Chua vs. Cfi of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977

CHUA VS. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, G.R. NO.
L-29901, AUGUST 31,

1977
TOPIC: Reserva troncal.
Transmission of the property by means of a hereditary succession and is gratuitous.
IN ORDER THAT A PROPERTY MAY BE IMPRESSED WITH A RESERVABLE

CHARACTER THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES MUST EXIST, TO WIT:
1. that the property was acquired by a descendant from an asscendant or from
a brother or sister by gratuitous title
2. that said descendant died without an issue
3. that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law
4. that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which said property came.
FACTS: Chua had 2 marriages.
In the first, he married Patricia Militar, and had 3 children: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel.
In the second when Patricia died, he married Consolacion and had a child named
Juanita.
Manuel, his son in the first marriage, died without leaving any issue.
Later, Chua also died intestate.
In the intestate proceeding, adjudicates the following:

1. ½ portion of Lot No. 399 and the sum of P8,000.00 in favor of Chua's widow,
Consolacion
2. other ½ of Lot No. 399 in favor of Juanito, his son in second marriage
3. P3,000.00 in favor of Lorenzo, and P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio, his sons of the
first marriage
TCT of Lot No. 399 was issued by the Register of Deeds to Consolacion and Juanito.
Later, Juanito died intestate. After his death, his mother Consolacion succeeded to his
pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. Consolacion executed a declaration of heirship
adjudicating in her favor the pro-indiviso share of Juanito as a result of which TCT of the
whole Lot No. 399 was issued in her name.
Later, Consolacion died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or
ascending line except her brother and sisters.
Later, Ignacio (son in the first marriage) and Dominador and Remedios (the children of
Lorenzo, son in the first marriage) filed a complaint praying that the ½ portion of Lot
No. 399 which formerly belonged to Juanito but which passed to Consolacion
upon the latter's death, be declared as a reservable property for the reason that
the lot in questionn was subject to reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 of the
New Civil Code,
The pertinent provision of reserva troncal under the New Civil Code provides:
ART. 891. The ascendant who inheritts from his descendant any property which the
latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendat, or a brother or
sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line
from which said property came.
ISSUE Whether the lot in question is subject to a reserva troncal under Art. 891 of the
New Civil Code
RULING: YES. The transmission of the property in question to Juanito was by means of
a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous.
The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not
give anything in return. It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be
not subject to any prior charges; what is essential is that the transmission be made
gratuitously, or by an act of mere liberality of the person making it, without imposing any
obligation on the part of the recipient; and that the person receiving the property gives
or does nothing in return. The essential thing is that the person who transmits it
does so gratuitously, from pure generosity, without requiring from the transferee
any prestation.
As long as the transmission of the property to the heirs is free from any condition
imposed by the deceased himself and the property is given out of pure
generosity, it is gratuitous. It does not matter if later the court orders one of the heirs,
in this case Juanito, to pay the Standard Oil Co. of New York the amount of P3,971.20.
This does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of the property to him.
This being the case the lot in question is subject to reserva troncal under Art, 891
of the New Civil Code.
Further, the complaint of petitioners to recover the one-half portion of Lot 399 which
originally belonged to Juanito has not yet already prescribed when it was filed on May
11, 1966. The petitioners claiming as reservees did not arise until the time the reservor,
Consolacion died in March 1966. When the petitioners therefore filed their complaint to
recover the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot 399, they were very much in time to do so.
The petitioners Ignacio Frias Chua, Dominador Chua and Remedios Chua are
declared owners of 1/2 undivided portion of Lot 399: Ignacio Frias Chua, 1/4
undivided portion; and Dominador Chua and Remedios Chua, 1/4 undivided
portion, of said lot.
SOLIVIO VS. CA, G.R. NO. 83484, FEBRUARY 12, 1990

TOPIC: The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a
descendant who inherited it from another ascendant. It does not apply to property
inherited by a descendant from his ascendant.
Esteban’s aunts from mother side (Celedonia) and from father side (Concordia) agreed
to set up a foundation in the name of his mother to help poor but deserving college
students, to give effect to his wish during his lifetime. Thus, Celedonia was declared
sole heir and set up such foundation. Later, Concordia filed a complaint averring that
she too was an heir.
Celedonia argued that the estate of Esteban was subject to reserva troncal and that it
pertains to her as his only relative within the third degree on his mother's side.
THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN RESERVA TRONCAL ARE:

1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista) – the
ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his
descendants.
2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the
reservees (reservatarios) – relatives within the third degree
counted from the descendant (propositus), and belonging to
the line from which the property came.
3. The propositus – the descendant who received by gratuitous
title and died without issue, making his other ascendant inherit
by operation of law
FACTS: This case involves the estate of the late novelist, Esteban Javellana, Jr., author
of the first post-war Filipino novel "Without Seeing the Dawn," who died a bachelor,
without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces.
His only surviving relatives are:

(1) his maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia Solivio, the spinster half-sister of his mother,
Salustia Solivio; and
(2) the private respondent, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva, sister of his deceased
father, Esteban Javellana, Sr.
Salustia and Celedonia brought up Esteban, Jr.

Salustia brought to her marriage paraphernal properties, no conjugal property was
acquired during her short-lived marriage to Esteban, Sr.
Salustia died, leaving all her properties to her only child, Esteban, Jr. The titles of all
these properties were transferred in the name of Esteban, Jr.
During his lifetime, Esteban, Jr. had, more than once, expressed to his aunt
Celedonia and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to
honor his mother and to help poor but deserving students obtain a college
education. Unfortunately, Esteban Jr died of a heart attack on without having set
up the foundation.
Celedonia (his mother’s half-sister) told Concordia (his father’s sister) about Esteban's
desire to place his estate in a foundation to be named after his mother, from whom his
properties came, for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling.
Concordia agreed to carry out the plan of the deceased.
Celedonia, in good faith, filed a petition praying that letters of administration be

issued to her; that she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of
all claims and rendition of inventory and accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her.
Celedonia was declared sole heir of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. She
explained that this was done for three reasons:
1. because the properties of the estate had come from her sister, Salustia Solivio;
2. that she is the decedent's nearest relative on his mother's side; and
3. with her as sole heir, the disposition of the properties of the estate to fund the
foundation would be facilitated.
Later, Celedonia set up the "SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE JAVELLANA

FOUNDATION" which she registered in the SEC.
Four months later, Concordia filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
order declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of Esteban, Jr., because she too was an
heir of the deceased. But her motion was denied by the court for tardiness. Instead of
appealing the denial, Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo,
entitled "Concordia Javellana- Villanueva v. Celedonia Solivio" for partition,
recovery of possession, ownership, and damages.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Concordia.
On Concordia's motion, the trial court ordered the execution of its judgment pending
appeal and required Celedonia to submit an inventory and accounting of the estate. In
her motions for reconsideration of those orders, Celedonia averred that the properties of
the deceased had already been transferred to, and were in the possession of, the
'Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation." The trial court denied her motions for
reconsideration.
Celedonia argued that the estate of Esteban was subject to reserva troncal and
that it pertains to her as his only relative within the third degree on his mother's
side.
ISSUE: Whether the decedent's properties were subject to reserva troncal in favor of
Celedonia, his relative within the third degree on his mother's side from whom he had
inherited them
RULING: NO. Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his
mother, Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in question.
Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his
aunt, Celedonia, who is his relative within the third degree on his mother's side.
The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a

descendant who inherited it from another ascendant. It does not apply to property
inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered
by Article 891.
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
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the
line from which said property came.
Since the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., died without descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, surviving spouse, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces, what should
apply in the distribution of his estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code which
provide:
ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a

surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased in accordance with the following articles.
ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or
sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by
reason of relationship by the whole blood.
Therefore, both plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant being relatives of the

decedent within the third degree in the collateral line, each, therefore, shall
succeed to the subject estate 'without distinction of line or preference among
them by reason of relationship by the whole blood,' and is entitled one-half (1/2)
share and share alike of the estate.
LACERNA VS. VDA. DE CORSINO, G.R. NO. L-14603, APRIL 29, 1961
TOPIC: Trial judge held that the properties of Juan to which he inherited from his
mother is transmitted by inheritance to his half-sister, Jacoba. This is correct in
accordance with the order prescribed for intestate succession, particularly Articles 1003
to 1009 of the Civil Code.
Properties are not subject to Reserva Troncal as it applies only to properties

inherited by an ascendant from a descendant.
FACTS: Plaintiffs seek to recover the 3 parcels of unregistered lands in Iloilo on

the ground that they are the sole heirs of said lands belonging to their cousin,
Juan Marbebe.
Defendant Agatona(sister of Juan’s mother Bonifacia Lacerna) alleged that Juan

