You are on page 1of 2

Arriola vs. Arriola G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008 FACTS: John Nabor C.

Arriola (respondent) filed a Special Civil Action with the Regional Trial Court against Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola (petitioners) for the judicial partition of the properties left by the deceased Fidel Arriola. Respondent is the son of Fidel with his first wife Victoria C. Calabia, while petitioner Anthony Ronald is the son of Fidel with his second wife, petitioner Vilma. The RTC ordered the partition of the subject land covered by TCT No. 383714 left by Fidel by and among his heirs John Nabor C. Arriola, Vilma Arriola and Anthony Ronald C. Arriola in equal shares of one-third each. As the parties failed to agree on how to partition among them the subject land, respondent sought its sale through public auction, and the petitioners acceded to it. Accordingly, the RTC ordered the public auction of the subject land. The public auction was scheduled on May 31, 2003 but was rescheduled when the petitioners refused to include the subject house standing on the land. This prompted the respondent to file with the RTC an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt of Court, praying that petitioners be declared in contempt but was denied. Respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari where the decision of the RTC was reversed and set aside, and the sheriff is ordered to proceed with the public auction sale of the subject land and, including the house constructed thereon. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied the same resolution. The petitioners filed Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court. ISSUES: 1. WON the subject house is part of the judgment of co- ownership and partition. 2. WON the subject house should be included to be sold at public auction. RUILING: 1. The subject house is deemed part of the judgment of partition for two compelling reasons: first, under the provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 440, 445, and 446) the subject house is deemed part of the subject land. Following the Principle of Accession, improvements including the house even not included in the alleged complaint of partition are deemed included in the lot in which they stand. Consequently, the lot subject of the judicial partition in this case includes the house which is permanently attached thereto; otherwise it would be absurd to divide the principal. Second, the subject house was part of the estate of the deceased, as such

under Article 494 of Civil Code. Pursuant to Article 159 of the Family Code. 383714 is DECLARED part of the coownership of the parties John Nabor C. at any time. is owned by the heirs. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. the actual and immediate partition of the family home cannot be sanctioned until the lapse of a period of ten years from the death of Fidel Arriola or until March 10. Therefore. the parties herein. . The rights of the individual co-owner of the family home cannot subjugate the rights granted under Article 159 for the beneficiaries of the family home. Wherefore. the respondent’s recourse to the partition of the subject house cannot be hindered. Vilma C. Arriola. 2006 Decision and April 30. 1013. much less dispel the protection cast upon it by the law. thus fact alone cannot transform the family home into an ordinary property. The subject house is a family home which continues to be such and exempt from execution or forced sale within the contemplation of the provisions of the Family Code particularly Articles 152 and 153. any one of whom. demand the partition of the subject house. may. 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED in that the house standing on the land covered by TCT No. The subject house as well as the portion of the subject land on which it stands is deemed constituted as a family home of the deceased and petitioner Vilma. Arriola but EXEMPTED from the partition by public auction within the period provided for in Article 159 of the Family Code. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED and the November 30. Article 159 imposes the prescription against the immediate partition of the family home regardless of its ownership. This signifies that even if the family home has passed by succession to the co-ownership to the heirs or has been willed to anyone of them.