Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 922 views

    Patricio vs. Dario

    Uploaded by

    Hailey Raincloud
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of a family home between heirs of the deceased owner. The petitioner sought partition, while the private respondent refused on the grounds that his minor son resided there. The court held that under the Family Code, a minor beneficiary must actually live in the family home and depend on the head of the family for legal support to prevent partition. Though the grandson lived there, he did not depend on his grandmother but on his father for legal support. Therefore, the family home could be partitioned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Patricio vs. Dario

    Uploaded by

    Hailey Raincloud
    922 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of a family home between heirs of the deceased owner. The petitioner sought partition, while the private respondent refused on the grounds that his minor son resided there. The court held that under the Family Code, a minor beneficiary must actually live in the family home and depend on the head of the family for legal support to prevent partition. Though the grandson lived there, he did not depend on his grandmother but on his father for legal support. Therefore, the family home could be partitioned.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the partition of a family home between heirs of the deceased owner. The petitioner sought partition, while the private respondent refused on the grounds that his minor son resided there. The court held that under the Family Code, a minor beneficiary must actually live in the family home and depend on the head of the family for legal support to prevent partition. Though the grandson lived there, he did not depend on his grandmother but on his father for legal support. Therefore, the family home could be partitioned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    922 views2 pages

    Patricio vs. Dario

    Uploaded by

    Hailey Raincloud
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of a family home between heirs of the deceased owner. The petitioner sought partition, while the private respondent refused on the grounds that his minor son resided there. The court held that under the Family Code, a minor beneficiary must actually live in the family home and depend on the head of the family for legal support to prevent partition. Though the grandson lived there, he did not depend on his grandmother but on his father for legal support. Therefore, the family home could be partitioned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Patricio vs. Dario III 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. Petitioner Perla, Marcelino Marc and, Marcelino III, extrajudicially settled his estate Thereafter, Perla and Marcelino Marc formally advised Marcelino III 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, the grandson of the decedent. He argued that as long as the minor is living in the family home, the same continues as such until the beneficiary becomes of age. Hence petitioner and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition. Issue: Whether or not the 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. Held: The law explicitly provides that occupancy of the family home either by the owner thereof or by any of its beneficiaries must be actual. Actual occupancy, however, need not be by the owner of the house specifically. Rather, the property may be occupied by the beneficiaries enumerated in Article 154 of the Family Code, which may include the in-laws where the family home is constituted jointly by the husband and wife. But the law definitely excludes maids and overseers. They are not the beneficiaries contemplated by the Code. Article 154 of the Family Code enumerates who are the beneficiaries of a family home: (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. To be a beneficiary of the family home, three requisites must concur: (1) they must be among the relationships 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. Moreover, Article 159 of the Family Code provides that 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 10 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. constituted the family home.

    This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or

    As to the first requisite, the beneficiaries of the 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. The term descendants contemplates all descendants of the person or persons who constituted the family home without distinction; hence, it must necessarily include the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the spouses who constitute a family home. As to the second requisite, minor beneficiaries must be actually living in the family home to avail of the benefits derived from Art. 159. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, also known as Ino, the son of private respondent and grandson of the decedent Marcelino V. Dario, has been living in the family home since 1994, or within 10 years from the death of the decedent, hence, he satisfies the second requisite. However, as to the third requisite, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV cannot demand support from his paternal grandmother if he has parents who are capable of supporting him. The liability for legal support falls primarily on Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IVs parents, especially his father, herein private respondent who is the head of his immediate family. The law first imposes the obligation of legal support upon the shoulders of the parents, especially the father, and only in their default is the obligation imposed on the grandparents. Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV is dependent on legal support not from his grandmother, but from his father. Legal support has the following characteristics: (1) It is personal, based on family ties which bind the obligor and the obligee; (2) It is intransmissible; (3) It cannot be renounced; (4) It cannot be compromised; (5) It is free from attachment or execution; (6) It is reciprocal; (7) It is variable in amount.

    You might also like