PERLA G.

PATRICIO, Petitioner,
vs.
MARCELINO G. DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division,
Respondents.
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.

In this case, 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.

Javier vs Lucero
Javier vs Lucero
GR No. L-6706, March 29, 1953
FACTS:

Alfredo Javier Sr. and Salud Arca had begotten a son before they got married, named Alfredo Jr. After the celebration of
marriage, the father went to US since he was listed as US Navy. The mother and Alfredo Jr. went to live with her parents while
the husband was in US. When the relationship between the spouses become strained, husband petitioned for divorce before State
of Alabama. After the decree was issued, Alfredo Sr. subsequently married twice (having been divorced with the former before
celebration of subsequent marriage).

An action for alimony was filed where respondent Judge ordered the father to give a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife and
son. The father filed notice of appeal questioning the status of the wife; second, the fact that his son was over 21 years old
making him no longer entitled to be supported and third, decision is vague and silent in relation to granting the son entitlement to
support even if over 21 years old for purposes of completing his education/ training for some profession, trade or vocation.
Nevertheless, the judge directed the father to pay the monthly pensions notwithstanding pendency of the appeal.

ISSUE: WON Alfredo Jr. is entitled for support.

HELD:

Alfredo Jr. indeed has reached the age of majority yet under the provision of Family Code, the support may be given beyond the
age of majority in order enable him to complete his education, for some trade and profession.

If financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal, his education or the completion thereof would be
unduly delayed. This is a good reason for immediate execution. The father claimed that based on the records, the son is no
longer studying. However, it might have resulted to lack of means to support his studies considering that the father admits that
the son is just a pre-law graduate.