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.