Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 177703 : April 21, 2008] VILMA G. ARRIOLA AND ANTHONY RONALD G. ARRIOLA V. JOHN NABOR C. ARRIOLA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated  21 April 2008:

G.R. No. 177703 - Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola v. John Nabor C. Arriola

In its January 28; 2008 Decision, the Court declared the land and house covered by TCT No. 383714 co-owned by petitioners Vilma and Anthony Arriola and respondent John Arriola, postponed until March 10, 2013 the partition of the house and the specific portion of the land on which it stands for the reason that said properties were constituted as the family home of petitioners and the decedent Fidel Arriola and therefore not susceptible of immediate partition under Article 159 of the Faintly Code, but allowed the immediate partition of the remaining portion of the land which is not part of the family home.

In a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, respondent questions the second portion of the January 28, 2008 Decision which halted the partition of the family home on the following grounds:

a) The partition of the house and the portion of the land on which it stands need not be delayed further because there is no minor heir living in it.

b) Moreover, the [respondent] has not been living in said properly for more than 10 years, or even before the filing of the partition case before the RTC. Only petitioners as the second family of the decedent Fidel Arriola are living in said property.

c) Even if it is conceded that the said house and lot portion constitute a family home, there is compelling reason for its immediate partition for it is utterly unjust that respondent and his wife should continue to stay in a rented house until March 10, 2013, while petitioners live in said family home without needing to pay rent.

The motion for reconsideration lacks merit for the following reasons:

1.  Even if there is no minor beneficiary living in the family home, its partition is prohibited under the first clause of Article 159, but only for a period of 10 years.

2.    For the constitution and maintenance of the family home, Articles 152 and 153 of the Family Code merely require dial a) the property be used as the dwelling of the family, and b) that any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. Hence, the absence of respondent from the dwelling place used by Fidel Arriola and his second family does not make it any less a family home.

3. Whether the financial situation of respondent is a compelling reason for the immediate partition of the family home is a factual issue which the Court cannot entertain, especially as such reason was raised only now rather than during the proceedings before the RTC.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.