Scribd
Upload
67 views1 page

Patricio vs. Dario III

The Supreme Court ruled that partition of a family home was not proper while a minor beneficiary still resides there. The case involved a dispute over partition of property left by Marcelino V. Dario among his wife, Perla, and two sons, including the private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Dario III refused partition, claiming his minor son lived in the family home. However, the Court found the minor grandson did not qualify as a beneficiary under the Family Code as he did not meet all the requirements, such as dependency on the head of the family. Therefore, partition of the family home was not barred in this case.

Uploaded by

Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views1 page

Patricio vs. Dario III

The Supreme Court ruled that partition of a family home was not proper while a minor beneficiary still resides there. The case involved a dispute over partition of property left by Marcelino V. Dario among his wife, Perla, and two sons, including the private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Dario III refused partition, claiming his minor son lived in the family home. However, the Court found the minor grandson did not qualify as a beneficiary under the Family Code as he did not meet all the requirements, such as dependency on the head of the family. Therefore, partition of the family home was not barred in this case.

Uploaded by

Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

159. PERLA G. PATRICIO, Petitioner, vs.

MARCELINO G. DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT


OF APPEALS,

G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006

FACTS:

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.

On August 10, 1987, petitioner, Marcelino Marc and


private respondent, extrajudicially settled the estate of
Marcelino V. Dario.

Thereafter, 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


claiming that the subject property, which is the family
home duly constituted by spouses Marcelino and Perla
Dario, cannot be partitioned while a minor beneficiary is
still living therein namely, his 12-year-old son, who is the
grandson of the decedent.

ISSUES: Whether or not 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.

Whether or not Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, the minor


son of private respondent, can be considered as a
beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family Code

RULING:

1. No. 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.

2. No, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV can’t be considered as


a beneficiary.

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.

You might also like