effect the actual physical partition
of the subject property, as well as the improvements that lie therein, in the
following manner: Perla G. Dario, 4/6; Marcelino Marc G. Dario, 1/6 and
Marcelino G. Dario III, 1/6.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment: