Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

MICIANO v.

BRIMO
50 PHIL 867
FACTS:
Joseph Brimo, a Turkish national, died leaving a will which one of the clauses states that
the law of the Philippines shall govern the partition and not the law of his nationality, and that
legatees have to respect the will, otherwise the dispositions accruing to them shall be annulled.
By virtue of such condition, his brother, Andre Brimo, an instituted heir was thus excluded
because, by his action of having opposed the partition scheme, he did not respect the will.
Andre sued contending that the conditions are void being contrary to law which provides that the
will shall be probated according to the laws of the nationality of the decedent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the condition as set by the testator valid.
HELD:
No. A foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance
with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot
be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 of the Civil Code states said national law
should govern. Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions above cited, is considered
unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is unconditional and consequently valid and
effective even as to the herein oppositor.

SANTOS vs. BUENAVENTURA


18 SCRA 47
FACTS:
Rosalina Santos filed a for the probate of the last will allegedly executed by the
deceased Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas. The nearest of kin of the deceased were her brothers
and a sister, nephews and nieces. Rosalinda Santos, is one of said nieces. Among devisees
mentioned in the will is Flora Blas de Buenaventura. She is not related by blood to the
deceased. However, Flora Blas de Buenaventura and Justo Garcia filed an opposition to the
probate of said will. After the probate court had received the evidence for both the petitioner and
oppositors, but before the latter could close their evidence, Flora Blas filed a manifestation that
she is withdrawing her opposition to the probate of the will, however, the proceedings continued
however as to the opposition of Justo Garcia.
Thereafter the court issued an order allowing the probate of the will. After the order had
become final and executory, Flora Blas filed a petition praying for the delivery to her of a
fishpond as a specific devise in her.

To this petition, inspite of apparent understanding, Rosalina Santos filed an opposition


predicated on the ground that said specific devise in favor of Flora was forfeited in favor of the
other residuary heirs, pursuant to a provision of the will that should any of the heirs, devisees or
legatees contest or oppose its probate, the latter shall lose his or her right to receive any
inheritance or benefit under it, which shall be forfeited in favor of the other heirs, devisees and
legatees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Floras actuations amount to the violation of the no contest and
forfeiture clause of the will.
HELD:
No. From the foregoing premises it cannot be said that Flora's actuations impaired the
true intention of the testatrix in regard to the "no-contest and forfeiture" clause of the will. Flora's
act of withdrawing her opposition before she had rested her case contributed to the speedy
probation of the will. Since the withdrawal came before Flora had rested her case, it precluded
the defeat of the probate upon the strength of Flora's evidence. Through said withdrawal, Flora
conformed to the testatrix's wish that her dispositions of her properties under the will be carried
out. It follows that, taken as a whole, Flora's actuations subserved rather than violated the
testatrix's intention.
____________________________________________________________________________

VILLAFLOR-VILLANUEVA VS. JUICO


4 SCRA 550
FACTS:
Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and
bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Faustina of all his real and personal properties giving
the other half to his brother Don Fausto.
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widows
death, she became vested with the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7
pursuant to its 8th clause of the will.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death
of Dona Faustina.

HELD:
The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doa
Fausta because in his will he provided that Doa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to
bear a child and because she died without having begotten any children with the deceased then
it means that Doa Fausta never acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death,
because she never acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not included in
her estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the
testator. Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to Doa Fausta then he should
have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to Doa Fausta without
mentioning any condition.

GALA VS. ELLICE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORP.


418 SCRA 431
Facts:
The spouses Manuel and Alicia Gala and their children Guia Domingo, Ofelia Gala, Raul
Gala and Rita Benson, and their encargados. Virgilio Galeon and Julian Jader, formed and
organized Ellice Agro Industrial Corporation (Ellice). A spayment for their subscriptions the
Spouses Gala transferred several parcles of land to Ellice. Subsequently, the children and the
encargados formed and organized another corporation, Margo Management and Development
Corporation (Margo). The father, Manuel Gala, sold his shares in Ellice to Margo. Subsequently,
Alicia transferred her shares to Margo.
In an attempt to bolster their theory that the organization of the respondent corporations
was illegal, the petitioners aver that the legitime pertaining to petitioners Rita G. Benson
and Guia G. Domingo from the estate of their father had been subject to unwarranted reductions
as a result thereof. In sum, they claim that stockholdings in Ellice which the late Manuel Gala
had assigned to them were insufficient to cover their legitimes, since Benson was only given two
shares while Domingo received only sixteen shares out of a total number of 35,000 issued
shares.
Issue:
Whether or not the completion of estate of the petitioners raised in the instant case be
disregarded.

Held:
Yes. The reliefs sought by petitioners should have been raised in a proceeding for
settlement of estate, rather than in the present intra-corporate controversy. If they are genuinely
interested in securing that part of their late father property which has been reserved for them in
their
capacity
as
compulsory
heirs,
then
they
should
simply
exercise
their actio ad supplendam legitimam, or their right of completion of legitime. Such relief must be
sought during the distribution and partition stage of a case for the settlement of the estate of
Manuel Gala, filed before a court which has taken jurisdiction over the settlement of said estate.
____________________________________________________________________________

EDROSO vs. SABLAN


25 SCRA 295
FACTS:
Spouses Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan had a son named, Pedro who inherited
two parcels of land upon the death of his father. Subsequently, Pedro died, unmarried and
without issue, the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother. Hence the
hereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration of her ownership. The two
uncles of Pedro, Pablo and Basilio Sablan (legitimate brothers of Victoriano) opposed the
registration claiming that either the registration be denied or if granted to her, the right reserved
by law to them be recorded in the registration of each parcel. The Court of Land Registration
denied the registration holding that the 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. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the property in question is in the nature of a reservable property.
2. Whether or not Marcelina Edroso has the absolute title of the property to cause its
registration.
RULING:
A very definite conclusions of law is that the hereditary title is one without a valuable
consideration (gratuitous tile), and it is so characterized in Article 968 of the Civil Code, for he
who acquires by inheritance gives nothing in return for what he receives; and a very definite
conclusion of law also is that the uncles are within the third degree of blood relationship.
Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant
property which the latter acquired without a valuable consideration
from another descendant, or form a brother or sister, is under
obligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law for
the relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line
where the property proceeded.

Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him the two parcels of land
which he had acquired without a valuable consideration that is, by inheritance from another
ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquire 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 (parents of Victoriano), where the lands proceeded. The trial courts ruling that they
partake of the nature property required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with the
law.
The conclusion is that the person required by Article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond
any doubt at all, the rights to use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal title and dominion,
although under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has under an express provision of the law
the right to dispose of the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a
condition. He has the right to recover it, because he is the one who possesses or should
possess it and have title to it, although a limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title and
dominion, even though under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After the right required by
law to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything that a genuine owner can do.
On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the right is reserved
cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually or constructively or
formally, in their possession; and moreover, because they have no title of ownership or of the
fee simple which they can transmit to another, on the hypothesis that only when the person who
must reserve the right should die before them will they acquire it.
____________________________________________________________________________

SIENES vs. ESPARCIA


1 SCRA 750
FACTS:
Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he had
four children named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while 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 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, and Lot 3368 (western portion) to Francisco. As a result of the cadastral proceedings,
an OCT 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, his mother, as his sole heir, executed
the public instrument and sold the property in question to appellants in consideration of the sum
of P800.00. Andrea Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee surviving her being
Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13, 1952. Said vendees demanded from Paulina and

her husband, the surrender of the OCT which was in their possession, the latter refused, thus
giving rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral, which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the reservable property in question is part of and must be reverted to the
estate of Cipriana Yaeso.
RULING:
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 former 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
did not appeal therefrom.
_____________________________________________________________________

PADURA vs. BALDOVINO


GR. No. L-1160
December 27, 1958
FACTS:
Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife Gervacia
Landig, he had one child, Manuel Padura. With the second wife, Benita Garing, he had two
children, Fortunato and Candelaria Padura. Agustin died on Apr 26, 1908, leaving a last will and
testament, duly probated, wherein he bequeathed his properties among his three children and
his surviving spouse, Benita Garing.
Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried on May 28, 1908,
without having executed a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were inherited
exclusively by his mother Benita. Benita was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name,
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.
On August 26, 1934, Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate children:
Cristeta, Melania, Anicia, and Pablo Baldovino (Oppositors-appellants).
On October 6, 1940, Manuel also died, survived by his legitimate children Dionisia,
Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and Severino Padura(Petitioners-appellees) Upon the

death of Benita (the reservista) on Oct 15, 1952, the heirs took possession of the reservable
properties.
CFI Laguna declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria to be the rightful reservees,
and as such, entitled to the reservable properties (the original reservees, Candelaria and
Manuel, having predeceased the reservista)The Baldovino heirs filed a petition seeking to have
the properties partitioned, such that one-half be adjudicated to them, and the other half to the
appellees, allegedly on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from their
respective parents, the original reservees. Padura heirs opposed, maintaining that they should
all be deemed as inheriting in their own right, under which, they claim, each should have an
equal share.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned
among the heirs equally.
HELD:
NO. The nephews of the whole blood should take a share twice as large as that of the
nephews of the half blood. 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). Article 891 of the Code provides:
ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property whic
h 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.

CANO vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS


105 PHIL 1
Facts:
On September 8, 1955, the reservista Cano, died. Thus, in October, 1955, the reservee
(reservatorio) Eustaquia applied for the cancellation of the original title and a new one issued in
her favor.
The motion was opposed by the sons of Cano: Jose and Teotimo Fernandez. They contended
that the application and operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary
proceeding, not in the Registration Court.
However, the lower court granted the petition on the basis of the recorded reserve. It held that
the issuance of a new certificate is proper, for the reason that the death of the reservista vested
the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole reservatario troncal.

The oppositors appealed and argued that the reversion in favor of the reservatario requires the
declaration of the existence of the following facts:
(1) The property was received by a ascendant by gratuitous titled from an ascendant or from
a brother or sister;
(2) Said descendant dies without issue;
(3) The property ascendant by operation of law; and
(4) The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said
property came.
Issue:
Whether or not the Certificate of title was registered in the name of Maria Cano is subject ti
reserve troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero.
Held:
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.
The property was inherited by Cano from her deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero, who
inherited the same from her father, Evaristo Guerrero. Hence, falls squarely within the
provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code.
The only requisites for the passing of 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 in nowhere questioned.
The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the assumption that
the reservatario will succeed in, or inherit, the reservable property from the reservista. This is
not true.
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 reservatarios that survive the reservista, the
latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest in the reservable property.
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario
nearest to the prepositus becomes, automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the
reservable property. 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, so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the
prepositus, and belonging to the line hence the property came, is in existence when the
reservista dies.
Of course, where the registration decree merely specifies the reservable character of the
property, without determining the identity of the reservatario, or where several reservatarios
dispute the property among themselves, further proceedings would be unavoidable. But this is
not the case.
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.

FLORENTINO vs. FLORENTINO


40 PHIL 480
FACTS:
Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II, during his lifetime, married twice. The 1 st time, with
Antonia Faz de Leon, with whom he begot 9 children: Jose, Juan, Maria, Encarnacion, Isabel,
Espirita, Gabriel, Pedro, and Magdalena.
On becoming a widower, he married the 2 nd time with Severina Faz de Leon, with whom he had
2 children: Mercedes and Apolonio III.
On January 17 and February 13, 1890, Apolonio II executed a will instituting as his universal
heirs his 10 children, the posthumous Apolonio III and his widow Severina Faz; he declared that
all his property should be divided among all of his children of both marriages.
Apolonio III died in 1891; his mother, Severina Faz, succeeded to all his property.
Severina Faz died on November 18, 1908, leaving a will instituting as her universal heiress her
only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino. As such heir, said daughter took possession of all
the property left at the death of her mother, among those is that property inherited from Apolonio
II.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the properties inherited by Severina Faz from her son, Apolonio III,
constitute reservable properties?
2. Whether or not the testator can dispose by will the properties subject to reserva troncal?
3. Whether or not the reservista can choose which reservatorio can inherit the property
subject to reserva troncal?

HELD:
1. At the death of Apolonio II, under a will, his 11 children succeeded to the inheritance he
left. In 1891, Apolonio III died; he was succeeded by his mother Severina Faz (included
in the inheritance is the property in question).
That Apolonio III acquired the property in question by a lucrative title or by inheritance
from his father is without any doubt. Thus, when, on the death of Apolonio III, without
issue, the same passed by operation of law into the hands of his mother, it became
reservable property, 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 II, the source of said property.
When Severina Faz died in 1908, she left in her will said property, together with her own,
to her only daughter and forced heiress, Mercedes. However, the reservable nature of
such property was not lost.
The law so provides that ascendants do not inherit the reservable property, but only its
enjoyment, use or trust. The law imposes the obligation to reserve and preserve the
same for certain designated persons who, upon the death of the said ascendantsreservists, (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.
These designated persons (reservatarios) are the relatives, within the third degree, of
the descendant from whom the reservable property came.
2. Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the
ascendant who inherits and receives the same from his descendant. Therefore, it does
not form part of his own property nor become the legitime of his forced heirs. It becomes
his own property, only, in case all the relatives of his descendant shall have died
(reservista), in which case said reservable property losses such character.
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. But if, afterwards, all of the relatives, within
the third degree, of the descendant die or disappear, the said property becomes free
property, by operation of law, and the ascendant heir can transmit it at his death to his
legitimate successors or testamentary heirs.
If this property was clothed with the character and condition of reservable property when
Severina Faz inherited the same from her son Apolonio III, she did not 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.

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 as forced heiress. But whatever provision
there is in her will concerning the reservable property received from her son Apolonio III,
is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said property is not her own.
3. Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives
of the descendant within the 3rd 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.
There are then 7 "reservatarios" who are entitled to the reservable property left at the
death of Apolonio III:
a. the 3 children of the 1st marriage of Apolonio II - Encarnacion, Gabriel, Magdalena;
b. the other 3 children, Jose, Espirita and Pedro, represented by their own 12 children
respectively; and
c. Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by 2nd marriage.
All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased Apolonio III, within the 3 rd degree (4
of whom being his half-brothers and the remaining 12 being his nephews as they are the
children of his 3 half-brothers). As the first 4 are his relatives within the third degree in
their own right and the other 12 are such by representation, all of them are indisputably
entitled as reservatarios to the property.
It is true that when Mercedes Florentino, the heiress of the reservista Severina, took
possession of the property in question, same did not pass into the hands of strangers.
But it is likewise true that Mercedes is not the only reservataria. And there is no reason
founded upon law and upon the principle of justice why the other reservatarios, the other
brothers and nephews, relatives within the third degree should be deprived of portions of
the property which, as reservable property, pertain to them.
As there were seven reservees, Mercedes was entitled, as a reservee, to one-seventh of
the properties. The other six-sevenths portions were adjudicated to the other six
reserves.

GONZALES vs. CFI


104 SCRA 479

FACTS:

Benito Legarda y Tuason died on June 17, 1933. He was survived by his widow,
Filomena Roces, and their 7 children: 4 daughters named Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and
Filomena and 3 sons named Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
On July 12, 1939, 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, represented by Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate and without issue on March 19, 1943. Her sole
heiress was her mother, Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda.
Mrs. Legarda executed on May 12, 1947 an affidavit adjudicating extra-judicially to herself the
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda. These
properties are in litigation in this case.
As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased daughter
Filomena Legarda as co-owner of the properties held pro-indiviso by her other 6 children.
On March 6, 1953, Mrs. Legarda executed 2 hand-written identical documents wherein she
disposed the properties she inherited from her daughter in favor of the children of her sons,
Benito, Alejandro and Jose (16 grandchildren in all).
During the period from July, 1958 to February, 1959, Mrs. Legarda and her 6 surviving children
partitioned the properties consisting of the 1/3 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. In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez, a daughter of the testatrix, filed on
May 20, 1968 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 the resolution on that motion, Mrs. Gonzalez filed on June 20, 1968 an
ordinary civil action against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate
for the purpose of securing 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.
Issues:
1) Whether or not the properties in litigation are reservable properties?
2) Did Mrs. Legarda have the right to convey mortis causa the properties she inherited from
her daughter, to the reservees within the 3rd degree and to bypass the reservees in the
2nd degree? Or, should that inheritance automatically go to the reservees in the 2 nd
degree?

Held:
In reserva 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, 3 transmissions are involved:
(1) 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 reserva) in favor of another ascendant, the
reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation, and
(3) a third transmission 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 reserva.
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."
1) 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 were living.
2) Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will 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 6
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.