Marbebe might still be alive; that she held the disputed lands under a power of attorney
executed by Juan Marbebe; and that, if he has died, she is entitled to succeed him
in the same manner as plaintiffs herein, she being related to him in the same
manner as plaintiffs are.
Jacoba Marbebe filed an answer in intervention alleging that she is a half-sister of

Juan Marbebe who died intestate, leaving neither ascendants nor descendants, and
that, as his half-sister, she is entitled, by succession, to the properties in dispute.
Jacoba is daughter, by first marriage, of Valentin Marbebe, husband of Bonifacia
Lacerna and father of Juan Marbebe.
The lands belonged originally to Bonifacia Lacerna. Upon her death, they passed,
by succession, to her only son, Juan Marbebe who was, subsequently, taken to Culion
where he died intestate, single and without issue.
The trial judge held Jacoba as the heir.
Plaintiffs aver that pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
establishing what is known as "reserva troncal", the properties in dispute should
pass to the heirs of the deceased within the third degree, who belong to the line
from which said properties came, and that since the same were inherited by Juan
Marbebe from his mother, they should go to his nearest relative within the third
degree on the material line, to which plaintiffs belong, not to intervenor, Jacoba
Marbebe, despite the greater proximity of her relationship to the deceased, for she
belongs to the paternal line.
Jacoba contends that brothers and sisters exclude all other collateral relatives in
the order of intestate succession, and that, as Juan Marbebe's half-sister, she
has, accordingly, a better right than plaintiffs herein to inherit his properties.
ISSUE: Whether said properties are subject to the "reserva troncal"

RULING: NO. Reserva truncal applies only to properties inherited by an
ascendant from a descendant. The lands in dispute were inherited by a
descendant, Juan, from an ascendant, his mother, Bonifacia Lacerna.
The trial judge is correct that the transmission of property is by inheritance in

accordance with the order prescribed for intestate succession, particularly Articles
1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, pursuant to which a sister, even if
only a half-sister, in the absence of other sisters or brothers, or of children of
brothers or sisters, excludes all other collateral relatives, regardless of whether
or not the latter belong to the line from which the property of the deceased came.
SUBSECTION 5. Collateral Relatives

Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a
Article 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they
shall inherit in equal shares.
Article 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces,
who are the children of the descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the
former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes.
Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with
brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double
that of the latter.
Article 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood, some on the father's and
some on the mother's side, are the only survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares
without distinction as to the origin of the property.
Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per
capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters
of the full blood.
Article 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or
EDROSO VS. SABLAN, G.R. NO. 6878, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913

TOPIC: Reservable property
Sablan brothers are entitled to have their right annotated when the property is
being registered under the Torrens System, so that the reservation may be
annotated as a lien on the property
Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the
sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law
for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line
FACTS: Petitioner Marcelina applied for registration and issuance of title to 2 parcels of
land in Laguna. Marcelina was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death, they
had a son names Pedro, who inherited the 2 parcels of land. Later, Pedro died
unmarried and without issue. The 2 parcels of land passed through inheritance to
his mother, Marcelina. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the
application for registration of her ownership.
Opposition was made by Victoriano Sablan’s 2 legitimate brothers. `They claim

either:
1. that the registration be denied; or
2. that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the opponents be
recorded in the registration of each parcel.
Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in
question partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and that
in such a case application could only be presented jointly in the names of the mother
and the said two uncles of Pedro Sablan.
Marcelina contends that it is not proven that the two parcels of land in question have
been acquired by operation of law, and that only property acquired without a valuable
consideration, which is by operation of law, is required by law to reserved.
Marcelina, ascendant of Pedro, inherited from him these 2 parcels of land which he had
acquired without a valuable consideration, that is, by inheritance from another
ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquired them by operation of law, she is
obligated to relatives within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano
Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the lands proceeded. The trial court's
ruling that they partake of the nature property required by law to be reserved is
therefore in accordance with the law.
When Pedro Sablan died without issue, his mother became his heir by virtue of
her right to her son's legal portion. The legal presumption is that the transfer of
the two parcels of land was abintestate or by operation of law, and not by will or
the wish of Pedro.
Article 935 of the old Civil Code

In the absence of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his
ascendants shall from him, to the exclusion of collaterals.
Only the half constituting the legal portion would be required by law to be
reserved, because it is what by operation of law could full to the mother from her
son's inheritance; the other half at free disposal would not have to be reserved.
This is all that article 811 of the Civil Code says.
ISSUE: Whether the property in question is in the nature of reservable property
RULING: YES. Article 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 as he may have acquired by
operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who
belong to the line from which said property came.
The reservees are entitled to have their right annotated when the property is
being registered under the Torrens System, so that the reservation may be
annotated as a lien on the property. Unless this right is done, the reserva is
extinguished, after the one-year period, insofar as innocent third parties are concerned
If the property (land) is about to be registered under the Torrens System of the
reservor, the reservee is given the rights to oppose, not for the purpose of
opposing, but for the purpose of annotating the reservatory lien on the property.
Once the reservatory lien is annotated in the Registry in favor of the reservee, it is
understood that, as soon as the reservor dies, the Registrar can issue a transfer
Certificate of Title to the reservee, without the necessity of testate or intestate
settlement proceedings. This is because the reserva in favor of the reservee had
already been previously recognized. It would have been different had there been no
previous registration of the lien.
But the reservees cannot, as long as the reservor is alive, impugn or annul any
alienation or encumbrance effected by the reservor, whether same be on personal or
real property
Marcelina is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land which are the
subject matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the right required by article
811 to be reserved to either or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan,
should they survive her.
SIENES VS. ESPARCIA, G.R. NO. L-12957, MARCH 24, 1961

TOPIC: The case involves Lot 3368 which originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso.
According to the cadastral records, upon Saturnino’s death, he left the said land to
Francisco, his only son with his second wife, Andrea 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 on at the age of 20, single and without any descendant, his mother, as
his sole heir, executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale whereby, among other
things, she sold the property in question to the appellant, Constancio Sienes.
Thereafter, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who
had declared the questioned property in their name, executed a deed of sale in favor of
the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes.
The Trial court declared both sale as void and ordered that the property be reverted to
the estate of Cipriana Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso at
the death of Andrea Gutang.
SC affirmed this decision.
Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea Gutang, the person
obliged to reserve, died. Thus the Cipriano became the absolute owner of the
reservable property upon Andrea's death.
FACTS
Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso.
With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he had four children named Agaton, Fernando,
Paulina and Cipriana
With his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named Francisco.
According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the properties left by Saturnino

upon his death - the date of which does not clearly appear of record - were left to
his children as follows:
• Lot 3366 to Cipriana
• Lot 3367 to Fernando
• Lot 3375 to Agaton
• Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina
• Lot 3368 (western portion) to Francisco
As a result of the cadastral proceedings, Original Certificate of Title No. 10275

covering Lot 3368 was issued in the name of Francisco. 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
When Francisco died at the age of 20, single and without any descendant.
1. His mother, as his sole heir, executed the public instrument
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE whereby in consideration of the
sum of P800.00 she sold the property in question to appellants.
When thereafter said vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband Jose
Esparcia, the surrender of Original Certificate of Title No. 10275 - which was in
their possession - the latter refused, thus giving rise to the filing of the corresponding
motion in the cadastral record No. 507. The same, however, was denied.
2. Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and

who as such had declared the property in their name, executed a deed of
sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes who, in turn,
declared it in their name for tax purposes and thereafter secured the issuance in
their name of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2141
Appellants commenced this action to secure judgment:

1) declaring null and void the sale executed by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor
of appellees, the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes;
2) ordering the Esparcia spouses to reconvey to appellants Lot 3368 of the
Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan (now Amlan), Oriental Negros; and
3) ordering all the appellees to pay, jointly and severally, to appellants the sum of
P500.00 as damages, plus the costs of suit.
In their answer appellees disclaimed any knowledge or information regarding the sale
allegedly made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellants and alleged that:
1. if such sale was made, the same was void on the ground that Andrea Gutang
had no right to dispose of the property subject matter thereof.
2. said property had never been in possession of appellants, the truth being that
appellees, as owners, had been in continuous possession thereof since the
death of Francisco Yaeso.
3. Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso, as the only surviving heirs of Francisco Yaeso,
executed a public instrument of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and
Paulina Sienes, the said sale having been registered together with an affidavit of
adjudication executed by Paulina and Cipriana, as sole surviving heirs of the
aforesaid deceased; that since then the Esparcias had been in possession of the
property as owners.
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

