Short answer. No, not as a matter of right. Article 159 keeps the family home from being partitioned for as long as a minor beneficiary lives there, on top of a guaranteed ten-year minimum. Heirs can only force partition earlier if a court finds compelling reasons that justify it.
What the law says
for as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor
Family Code, Article 159 — The Family Home Continues After Death (Ten-Year Rule). Read the full provision →
What the law says
This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home.
Family Code, Article 159 — The Family Home Continues After Death (Ten-Year Rule). Read the full provision →
A minor beneficiary keeps the block in place
Article 159 ties the restriction on partition directly to whether a minor beneficiary still resides in the family home: for as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. As long as that condition holds, the heirs do not get an automatic right to divide the property, regardless of how many of them would rather see their shares settled now. The minor's continued presence in the home is what keeps the protection running.
This runs alongside, not instead of, the ten-year period
The minor-beneficiary protection is not a separate, shorter rule — it works together with the ten-year period the same article establishes. Whichever protection lasts longer controls: if the ten years have already elapsed but a minor beneficiary still lives in the home, partition remains blocked on that basis alone. Heirs cannot point to the passage of ten years to force a partition if a qualifying minor beneficiary is still there.
'Compelling reasons' is the only way around it
The statute does not make the block absolute — it allows partition where the court finds compelling reasons therefor — but that is a deliberately high bar, decided by a court rather than agreed among the heirs themselves. Wanting to liquidate an inheritance, disagreements among the heirs about managing the property, or one heir's financial need are not, by themselves, the kind of compelling reason the statute has in mind when a minor is still living in the home. The court has to weigh the impact on the minor beneficiary against whatever reason is offered for cutting the protection short.
It does not matter whose name is on the title
Because this rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home, an heir cannot get around the block by pointing out that the property is titled in their name or in a name other than the deceased's. The protection travels with the family home's status, not with the deed. Until the minor beneficiary no longer qualifies — typically by reaching majority — or a court grants an exception for compelling reasons, the home stays intact and undivided.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Vilma G. Arriola, et al. vs. John Nabor C. Arriola, G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Perla G. Patricio vs. Marcelino G. Dario III, et al, G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Urduja Ortiz-Aquino vs. Letecia Ortillo, Lisette Ortillo, And Sheriff Of The Office Of The Provincial Sheriff Of Lingayen, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 257235, November 8, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →