Reserva Troncal

Art 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired
by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property which
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and
who belong in the same line from the which said property came.

A. Requisites of Reserva Troncal

i. That the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant, brother or a sister by
gratuitous title;
ii. The said descendant died without an issue;
iii. That the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
iv. That there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property
came.
B. Process of Transmission
i. First Transfer – by gratuitous title, from a person to his descendants, brother or sister.
ii. Second Transfer – by operation of law, from the transferee in the first transfer to another
ascendant. (creates reserva)
iii. Third transfer – from the second transferee to relatives within the third degree (reserva)
Solivio v CA
This case involves the estate of Javellana. His only surviving relatives are his maternal
aunt, Solivio and paternal aunt, Villanueva. Javellana is the post-humous child of
Estaban Sr who was brought up by his mother and maternal aunt. When his mother
died, she left all of her properties to Javellana. After his death, his maternal aunt filed a
petition to be declared as the sole heir of Javellana for 3 reasons:

First, because the properties from Javellana’s estate belongs to her sister;
Second, she is the nearest relative of Javellana from the maternal side;
Third, disposition of properties to her to fund the foundation.

Whether or not the properties were subject of reserva truncal in favor of

Celedonia? The properties were not reservable since Javellana was a descendant, and
not an ascendant of his mother. The Reserva Troncal applies to properties inherited by
an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother
or a sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant,
the reverse of the situation covered by Art 891.

C. Parties to Reserva Troncal

i. Origin – the first transferor
ii. Prepositus – the first transferee
iii. Reservista – the ascendant obliged to reserve (second transferee)
iv. Reservatarios – the third degree relatives from which the property belongs to in whose
favor the property is reserved for;
Within third degree of consanguinity from prepositus
Belonging in the same line from which the property came as determined
by the Origin/Mediate Source
- Preference among reservatarios
Padura v Baldivino
Agustin had two wives, Gervacia and Benita. In his first marriage, he had Manuel.
In this second marriage, he had Fortunato and Candelaria. Agustin died and left all
his properties to Benita and his three children. Fortunato died without a will and left
his mother as only heir. Candelaria, full sister of Fortunato also died leaving four
children. Then Fortunato’s half sibling, Manuel, also died with five children. Benita
died.
 The issue in this case was the manner in which the property of Fortunato,
inherited by Benita, must be apportioned. The Court ruled that reserva truncal
merely determines the group of relatives to whom the property should be returned.
Within the said group, the individual rights to the property is governed by applicable
rules of ordinary intestate succession. Thus, the nephews of the whole blood should
take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half blood.

(The reservatarios inherit from the prepositus of whom they are heirs mortis causa,
not the reservista, subject to the condition that the must survive the reservista.)

The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of
the inheriting ascendant (reservista).

- Representation among reservatarios

Florentino v Florentino
Apolonio II contracted two marriages. In his first marriage, he had nine children. In
this second marriage, he had two children.

Apolonio III left a will institution his ten children and one posthumous child and his
second wife, Severina. His posthumous child died, and his mother (severina)
succeeded to all his property. When Severina died, she instituted her daughter,
Mercedes as heiress.

The children of the first marriage claimed that they were reservatorios. They are the
children of Apolonio II (out of the nine children, three died without any issue, three
were alive, and the other three were survived by twelve children, who are
grandchildren of Apolonio II). Mercedes claimed that her inheritance from Severina
is not reservable property hut is her legitime.

The issue is whether or not the property is reservable. Mercedes is only 1/7 of
the reservatorios. There are three children from the first marriage and the other three
are represented by their children. There is right of representation on the part of
reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of
nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came.

These reservatarios have the right to represent their ascendants (fathers and
mothers) who are the brothers of the said deceased person and relatives within the
third degree in accordance with article 811 of the Civil Code. The right is in the
highest degree personal and exclusively for the benefit of the relatives within the 3rd
degree. Therefore relatives of the 4th and succeeding degrees can never be
considered as reservatorios.