(1) that the sale of Lot No. 3368 made by Andrea Gutang to the plaintiff spouses
Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay is void, and the reconveyance prayed for by
them is denied;
(2) that the sale made by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of defendants Fidel
Esparcia and Paulina Sienes involving the same lot is also void, and they have no
valid title thereto
(3) that the reservable property in question is part of and must be reverted to the
estate of Cipriana Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso
at the death of Andrea Gutang
From the above decision the Sienes spouse interposed the present appeal: that the
lower court erred:
1. In holding that Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan was a reservable
property
2. In annulling the sale of said lot executed by Andrea Gutang in their favor
3. In holding that Cipriana Yaeso, as reservee, was entitled to inherit said land.
Andrea Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee surviving her being
Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13, 1952.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the property by Andrea Gutang who is obliged to
reserve the property is valid although at the time of her death, there are still surviving
relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came.
RULING: NO.
The land in question was reservable property. Francisco Yaeso inherited it by

operation of law from his father Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death,
unmarried and without descendants, it was inherited, in turn, by his mother,
Andrea Gutang. His mother, Andrea Gutang was, therefore, under obligation to reserve
it for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said
property came, if any survived her.
In connection with reservable property, 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.
The reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but
subject to a resolutory condition;
1. that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property;
2. that he may alienate the same but subject to reservation, said alienation
transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of the
reservists, the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by
the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista
The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, 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 was still alive, the
conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by Andrea Gutang in
favor of appellants became of no legal effect and the reservable property subject
matter thereof passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and
Cipriana Yaeso in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was
subject to a similar resolutory condition.
The reserve instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree
belonging to the line from which the reservable property came, constitutes a real
right which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the
condition being that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if
and when the reservee survives the person obliged to reserve.
In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when
Andrea Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died. Thus the Cipriano became
the absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's death.
While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this event, became
effective because of the occurrence of the resolutory condition, we are not now in a
position to reverse the appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion of the
property in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees - the
Esparcia spouses did - not appeal therefrom.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision - as above modified - is affirmed, with costs, and
without prejudice to whatever action in equity the Esparcia spouses may have against
the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso for the reconveyance of the property in question.
FLORENTINO VS. FLORENTINO, G.R. NO. L-14856, NOVEMBER 15, 1919

TOPIC: The decedent had 2 marriages. When he died, he had will in which his
properties were divided equally among his heirs including his posthumous sound in his
2nd marriage. When said son died, his mother succeeded to such property. When the
mother died, the property was given to Mercendes as legitime.
Petitioners claim that such property is subject to reserve troncal. Mercedes contended
that it is part of her legitime.
The SC ruled that the property is subject to reserve troncal and Merceded is only
entitled to a part thereof.
FACTS
Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married the first time Antonia, during their marriage, they
had 9 children called, Jose, Juan, Maria, Encarnacion, Isabel, Espirita, Gabriel, Pedro,
and Magdalena.
When Antonia died, he married the second time Severina with whom he had 2 children,
Mercedes and Apolonio.
Apolonio Isabelo died and was survived by his second wife Severina and his . He had a
posthumous son, Apolonio III.
Apolonio executed, instituting as his universal heirs his aforementioned ten children, the
posthumos Apolonio III and his widow Severina Faz de Leon; that he declared that all
his property should be divided among all of his children of both marriages.
That, in the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio Florentino
III, his posthumos son, the property marked with the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F in the
complaint, a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of table service, livestock,
palay, some personal property and other objects mentioned in the complaint.
Apolonio Florentino III, the posthumos son of the second marriage, died in 1891;
that his mother, Severina Faz de Leon, succeeded to all his property described in
the complaint;
Severina Faz de Leon died, leaving a will instituting as her universal heiress her
only living daughter, Mercedes that, as such heir, said daughter took possession
of all the property left at the death of her mother, Severina.
Included is the property Severina inherited from her deceased son, the
posthumos Apolonio, as reservable property; as a reservist, the heir of the said
Mercedes Florentino deceased had been gathering for herself alone the fruits of lands;
that each and every one of the parties mentioned in said complaint is entitled to 1/7 of
the fruits of the reservable property, either by direct participation or by representation.
That several times the plaintiffs have, in an amicable manner, asked the defendants to
deliver their corresponding part of the reservable property; that without any justifiable
motive the defendants have refused and do refuse to deliver said property or to pay for
its value;
For 9 years Mercedes has been receiving, as rent for the lands mentioned, 360 bundles
of palay at fifty pesos per bundle and 90 bundles of corn at four pesos per bundle; that
thereby the plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum of 15,428.50, in addition to
380.50 for the value of the fruits not gathered, of 1,000 for the unjustifiable retention of
the reservable property and for the expenses of this suit.
There being no allegation to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the widow Severina
did not remarry after the death of this husband nor have any natural child; that if the
property inherited by Severina from her deceased son Apolonio has all passed
into the hands of Mercedes, it is evident that the property left at the death of the
posthumos son Apolonio did not pass after the death of his mother Severina into
the hands of strangers; that said property having been inherited by Mercedes
from her mother (Severina), article 811 of the Civil Code is absolutely inapplicable to
the present case.
ON THE ARGUMENT THAT MERCEDES IS ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY BY

MEANS OF LEGITIME
When Mercedes inherited from her mother Severina, said property had, while in the
possession of her mother, lost the character of reservable property — there being a
legitimate daughter of Severina with the right to succeed her in all her rights, property
and actions; that the restraints of the law whereby said property may not passed into the
possession of strangers are void, inasmuch as the said widow had no obligation to
reserve same, as Mercedes is a forced heiress of her mother Severina; that, in the
present case, there is no property reserved for the plaintiffs since there is a forced
heiress, entitled to the property left by the death of the widow Severina who never
remarried; that the obligation to reserve is secondary to the duty of respecting the
legitime; Severina was in duty bound to respect the legitime of her daughter Mercedes;
that her obligation to reserve the property could not be fulfilled to the prejudice of the
legitime which belongs to her forced heiress

the judge absolved the defendants from the complaint and condemned the
plaintiffs to pay the costs.
RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

absolving the defendants from the complaint and by condemning the plaintiffs to
pay the costs of the instance.
THERE CERTAINLY WAS NO REAL TRIAL

The defendants, instead of answering the complaint of the plaintiffs, confined
themselves to filing a demurrer based on the ground that the facts alleged in the
complaint do not constitute a cause of action.
However, the judge preferred to absolve the defendants, thereby making an end to
the cause, instead of dismissing the same, because undoubtedly he believed, in
view of the controversy between the parties, that the arguments adduced to
support the demurrer would be the same which the defendants would allege in
their answer — those dealing with a mere question of law which the courts would have
to decide — and that, the demurrer having been sustained, if the plaintiffs should insist
— they could do no less — upon alleging the same facts as those set out in their
complaint and if another demurrer were afterwards set up, he would be obliged to
dismiss said complaint with costs against the plaintiffs — in spite of being
undoubtedly convinced in the instant case that the plaintiffs absolutely lack the right to
bring the action stated in their complaint.
Article 811. Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property acquired by
the latter gratuitously from some other ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is obliged
to reserve such of the property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the
benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property
came.
During the marriage of Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II and SeverinaFaz de Leon two
children were born, namely the defendant Mercedes and Apolonio Florentino III (born
after the death of his father). At the death of Apolonio under a will, his 11 children
succeeded to the inheritance he left, one of whom, the posthumos son Apolonio III, was
given his share(a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of table service,
livestock, palay, some personal property and other objects )
Apolonio Florentino III died and was succeeded by his legitimate mother Severina, who
inherited the property he left and who on dying, instituted by will as her sole heiress her
surviving daughter, Mercedes, the defendant herein, who took possession of all
property left by her father, same constituting the inheritance. Included in said
inheritance is the property, specified in by the posthumos son Apolonio Florentino III
from his father Apolonio Isabelo Florentino, and which, at the death of the said
posthumos son, had in turn been inherited by his mother, Severina. Even if Severina left
in her will said property, together with her own, to her only daughter and forced heiress,
Mercedes Florentino, nevertheless this property had not lost its reservable nature
inasmuch as it originated from the common ancestor of the litigants, Apolonio
Isabelo; was inherited by his son Apolonio III; was transmitted by same (by
operation of law) to his legitimate mother and ascendant, Severina.
According to the provisions of law, ascendants do not inherit the reservable

property, but its enjoyment, use or trust, merely for the reason that said law
imposes the obligation to reserve and preserve same for certain designated
persons who, on the death of the said ascendants reservists, (taking into
consideration the nature of the line from which such property came) acquire the
ownership of said property in fact and by operation of law in the same manner as
forced heirs (because they are also such) — said property reverts to said line as
long as the aforementioned persons who, from the death of the ascendant-
reservists, acquire in fact the right of reservatarios (person for whom property is
reserved), and are relatives, within the third degree, of the descendant from
whom the reservable property came.
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property, while there are
living, within the third degree, relatives of the latter, is nothing but a LIFE
USUFRUCTUARY or a fiduciary of the reservable property received.
WHEN DOES THE RESERVED PROPERTY BECOMES FREE?

But if, afterwards, all of the relatives, within the third degree, of the descendant
(from whom came the reservable property) die or disappear, the said property
becomes free property, by operation of law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of
the ascendant heir who can transmit it at his death to his legitimate successors or
testamentary heirs. This property has now lost its nature of reservable property,
pertaining thereto at the death of the relatives, called reservatarios, who belonged within
the third degree to the line from which such property came. lawphil.net
ORDER PRESCRIBED BY LAW IN LEGITIMATE SUCCESSION

When there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the right of the
nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property which
the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him,
excludes that of the one more remote. The right of representation cannot be alleged
when the one claiming same as a reservatario of the reservable property is not among
the relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property
came, inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in article 811 is in the highest
degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons who are the
relatives, within the third degree, of the person from whom the reservable property
came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be
considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation on the part of one
alleging his right as reservatario who is not within the third degree of relationship,
nevertheless 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.
Plaintiffs are the legitimate children of the first marriage of the deceased Apolonio
Isabelo Florentino II; and grandchildren of Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II, that the same
have the right to represent their parents who are the legitimate children of the deceased
Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II, It is a fact, admitted by both parties, that the other
children of the first marriage of the deceased Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II died
without issue so that this decision does not deal with them.
There are then seven "reservatarios" who are entitled to the reservable property
left at the death of Apolonio III;
1. the posthumos son, to wit, his three children of his first marriage — Encarnacion,
Gabriel, Magdalena;
2. his three children, Jose, Espirita and Pedro who are represented by their own
twelve children respectively; and
3. Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by a second marriage.
All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased posthumos son, Apolonio Florentino
III, within the third degree (four of whom being his half-brothers and the remaining
twelve being his nephews as they are the children of his three half-brothers). As the first
four are his relatives within the third degree in their own right and the other twelve are
such by representation, all of them are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the
property which came from the common ancestor, Apolonio Isabelo, to Apolonio
Florentino III by inheritance during his life-time, and in turn by inheritance to his
legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon, widow of the aforementioned Apolonio
Isabelo Florentino II.
ISSUE: Whether they property left at the death of Apolonio III, the posthumos son
of Apolonio Isabelo II, was or was not invested with the character of reservable
property when it was received by his mother, Severina
RULING
YES. The property is from the common ancestor Apolonio Isabelo II, and when, on the
death of Apolonio III without issue the same passed by operation of law into the hands
of his legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon, it became reservable property, in
accordance with the provision of article 811 of the Code, with the object that the same
should not fall into the possession of persons other than those comprehended within the
order of succession traced by the law from Apolonio Isabelo II, the source of said
property.
If this property was in fact clothed with the character and condition of reservable
property when Severina inherited same from her son Apolonio III, she did not thereby
acquire the dominion or right of ownership but only the right of usufruct or of
fiduciary with the necessary obligation to preserve and to deliver or return it as
such reservable property to her deceased son's relatives within the third degree,
among whom is her daughter, Mercedes Florentino.
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the
ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant, therefore it does
not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced heirs. It
becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall
have died (reservista) in which case said reservable property losses such character.
With full right Severina Faz de Leon could have disposed in her will of all her own
property in favor of her only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino, as forced
heiress. But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the reservable
property is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said property is not her own and
she has only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve and
to deliver same to the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes
Florentino.
Mercedes is entitled to a part only of the reservable property.

The reservable property, left in a will by Severina to her only daughter Mercedes,
does not form part of the inheritance left by her death nor of the legitimate of the
heiress Mercedes. Just because she has a forced heiress, with a right to her
inheritance, does not relieve Severina of her obligation to reserve the property which
she received from her deceased son, nor did same lose the character of reservable
property, held before the reservatarios received same.
Concerning the prayer in the complaint relative to the delivery of the fruits
collected
the delivery of the fruits produced by the land forming the principal part of the reservable
property, the defendants are undoubtedly in duty bound to deliver to the plaintiffs six-
sevenths of the fruits or rents of the portions of land claimed in the complaint, in the
quantity expressed in paragraph 11 of the same, from January 17, 1918, the date the
complaint was filed; and the remaining seventh part should go to the defendant
Mercedes.
For the foregoing reasons it follows that with the reversal of the order of decision
appealed from we should declare, as we hereby do, that the aforementioned
property, inherited by the deceased Severina Faz de Leon from her son Apolonio
Florentino III, is reservable property; that the plaintiffs, being relatives of the
deceased Apolonio III within the third degree, are entitled to 6/7 of said reservable
property; that the defendant Mercedes is entitled to the remaining seventh part
thereof; that the latter, together with her husband Angel Encarnacion, shall
deliver to the plaintiffs, jointly, 6/7 of the fruits or rents, claimed from said portion
of the land and of the quantity claimed, from January 17, 1918, until fully
delivered;
MENDOZA VS. POLICARPIO, G.R. NO. 176422, MARCH 20, 2013

TOPIC: Subject parcels of land are not subject to reserve troncal. Transmission is not
from propositus to the ascendant.
The lineal character of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant
from whom the prepositus received the property by gratuitous title
Not being Gregoria's ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her
collateral relatives.
In the case of Julia's collateral relationship with Gregoria, ascent is to be made from
Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one line/degree), then to the common ancestor,
that is, Julia and Leonor's parents (second line/degree), and then descent to
Julia, her aunt (third line/degree). Thus, Julia is Gregoria's collateral relative
within the third degree and not her ascendant.
1. Ascent/ Parent
2. Common ancestor/ Grandparent
3. Descent/ Uncle/ Aunt
4. First Cousin
First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth degree relatives and cannot be
considered reservees/reservatarios. Petitioners are Julia’s first cousins.
FACTS
TOPIC: Respondent Julia is the maternal Aunt of the propositus (Gregoria). Petitioners
are Gregoria's fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins of the
prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or reservatarios.
When Gregoria died, respondent, who is Leonor's sister, adjudicated unto herself
all these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria. Hence,
petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in their
behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the Civil Code on
reserva troncal.
Respondent denied any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not
originate from petitioners' familial line and were not originally owned by Placido
and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by Exequiel and
Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos.
Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a 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.
FACTS: The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of land located in
Sta. Maria, Bulacan presently in the name of respondent Julia Delos Santos, sister of
Leonor, the wife of Ezequiel, who is a son of the origin. One lot is also in the name of
Julia but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the property from
petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza.
Placido and Dominga had four children:

1. Antonio,
2. Exequiel, married to Leonor,
3. Apolonio
4. Valentin.
Petitioners are the children of Antonio and Valentin
Petitioners Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and Fortunato, on the other hand, are
Valentin's children.
Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and Dominga's properties
that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. When
Exequiel died, it passed on to his spouse Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After
Leonor's death, her share went to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died intestate and without
issue.
They claimed that after Gregoria's death, respondent, who is Leonor's sister,
adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor
and Gregoria. Hence, petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved
by respondent in their behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of
the Civil Code on reserva troncal.
Respondent denied any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not
originate from petitioners' familial line and were not originally owned by Placido
and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by Exequiel and
Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos in 1931. It appears, however, that it was only
Exequiel who was in possession of the properties.
RTC RULING
Granted the petitioner’s action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal,
Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance
1. Ordering respondents (heirs of Julia Policarpio) to reconvey the 3 parcels of land
in the name of the plaintiffs enumerated in the complaint including intervenor
Maria Cecilia M. Mendoza except one-half of the property described in the
old title which belongs to Victorina Pantaleon
CA RULING
CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint filed by
petitioners.
PETITIONERS FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT THE CA DENIED

THE SAME.
In dismissing the complaint, the CA ruled that petitioners failed to establish that
Placido and Dominga owned the properties in dispute. The CA also ruled that even
assuming that Placido and Dominga previously owned the properties, it still
cannot be subject to reserva troncal as neither Exequiel predeceased Placido and
Dominga nor did Gregoria predecease Exequiel.
1. Subject properties are not reservable properties, coming as they do from the
family line of the petitioners Mendozas.
2. Petitioners Mendozas do not have a right to the subject properties by virtue
of the law on reserva truncal
Petitioners contend that it is sufficient that the properties came from the paternal line of
Gregoria for it to be subject to reserva troncal. They also claim the properties in
representation of their own predecessors, Antonio and Valentin, who were the brothers
of Exequiel.
ISSUES
1. Whether the properties in dispute are reservable properties
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to a reservation of these properties
RULING: NO. Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable.
The principle of reserva troncal is provided in Article 891 of the Civil Code:
Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line
THERE ARE THREE (3) LINES OF TRANSMISSION IN RESERVA TRONCAL:

1. transmission is by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from
an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus.
2. transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other
ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista.
3. transmission is from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who
must be relatives within the third degree from which the property came.
The lineal character of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant
from whom the prepositus received the property by gratuitous title
The fallacy in the CA's resolution is that it proceeded from the erroneous premise that
Placido is the ascendant contemplated in Article 891 of the Civil Code. From thence, it
sought to trace the origin of the subject properties back to Placido and Dominga,
determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and whether Gregoria predeceased
Exequiel.
THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN RESERVA TRONCAL ARE:

1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by
the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title;
2. The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the property
3. The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property
from the prepositus by operation of law
4. The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the
prepositus and who belongs to the (linea o tronco) from which the property
came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor
The ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel's as he is

the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred, or from whom
Gregoria inherited the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than such
ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal character of the property.
It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido
and Dominga or whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel. What is pertinent is that
Exequiel owned the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties
in dispute originally came. Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who
received the properties from Exequiel by gratuitous title.
Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the
descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title.
A transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not

give anything in return. At risk of being repetitious, what was clearly established in this
case is that the properties in dispute were owned by Exequiel (ascendant). After his
death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the properties as inheritance.
Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an
ascendant (also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant/prepositus. Julia
is not Gregoria's ascendant; rather, she is Gregoria's collateral relative.
Article 964 of the Civil Code provides for the series of degrees among ascendants
and descendants, and those who are not ascendants and descendants but come
from a common ancestor,
Art. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral. A
direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and
descendants.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons

who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a common
ancestor.
Gregoria's ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents,
great-grandparents and so on.
Gregoria's descendants, if she had one, would be her children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren.
Not being Gregoria's ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her
collateral relatives.
In the case of Julia's collateral relationship with Gregoria, ascent is to be made from
Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one line/degree), then to the common ancestor,
that is, Julia and Leonor's parents (second line/degree), and then descent to
Julia, her aunt (third line/degree). Thus, Julia is Gregoria's collateral relative within
the third degree and not her ascendant.
5. Ascent/ Parent
6. Common ancestor/ Grandparent
7. Descent/ Uncle/ Aunt
8. First Cousin
First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth degree relatives and cannot be
considered reservees/reservatarios
Moreover, petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios as they are

not relatives within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus
the one at the end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the
property last revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this case. Petitioners are Gregoria's
fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins of the prepositus
are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or reservatarios.
They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as
Article 891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the third
degree from whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized exemption is in
the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the right to represent their
ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and
relatives within the third degree.
The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a
reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third
degree belong to the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the right
granted by Article 891 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive
benefit of the designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of
the person from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the
fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios,
since the law does not recognize them as such.
x x x Nevertheless 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. x x x.
While it may appear that the properties are reservable in character, petitioners cannot
benefit from reserva troncal.
1. First, because Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the
other ascendant within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code
2. Second, because petitioners are not Gregoria's relatives within the third
degree. Hence, the CA's disposition that the complaint filed with the RTC should
be dismissed, only on this point, is correct. If at all, what should apply in the
distribution of Gregoria's estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code,
which provide.
Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a

Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or
Nevertheless, the Court is not in the proper position to determine the proper
distribution of Gregoria's estate at this point as the cause of action relied upon by
petitioners in their complaint filed with the RTC is based solely on reserva
troncal. Further, any determination would necessarily entail reception of evidence on
Gregoria's entire estate and the heirs entitled thereto, which is best accomplished in an
action filed specifically for that purpose.
A reservista acquires ownership of the reservable property until the reservation

takes place or is extinguished
Before concluding, the Court takes note of a palpable error in the RTC's disposition
of the case. In upholding the right of petitioners over the properties, the RTC ordered
the reconveyance of the properties to petitioners and the transfer of the titles in
their names. What the RTC should have done, assuming for argument's sake that
reserva troncal is applicable, is have the reservable nature of the property
registered on respondent's titles. In fact, respondent, as reservista, has the duty to
reserve and to annotate the reservable character of the property on the title.
In reserva troncal, the reservista who inherits from a prepositus, whether by the latter's
wish or by operation of law, acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of ownership belong to him
exclusively.
The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but
subject to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor
predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable
property. He may alienate it subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the
revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferee's rights are
revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor
but become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.
It is when the reservation takes place or is extinguished, that a reservatario

becomes, by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. In any event,
the foregoing discussion does not detract from the fact that petitioners are not entitled to
a reservation of the properties in dispute.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2006 and
Resolution dated January 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77694
insofar as it dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 609-M-92 are
AFFIRMED. This Decision is without prejudice to any civil action that the heirs of
Gregoria
Mendoza may file for the settlement of her estate or for the determination of ownership
of the properties in question.
Cano vs. Director, G.R. No. L-10701, January 16, 1959

TOPIC: Maria Cano is a reservista in favor of Eustaqia (only living daughter of Evaristo
in his former marriages, Maria’s husband) holding Lot No 1799 registered under her
name. When she died, Eustaquia filed for cancellation of the OCT of Lot 1799 to be
issued under her name and to possess such property.
This was opposed by the sons of Maria Cano, who contended that the application and
operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary contentious
proceeding, and that the Registration Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion.
In their opposition, they enumerated requisites of reserve troncal. However, the decree
having become final, all persons (appellees included) are bared thereby from contesting
the existence of the constituent elements of the reserva.
The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are:
1. the death of the reservista; and
2. the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista. Both facts are
admitted, and their existence is nowhere questioned.
FACTS:
Lots Nos. 1798 and 1799 with their improvements were registered in the name of Maria
Cano, Filipina, 71 years of age, widow and resident of Juban, province of Sorsogon,
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.
Eustaquia Guerrero is the only living daughter of the decedent Evaristo Guerrero, by his
former marriage, all the other oppositors are grandchildren of the said Evaristo Guerrero
by his former marriages. Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest of kin, excludes all
the other private oppositors, whose decree of relationship to the decedent is
remoter.
Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the Appellant Maria Cano by inheritance from her
deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn, inherited the same from her father
Evaristo and, hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code;
and that each and everyone of the private oppositors are within the third degree of
consaguinity of the decedent Evaristo, and who belonging to the same line from which
the property came.
In October 1955, counsel for the reserve (reservatorio) Guerrero filed a motion with the
Cadastral Court, alleging the death of reservista, Maria Cano, on September 8, 1955,
and praying that the original Certificate of Title be ordered cancelled and a new one
issued in favor of her; and that the Sheriff be ordered to place her in possession of the
property.
The motion was opposed by Jose and Teotimo Fernandez, sons of the reservista
Maria Cano, who contended that the application and operation of the reserva
troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary contentious proceeding, and that the
Registration Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion.

Granted the petition for the issuance of a new certificate, for the reason that the death of
the reservista vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole
reservatorio troncal.
The oppositors, heirs of the reservista Maria Cano, duly appealed from the order,
insisting that the ownership of the reservatorio can not be decreed in a mere proceeding
but requires a judicial administration proceedings.
In this connection, appellants argue that the reversion in favor of the reservatorio
requires the declaration of the existence of the following facts:
1. The property was received by a descendant by gratuitous title from an
ascendant or from a brother or sister;
2. Said descendant dies without issue;
3. The property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
4. The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging the line from which
said property came.
This decree having become final, all persons (appellees included) are bared thereby
from contesting the existence of the constituent elements of the reserva.
The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are:
3. the death of the reservista; and
4. the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista. Both facts are
admitted, and their existence is nowhere questioned.
ISSUE: Whether an intestacy proceeding is still necessary that the reservatario will
succeed in, or inherit, the reservable property from the reservista
RULING: The SC find the appeal untenable. The requisites enumerated by
appellants have already been declared to exist by the decree of registration
wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were expressly
recognized:
NO. The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is the
reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the reservatario receives the
property as a conditional heir of the descendant ( prepositus), said property
merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and
accidentally strayed during the reservista's lifetime.
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the
reservatario nearest to the prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes,
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property.
The property is not part of the estate of the reservista, and does not even answer
for the debts of the latter. Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be
entered in the property records without necessity of estate proceedings, since the
basic requisites therefor appear of record.
It is equally well settled that the reservable property cannot be transmitted by a

reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa,(like appellants herein) 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.
When reserve troncal needs further proceeding?

1. where the registration decree merely specifies the reservable character of the
property, without determining the identity of the reservatario; or
2. where several reservatarios dispute the property among themselves
The rights of the reservataria Eustaquia Guerrero have been expressly

recognized, and it is nowhere claimed that there are other reservatarios of equal
or nearer degree. It is thus apparent that the heirs of the reservista are merely
endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the reservable property to the detriment of
the party lawfully entitled thereto.
NIEVA VS. ALCALA, G.R. NO. L-13386, OCTOBER 27, 1920

TOPIC: The property here in question was inherited, by operation by law, by Francisco
Deocampo from his son Alfeo Deocampo, who, in turn, had inherited it, in the same
manner, from his mother Juliana Nieva, the natural mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
the natural sister of Alfeo Deocampo, and she belongs to the same line from which the
property in question came.
FACTS:
Juliana Nieva, the alleged natural mother of the plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva, married
Francisco Deocampo. Of said marriage Alfeo De Ocampo was born. Juliana Nieva died
intestate and her said son, Alfeo De Ocampo, inherited from her, ab intestate, parcels of
land. Alfeo died intestate and the parcels of land passed to his father, Francisco
DeOcampo, by intestate succession.
Thereafter Francisco Deocampo married Manuela Alcala, of which marriage was born
Jose De Ocampo. Francisco De Ocampo died on August 15, 1914, whereupon his
widow and son, the defendants herein, took possession of the parcels of land in
question, under the claim that Jose De Ocampo (a minor) had inherited the same, ab
intestate, from his deceased father.
Segunda, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the said Juliana Nieva,

instituted the present action for the purposes of recovering from the defendants the
parcels of land in question invoking reserve troncal.

The lower court held that, even granting, without deciding, that the plaintiff was an
acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, she was not entitled to the property
here in question because, in its opinion, an illegitimate relative has no right to the
reserva troncal.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff is an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased
Juliana Nieva.
2. Whether an illegitimate relative within the third degree entitled to reserva troncal
RULING:
1. YES. The plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva is an acknowledged natural daughter of
Juliana Nieva.
Juliana Nieva, while unmarried, gave birth to the plaintiff on March 29, 1882, and
that the plaintiff was duly baptized as her natural daughter, of unknown father;
that the said Juliana Nieva nourished and reared the plaintiff and lived with her
until the latter was married to Francisco Deocampo; that the said mother treated
the plaintiff, and exhibited her publicly, as a legitimate daughter. These facts are
not controverted.
2. NO. SC affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Persons in whose favor the reservation is established. — This is one of the most
delicate points in the interpretation of article 811. According to this article, the
reservation is established in favor of the parents who are within the third degree
and belong to the line from which the properties came.
It treats of blood, relationship, which is applicable to questions on succession,

according to articles 915 to 920. It could not be otherwise, because relationship
by affinity is established between each spouse and the family of the other, by
marriage, and to admit it, would be to favor the transmission of the properties of
the family of one spouse to that of the other, which is just what this article intends
to prevent.
It also treats of legitimate relationship. The person obliged to reserve it 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. Furthermore, we have
already said, the object is to protect the patrimony of the legitimate family,
following the precedents of the foral law. And it could not be otherwise. Article
943 denies to legitimate parents the right to succeed the natural child and
viceversa, from which it must be deduced that natural parents neither have the
right to inhering from legitimate ones; the law in the article cited established a
barrier between the two families; properties of the legitimate family shall never
pass by operation of law to the natural family.
A natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate

children and relatives of the father or mother who has acknowledged it; nor shall
such children or relatives so inherit from the natural or legitimated child.
To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother,
Alfeo Deocampo, by operation of law, would be a fragrant violate of the express
provision of the foregoing article
12. De Papa vs. Camacho, G.R. No. L-28032, September 24, 1986; FRANCISCA TIOCO DE
PAPA, MANUEL TIOCO, NICOLAS TIOCO and JANUARIO PAP, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DALISAY TONGKO
CAMACHO, PRIMO TONGKO and GODOFREDO CAMACHO, Defendants-Appellants.
Facts:
They stipulate the ff:
that the defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho and the plaintiffs, Francisca Tioco
de Papa, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being
said defendant’s grandaunt and granduncles.
plaintiffs and defendant have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who
had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant.
that Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of
land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs)
that Toribia Tioco died intestate in 1915, survived by her husband, Eustacio
Dizon, and their two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon
(mother of defendant) and leaving the afore-mentioned four (4) parcels of land as
the inheritance of her said two children in equal pro-indiviso shares.
that in 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate children by
his wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren
Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of his estate, (3) parcels of
land now covered by TCT, were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia
Tioco, but as she had predeceased her father, Balbino Tioco, the said three
(3) parcels of land devolved upon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon and
Trinidad Dizon in equal pro-indiviso shares.
that in 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue, leaving
his (1/2) pro-indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land above-mentioned
to his father, Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said
property subject to a reserva troncal annotated on the TCT
that in 1939, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate, and her rights and
interests in the parcels of land were inherited by her only legitimate child,
defendant Dalisay, subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband,
defendant Primo Tongko.
that in 1965, Eustacio Dizon died intestate, survived his only legitimate
descendant, defendant Dalisay
The parties agree that defendant Dalisay now owns (1/2) of all the seven (7)
parcels of land as her inheritance from her mother, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko.
Defendant Dalisay also claims,the other half of the said seven (7) parcels of land
by virtue of the reserva troncal upon the death of Faustino Dizon and under the
laws on intestate succession; but the plaintiffs, oppose and claim that (3/4) of
the one-half pro-indiviso interest in said parcel of land, which interest was
inherited by Eustacio Dizon from Faustino Dizon, or (3/8) of the said parcels
of land, by virtue of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon.
the lower Court declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas
Tioco, as well as the defendant Dalisay entitled, as reservatarios, to 1/2 of the
seven parcels of land in dispute.
o plaintiffs Francisca, Manuel, and Nicolas are entitled to 3/4 of 1/2 pro-indiviso shares or
3/8 of the 7 parcels of land involved in this action. Also entitled to 3/8 of the rentals collected
and to be collected by the defendant from the tenants minus the expenses and/or real
estate taxes as share.
the defendant appealed to this Court.
Issue: whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-appellees and ruled by the lower Court, all
relatives of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without
distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista, in Art. 891 of the
CC
Ruling:
in Padura v. Baldovino, where the reservatario was survived by eleven nephews
and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and seven
of half blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the
reversionary property in equal shares. This Court, declared the principles of
intestacy to be controlling, and ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole
blood were each entitled to a share double that of each of the nephews and
nieces of half blood in accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil Code.
"The issue in this appeal may be formulated as follows: In a case of reserva
troncal where the only reservatarios (reserves) surviving the reservista, and
belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the descendant (prepositus), but
some are nephews of the half blood and the others are nephews of the whole
blood, should the reserved properties be apportioned among them equally, or
should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the
nephews of the half blood?
After mature reflection, we have concluded that appellants is correct.
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).
The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved
to the specified relatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no
further occasion for its application. In the relations between one reservatario and
another of the same degree there is no call for applying Art. 891 any longer;
wherefore, the respective share of each in the reversionary property should be
governed by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. In this spirit the
jurisprudence of this Court and that of Spain has resolved that upon the death of
the ascendant reservista, the reservable property should pass, not to all the
reservatarios as a class but only to those nearest in degree to the descendant
(prepositus), excluding those reservatarios of more remote degree. And within the
third degree of relationship from the descendant (prepositus), the right of
representation operates in favor of nephews.
"Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession when there are
relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative,
called reservatario, over the property which the reservista (person holding it
subject to reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one more remote.
The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a
reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third
degree belonging to the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the right
granted by the Civil Code in Article 811 is in the highest degree personal and for
the exclusive benefit of designated persons who are within the third degree of the
person from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth
and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the
law does not recognize them as such.
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary
intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are
entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in
determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the
right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for
immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative.
In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives
(reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the
individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary
intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise.
"Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of intestacy,
nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles,
first cousins, etc.) from the succession. This is readily apparent from Articles 1001,
1004, 1005 and 1009 of the CC, that provide as follows:
"Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitle to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half."cralaw
virtua1aw library
"Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal
shares."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces who are the children of the
decedent’s brothers and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per
stirpes."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers and sisters, the other collateral
relatives shall succeed to the estate."
Under the last article (1009), the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a
precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. This was also and
more clearly the case under the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, that immediately preceded the Civil Code now in
force (R.A. 386). Thus, Articles 952 and 954 of the Code of 1889 prescribed as follows:
"Art. 952. In the absence of brothers or sisters and of nephews or nieces, children of the former, whether of
the whole blood or not, the surviving spouse, if not separated by a final decree of divorce shall succeed to the
entire estate of the deceased."
"Art. 954. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, nor a surviving
spouse, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate of deceased.
We, therefore, hold, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato
so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and
qualified to succeed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower Court is reversed and set aside
and the complaint is dismissed.
13. Padura vs. Baldovino, G.R. No. L-3772, January 10, 1908
PADURA VS. BALDOVINOG.R. NO. 11960, DECEMBER 27, 1958
Doctrine: Reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to
whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the
property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since
Art. 891 does not specify otherwise.
Summary: Agustin Padura a will wherein he bequeathed his properties among his
children, Manuel (child on his first wife), Candelaria and Fortunato (children on his second
wife), and his surviving spouse, Benita Garing. Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of
land. Fortunato died unmarried without having executed a will; and not having any issue,
the said parcels of land were inherited exclusively by her mother.
Candelaria eventually died leaving as her only heirs, her four legitimate children, Cristeta,
Melania, Anicia and Pablo, all surnamed Baldovino. Years later Manuel Padura also died.
Surviving him are his legitimate children, Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Gornelio, Francisco,
Juana, and Severino, all surnamed Padura. Upon the deathof Benita Garing (the
reservista), the question on the distribution of the said parcels became a dispute between
the nephews and nieces of Fortunato by half-blood (Paduras) and the nephew and nieces
by full-blood(Baldovinos).
The court ruled that the reservatarios (nephews of the whole blood) are declared
entitledto a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half-blood.
Proximity of degree and right ofrepresentation are basic principles of ordinary intestate
succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers andnephews are entitled to a share
double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.
In other words, the reservatroncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios)
to whom the property should be returned;but within that group, the individual right to the
property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinaryintestate succession, since
Art. 891 does not specify otherwise.
Facts:
Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife,
Gervacia Landig, he had onechild whom they named Manuel Padura, and with his
second, Benita Garing; he had two children named Fortunato Padura and
Candelaria Padura. Agustin Padura died on April 26, 1908, leaving a last will and
testament, duly probated in the CFI of Laguna, wherein he bequeathed his
properties among his children, Manuel, Candelaria and Fortunato, and his
surviving spouse, Benita Garing. Under the probate proceedings, Fortunate was
adjudicated four parcels of land. Fortunato Padura died unmarried, without having
executed a will; and not having any issue, the said parcels ofland were inherited
exclusively by her mother, Benita Garing. She applied for and later was issued a
Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, but subject to the condition that the
properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree belonging to
the line from which said property came. Candelaria Padura died leaving as her
only heirs, her four legitimate children, Cristeta, Melania, Anicia and Pablo, all
surnamed Baldovino. Six years later, Manuel Padura also died. Surviving him are
his legitimate children, Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Gornelio, Francisco, Juana, and
Severino, all surnamed Padura. Upon the death of Benita Garing (the reservista),
appellants and appellees took possession of the reservable properties. The
legitimate children of the deceased Manuel Padura and Candelaria Baldovino were
declared tobe the rightful reservees, and as such, entitled to the reservable
properties (the original reservees CandelariaPadura and Manuel Padura, having
predeceased the reservista).
ISSUE: Whether in a case of reserva troncal, where the only reservatarios (reservees)
surviving the reservista, and belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the
descendant (prepositus), but some are nephews of the half blood and the others are
nephews of the whole blood, should the reserved properties be apportioned among them
equally?
RULING: No.
The nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews
of the half blood Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles
of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and
nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.
If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the
right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for
immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative. In other
words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios)
to whom theproperty should be returned; but within that group, the individual right
to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate
succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise. This conclusion is
strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional case, its
application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose
of the law.
14. Gonzales vs. CFI, G.R. No.L-34395, May 19, 1981
Facts:
Beatriz Legarda Gonzales appealed from the decision of CFI dismissing her
complaint for partition, accounting, reconveyance and damages and holding, as
not subject to reserve troncal, the properties which her mother Filomena Races
inherited in 1943 from Filomena Legarda.
Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died
[Manila] in 1933 survived by his widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children:
4 daughters Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and Filomena and 3 sons Benito,
Alejandro and Jose.
the real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in 3 equal
portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son
Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were represented by Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena Legarda y Races died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress
was her mother, Filomena Races Vda. de Legarda.
Mrs. Legarda executed on May 12, 1947 an affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to
herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena
Legarda. Savings deposit, shares of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company,
properties
These are the properties in litigation in this case. As a result of the affidavit of
adjudication, Filomena Races succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena
Legarda as co-owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.
Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Identical documents wherein she
disposed of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the
children of her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all).
in 1958 to1959 Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the
properties consisting of the one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y
Tuason which the children inherited in representation of their father, Benito
Legarda y De la Paz.
Mrs. Legarda died on September 22, 1967. Her will was admitted to probate as a
holographic will which was affirmed by the CA.
In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix,
filed on 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. That motion was opposed by the
administrator, Benito F. Legarda.
Without awaiting, Mrs. Gonzales filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers,
sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate to secure a declaration that
the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda could not
bequeath in her holographic will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her three
daughters and her three sons
As already stated, the lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. Gonzales.
On the other hand, defendants-appellees in their six counter-assignments of error
contend that the lower court erred in not holding that Mrs. Legarda acquired the
estate of her daughter Filomena] Legarda in exchange for her conjugal and
hereditary shares in the estate of her husband Benito Legarda y De la Paz and in
not holding that Mrs. Gonzales waived her right to the reservable properties and
that her claim is barred by estoppel, laches and prescription.
The Court denied respondents' motion to dismiss and gave due course to the
petition for review. In an appeal only legal issues can be raised under undisputed
facts. Since on the basis of the stipulated facts the lower court resolved only the
issue of whether the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal that is the
only legal issue to be resolved in this appeal.
Issue: whether the disputed properties are reservable properties under article 891 of the
Civil Code; and whether Filomena Races Vda. de Legarda could dispose of them in his
will in favor of her grandchildren to the exclusion of her six children.
Ruling:
The Code Commission regarded the reservas as remnants of feudalism which
fomented agrarian unrest. Moreover, the reserves, insofar as they penalize
legitimate relationship, is considered unjust and inequitable.
However, the lawmaking body, not agreeing entirely with the Code Commission,
restored the reserve truncal.
article 811 of the Spanish Civil Code, now article 891, which reads:
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 as he may have acquired by
operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who
belong to the line from which said property came.
In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property
from an ascendant or from a brother or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by
another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said
descendant, and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for the
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant
(prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property came.
So, three transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by lucrative title
(inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased
descendant; (2) a posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession
or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of
another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede
the reservation, and (3) a third transmissions of the same property (in
consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios)
or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging
to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased descendant.
If there are only two transmissions there is no reserve. Thus, where one
Bonifacia Lacerna died and her properties were inherited by her son, Juan
Marbebe, upon the death of Juan, those lands should be inherited by his half-
sister, to the exclusion of his maternal first cousins. The said lands are not
reservable property.
The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the ascendant or brother or
sister from whom the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or
gratuitous title, (2) the descendant or prepositus (prepositus) who received the
property, (3) the reservor (reservista) the other ascendant who obtained the
property from the (prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the reserves
(reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs
to the (line o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property
should be reserved by the reservor.
The reservees may be half-brothers and sisters
Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. illegitimate relationship and
relationship by affinity are excluded.
Gratuitous title or titulo lucrativo refers to a transmission wherein the recipient gives
nothing in return such as donacion and succession
The reserva 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
The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject
to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor
predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable
property. He may alienate it subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the
revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferee's rights are
revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor
but become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.
The reservor's title has been compared with that of the vendee a retro in a pacta
de retro sale or to a fideicomiso conditional.
The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is subject to a resolutory
condition, meaning that if at the time of the reservor's death, there are reservees,
the transferee of the property should deliver it to the reservees. lf there are no
reservees at the time of the reservor's death, the transferee's title would become
absolute. (Lunsod vs. Ortega, 46 Phil. 664; Gueco vs. Lacson, 118 Phil. 944; Mono
vs. Nequia 93 Phil. 120).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
There is a holding that the renunciation of the reservee's right to the reservable
property is illegal for being a contract regarding future inheritance
And there is a dictum that the reservee's right is a real right which he may alienate
and dispose of conditionally. The condition is that the alienation shall transfer
ownership to the vendee only if and when the reserves survives the reservor
The reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant
(prepositus) said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had
temporarily and accidentally stayed during the reservista's lifetime. The authorities
are all agreed that there being reservatarios that survive the reservists, the latter
must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a than interest in the reservable
property.
Even during the reservista's lifetime, the reservatarios, who are the ultimate
acquirers of the property, can already assert the right to prevent the reservista from
doing anything that might frustrate their reversionary right, and, for this purpose,
they can compel the annotation of their right in the registry of property even while
the (reservista) is
This right is incompatible with the mere expectancy that corresponds to the natural
heirs of the reservista lt is likewise clear that the reservable property is no part of
the estate of the reservista who may not dispose of them (it) by will, so long as
there are reservatarios existing
The latter, therefore, do not inherit from the reservista but from the descendant
(prepositus) of whom the reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa, subject to the
condition that they must survive the reservista
Hence, upon the reservista's death, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus
becomes, "automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable
property."
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.
So, the ultimate issue in this case is whether Mrs. Legarda, as reservor, could
convey the reservable properties by will or mortis causa to the reservees within
the third degree (her sixteen grandchildren) to the exclusion of the reservees in the
second degree, her three daughters and three sons.
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. The
reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as
long as the reservees survived the reservor.
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by
all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case
are the six children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom
the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their
share therein.
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.
It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit from the reservor but from
the reservor but from the prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis
causa subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor
WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision is reversed and set aside. lt is hereby
adjudged that the properties inherited by Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda from
her daughter Filomena Legarda, with all the fruits and accessions thereof, are
reservable properties which belong to Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Benito, Alejandro
and Jose, all surnamed Legarda y Roces, as reservees. The shares of Rosario L.
Valdes and Benito F. Legarda, who died in 1969 and 1973, respectively, should
pertain to their respective heirs.
15. Sumaya vs. IAC, G.R. No. 68843 and 44, September 2, 1991- research
Facts:
Raul Balantakbo inherited from two (2) different ascendants the two (2)
sets of properties subject of this case: 1) 1/3 interest of a parcel of land
from his father Jose, Sr., who died on January 28, 1945; and 2) 1/7
interest from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who died on November
3, 1950. On June 13, 1952, Rauldied intestate, single, without any issue,
and leaving only his mother, Consuelo Joaquin Vda. De Balantakbo, as his
sole surviving heir to the subject real properties.
Vda. de Balantakbo caused the registration of an affidavit of self-
adjudication of theestate of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated that the properties
were inherited by Raulfrom his father Jose, Sr. and from his maternal grandmother,
Luisa Bautista.
Vda de Balantakbo sold the property to Sumaya which was subsequently sold to
VillaHonorio Development Corporation. Villa then transferred and assigned its
rights overthe property to Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative.
The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above described
propertiesdo not contain any annotation of its reservable character.
On March 4, 1970,five brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and three surviving
children of deceased Jose Balantakbo, Jr., another brother of the first
named Balantakbos, filed civil cases to recover the subject properties
which they claimed were subject to a reservatroncal in their favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the
source of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature of the properties is
sufficient annotation of the reservable nature of the same.
RULING: NO.
The Court disagreed with the disposition of the appellate court that there is no need
to register the reservable character of the property, if only for the
protection of the reservees (reservatarios), against innocent third persons.
In this case, the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo Vda. de
Balantakbo which contained a statement that the property was inherited from a
descendant, Raul, which has likewise inherited by the latter from another
ascendant, was registered with the Registry of Property.
The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the reservable character of the
property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo. As to the sale of
subject properties, the Court affirmed the order of lower courts against plaintiff
Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative to convey the subject properties back to
reservatarios.
The Court held that there is sufficient proof that the petitioners had
actualknowledge of the reservable character of the properties before they bought
the same from Consuelo as evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed by the
parties. Moreover, the Court a quo found that the petitioners and private
respondents were longtime acquaintances and that they knew all along that the
properties litigated in this case were inherited by Raul Balantakbo from his father
and from his maternal grandmother, and that Consuelo Vda. deBalantakbo
inherited these properties from his son Raul.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:

