UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons

Lindo, Mary Elyssa Jo L. (B2023) Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan

Perla Patricio v. Marcelino Dario III and the Honorable Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 170829 – November 20, 2006
Second Division
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Article/s invoked
Article 154 of the Family Code. The beneficiaries of a 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, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal
support. (226a)

Article 159 of the Family Code. 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 ten 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. (238a)

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Perla Patricio and their two
sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III
o The property in question was the parcel of land with a residential house and a pre-school
building situated in Cubao, Quezon City, which was the family home.
 Marcelino Marc and Dario extrajudicially settled the estate.
 Patricio and Marcelino Marc advised Dario of their intention to partition the said property and
terminate the co-ownership.
o Dario refused to partition the property, thus, Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition
before the RTC of Quezon City.
 The RTC ordered the partition of the subject property, hence, Dario filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court
 Dario then appealed to the Court of Appeals which was also denied. However, upon a motion for
reconsideration on December 2005, the CA reconsidered and dismissed the complaint for partition
filed by Perla and Marcelino Marc.
o The CA held that the family home should continue despite the death of one or both of the
spouses as long as there is a minor beneficiary thereof. The heirs could not petition the
property unless the court found compelling reasons to rule otherwise.
o 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/S & RATIO/S
1) W/N the minor grandson can be considered as a beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family
Code? NO
 Three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the benefits under Article
159:
o The relationship enumerated under Art. 154 of the Family Code;
o They live in the family home; and
o They are dependent for legal support upon the head of the family.
 Based on the facts of the case, the first requisite was met since grandchildren and great grandchildren
are included under the term “descendant” in Art. 154.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons
Lindo, Mary Elyssa Jo L. (B2023) Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
 The second requisite was also satisfied since the minor grandson has been living in the family home,
since 1994, or within 10 years from the death of the decedent. However, the third requisite was not

met since the minor grandson cannot demand support from his paternal grandmother if he has
parents who are capable of supporting him.
 The minor grandson 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 the deceased, the minor
grandson cannot be considered as beneficiary contemplated under Article 154.

RULING
 The petition is GRANTED.
 The resolution of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, who is directed to conduct a PARTITION
OF 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. The trial court is DIRECTED to appoint not more than
three (3) competent and disinterested persons, who should determine the technical metes and bounds
of the property and the proper share appertaining to each heir, including the improvements, in
accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

SEPARATE OPINION/S

Mr. Justice Bradley – Concurring

 According to him, the claim that it is one of the privileges and immunities of a woman as citizens to
engage in any and every profession, occupation and employment in civil life cannot be affirmed.
 The civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective
spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, and should be, woman’s protector and defender.
 A married woman is has no legal existence separate from her husband, thus, making her incapable,
without her husband’s consent, to enter into contracts.
 Although it is true that unmarried women are not affected by any of the duties, complications, and
incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The
paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and
mother.

NOTES