G.R. No. 170829 ; November 20, 2006
PERLA G. PATRICIO, Petitioner, vs. MARCELINO G. DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Marcelino V. Dario died intestate in 1987, survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio, and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. The estate included a parcel of land with improvements in Quezon City. The heirs extrajudicially settled the estate, resulting in the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their names as co-owners. Petitioner and Marcelino Marc later sought to partition the property and terminate the co-ownership, but private respondent refused. Consequently, an action for partition was filed.
The Regional Trial Court ordered the partition of the property, allocating shares of 4/6 to petitioner, 1/6 to Marcelino Marc, and 1/6 to private respondent, and directed a public auction if necessary. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself and dismissed the complaint for partition. The appellate court held the property remained a family home exempt from partition as a minor beneficiary—private respondent’s 12-year-old son, a grandson of the decedent—still resided therein.

ISSUE

Whether partition of the co-owned property, previously constituted as a family home, is legally permissible despite the presence of a minor beneficiary residing therein.

RULING

Yes, partition is proper. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order for partition. The Court clarified the applicable legal regime. The property, while originally a family home, ceased to be governed by the special provisions on family homes under the Family Code upon the death of the spouses and the subsequent establishment of a co-ownership among the heirs. The right to partition under the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership (Articles 494, 495, and 498) prevails.
The Court held that the continued occupancy by a minor descendant does not indefinitely perpetuate the family home’s exempt status to the prejudice of the co-owners’ right to seek partition. The minor grandson, while a beneficiary, is not a compulsory heir of the original spouses who constituted the home; his father (private respondent) is the obligated support provider. The property transitioned into an ordinary co-owned property subject to the rule that no co-owner can be compelled to remain in a co-ownership indefinitely. Therefore, the petitioner, as a co-owner, has a clear legal right to demand partition, and the trial court correctly ordered the property’s division or sale. The case was remanded for the proper implementation of partition proceedings under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.