(The only instance of representation among reservatarios – up to the extent of

nieces/nephews where the prepositus is the uncle/aunt)

- Legitimate Relationship
Nieva v Alcala
Segunda is the natural daughter of Juliana. Juliana married Francisco, and they had
a child Alfeo. Juliana died and left Alfeo parcels of land. Alfeo died with his father,
Francisco as only heir. Francisco married Manuel and had a child Jose. Francisco
died and took possession of the parcels of land inherited by Francisco from Alfeo.
Segunda invoked reserva truncal.
 The issue is whether or not illegitimate relatives within the third degree are
entitled to reserva truncal. The Court held that the law contemplates legitimate
relationship. The person obliged to reserve it is a legitimate ascendant who inherits
from a descendant property which proceeds from the same legitimate family, and
this being true, there can be no question, because the line from which the properties
proceed must be the line of that family and only in favor of that line is the reservation
established.

D. Nature of Reservista’s Rights

Edroso v Sablan
Marcelina married Victoriano and they had a son named Pedro. Victoriano died and Pedro
inherited two parcels of land from him. Pedro died without an issue, leaving his mother Marcelina
as the sole heir. Marcelina filed an application for registration of the the property which was
opposed by the brothers of Victoriano claiming that the land should be reserved in their favor.

The issue is whether or not the property may be registered in the name of Marcelina. The
Court held that the registration of the property in the name of Marcelina and recording in the
registration the right of Pedro’s uncles to be reserved in the 2 lands. The conclusion is that the
person required by Article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at all, the rights of use
and usufruct. He has, moreover, for the reasons set forth, the legal title and dominion, although
under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has, under an express provision of the law, the right
to dispose of the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a condition.
He has a right to recover it, because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and have
title to it, although a limited an revocable one.

In other words, the legal title and dominion, even though under a condition, reside in him while
he lives. After the right required by law to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything
that a genuine owner can do.

(The reservista acquires legal title subject to a condition subsequent)

E. Nature of Reservatarios’ Rights

Sienes v Esparcia
Saturnino, upon his death, left his properties to his 5 children (4 children from his first wife Teresa,
and 1 child from his second wife Gutang). An OCT was issued in favor of Francisco, Saturnino’s
only child with Gutang. Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the
property for him, declared it in her name for taxation purposes, and paid the taxes due thereon.
Francisco died eventually, leaving Gutang as his sole heir. Gutang subsequently sold the
property to Sps. Sienes. Trial Court held that the sale of property is void. SC affirmed. The sale
made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was subject to the condition that the vendees
would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation, only if the vendor died without
being survived by any person entitled to the reservable property. Inasmuch much as when
Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso (Francisco’s half-sister) was still alive, the conclusion
becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in favor of appellants became
of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusive
ownership to Cipriana.

The reserve creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the ascendant obliged
to reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which the property came. This Court has held in connection with this
matter that the reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject
to a resolutory condition; that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property; that he may
alienate the same but subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the revocable and
 conditional ownership of the reservista, the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or
resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista.

F. Can the reservista prefer some reservatarios over the others?

Gonzales v CFI
De la Paz is the son of Tuazon. De la Paz died leaving seven children and his wife. Tuazon died
and left his properties in three equal portions partitioned to his two daughters and the heirs of
De la Paz. One fo the children of De la Paz, Filomena, died without an issue leaving her mother
as sole heiress.

Pursuant to this, the mother adjudicated to herself the properties of Filomena. The mother died
leaving a holographic will instituting her sixteen grandchildren as the devisees of the properties.
Beatriz, one of the daughters filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate
the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that
said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda's three
sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose, all surnamed
Legarda.

In the instant case, the properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands
of Mrs. Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservation became a certainty when at
the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena
Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda. We hold that Mrs. Legarda could not convey
in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable properties which she had
inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her
estate.

Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable
properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable
properties did not form part of her estate (Cabardo vs. Villanueva, 44 Phil. 186, 191). The
reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the
reservees survived the reservor. To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary
disposition of the reservable properties in favor of the reservees in the third degree and,
consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a glaring violation of article
891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed.

The property should go to the nearest reservees. The reservor cannot, by means of his will,
choose the reserves to whom the reservable property should be awarded.

G. The property reserved

- Not part of reservista’s estate upon his death
Cano v Director of Lands

Two parcels of land were registered in the name of Maria Cano, with the
understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the right of reservation in favor
of Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil code. When Cano died,
counsel Guerrero moved to register said property in favor of Guerrero. However,
sons contend that registration court did not have jurisdiction to decree ownership to
Guerrero, and requires a judicial administration proceeding, where the rights of
appellee, as reservatorio be established.

Whether issuance of new certificate of title in favor of Guerrero proper? – YES.

It is equally well settled that the reservable property cannot be transmitted by a
reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa so long as a reservatario within
 the third degree from the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property
came, is in existence when the reservista dies.

The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the
assumption that the reservatario will succeed in, or inherit, the reservable
property from the reservista. HOWEVER, the reservatario is not the reservista's
successor mortis causa nor is the reservable property part of the reservista' s estate.
Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records
without necessity of estate proceedings.

H. Reserva Maxima
- In case the prepositus executes a will institution the ascendant-reservista to the whole
or part of the free portion and there is left in the prepositus’ estate in addition to the
reserved property, property not reservable.
- As much of the potentially reservable property as possible must be deemed included
in the part that passes by operation of law.
I. Reserva Minima
- Every single property in the prepositus’ estate must be deemed to pass, partly by will
and partly by operation of law, in the same proportion that the part given by will bears
to the part not so given.

J. Rights and Obligations

Dizon v Galang

Rufina Dizon was married to Vicente Galang and they had a son, Francisco. Rufina inherited 3
parcels of land from her parents. When Rufina died, Francisco inherited the parcels of land.
Unfortunately, Francisco died as well and so the parcels of land were inherited by Galang. The
nature of the property being reservable were not annotated in the title. Galang sold these lands
to Jurado and Medina, without informing them that they were reservable property. The Dizons
(brother and sister of Rufina) filed a case against Galang, Jurado and Medina for the return of
the parcels of land, the recording of the reservable character in the registry of deeds, and to
execute a mortgage to secure its value. The lower court dismissed the case.

Were the sale valid? Yes. The sales made by Galang (who was bound to make reservation) of
the three parcels of land, which are reservable property, in favor of Medina and Jurado, cannot
be set aside unless the resolutory condition imposed by the reservation shall have occurred,
which is not the case here.

Obligations
1. To inventory the reserved properties
2. To annotate the reservable character in the registry of property within 90 days from the
acceptance by the reservista
3. To appraise the movables
4. To secure by means of mortgage
a. An indemnity for any deterioration of or damage to the property occasioned by the
reservista’s fault or negligence
b. The payment of the value of such reserved movables as may have been alienated
by the reservista onerously or gratuitously.

Sumaya v IAC

Although it is admitted that the titles covering the properties show that they were free from any
liens and encumbrances at the time of sale, the fact is that the Consuelo’s Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication stating the source of the properties (father & maternal grandmother), and therefore
 reservable nature of such properties, was registered with the Register of Deeds of Laguna. This
is sufficient notice to the whole world in accordance with the Property Registration Decree.

The failure of the RD to annotate the reservable character of the property on the titles cannot be
attributed to Consuelo. Moreover, there is sufficient proof that petitioners had actual notice of the
reservable character of the properties prior to the sale as the lower court found that petitioners
and respondents were long time acquaintances, and that petitioners knew all along that
Consuelo inherited the properties from Raul, who in turn inherited the properties from his father
and maternal grandfather.

SC disagrees with the lower court that there is no need to register the reservable character of
the property for the protection of the reservees as against innocent third persons. In reserva
troncal, the reservor has the duty to reserve, and therefore, the duty to annotate also.

A. Within what period must the annotation be made?

K. Extinguishment of Reserva Troncal

1. The death of the reservista
2. The death of all the reservatarios
3. Renunciation by all reservatarios, provided that no other reservatario is born subsequently
4. Total loss due to fortuitous event
5. Confusion or merger of rights, as when the reservatarios acquired reservista’s rights by a
contract inter vivos
6. Prescription or adverse possession