Chua vs. Cfi of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua vs. Cfi of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua vs. Cfi of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHUA VS. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, G.R. NO.

L-29901, AUGUST 31,

Transmission of the property by means of a hereditary succession and is gratuitous.

IN ORDER THAT A PROPERTY MAY BE IMPRESSED WITH A RESERVABLE

FACTS: Chua had 2 marriages.

Later, Chua also died intestate.

In the intestate proceeding, adjudicates the following:

SOLIVIO VS. CA, G.R. NO. 83484, FEBRUARY 12, 1990

THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN RESERVA TRONCAL ARE:

His only surviving relatives are:

Salustia and Celedonia brought up Esteban, Jr.

Celedonia, in good faith, filed a petition praying that letters of administration be

Later, Celedonia set up the "SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE JAVELLANA

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Concordia.

The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a

ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a

Therefore, both plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant being relatives of the

Properties are not subject to Reserva Troncal as it applies only to properties

FACTS: Plaintiffs seek to recover the 3 parcels of unregistered lands in Iloilo on

Defendant Agatona(sister of Juan’s mother Bonifacia Lacerna) alleged that Juan

Jacoba Marbebe filed an answer in intervention alleging that she is a half-sister of

The trial judge held Jacoba as the heir.

ISSUE: Whether said properties are subject to the "reserva troncal"

The trial judge is correct that the transmission of property is by inheritance in

SUBSECTION 5. Collateral Relatives

EDROSO VS. SABLAN, G.R. NO. 6878, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913

Opposition was made by Victoriano Sablan’s 2 legitimate brothers. `They claim

Article 935 of the old Civil Code

ISSUE: Whether the property in question is in the nature of reservable property

SIENES VS. ESPARCIA, G.R. NO. L-12957, MARCH 24, 1961

SC affirmed this decision.

According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the properties left by Saturnino

As a result of the cadastral proceedings, Original Certificate of Title No. 10275

2. Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and

Appellants commenced this action to secure judgment:

RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

The land in question was reservable property. Francisco Yaeso inherited it by

In connection with reservable property, reserve creates two resolutory conditions,

FLORENTINO VS. FLORENTINO, G.R. NO. L-14856, NOVEMBER 15, 1919

ON THE ARGUMENT THAT MERCEDES IS ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY BY

RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

THERE CERTAINLY WAS NO REAL TRIAL

According to the provisions of law, ascendants do not inherit the reservable

WHEN DOES THE RESERVED PROPERTY BECOMES FREE?

ORDER PRESCRIBED BY LAW IN LEGITIMATE SUCCESSION

Mercedes is entitled to a part only of the reservable property.

MENDOZA VS. POLICARPIO, G.R. NO. 176422, MARCH 20, 2013

Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza.

Placido and Dominga had four children:

Petitioners are the children of Antonio and Valentin

PETITIONERS FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT THE CA DENIED

RULING: NO. Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable.

THERE ARE THREE (3) LINES OF TRANSMISSION IN RESERVA TRONCAL:

THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN RESERVA TRONCAL ARE:

The ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel's as he is

A transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons