DE PAPA v. CAMACHO ii.
After Balbino died in 1928, 3 parcels of land were given to
24 Sept 1986 | Narvasa, J. | Preference among reservatarios| Conejero
PLANTIFFS: Francisca Tioco de Papa, Manuel Tioco, Nicolas Tioco, Januario Papa
DEFENDANTS: Dalisay Tongko Camacho, Primo Tongko, Godofredo Camacho
SUMMARY: Defendant Dalisay, grand-niece of plaintiffs Francisca, Manuel and Nicolas,
inherited pro-indiviso share of 7 parcels of land from her mother Toribia. Dalisay now
seeks to claim the disputed share of the land which she is to directly inherit from her
grandfather Eustacio, which he in turn inherited from Dalisays uncle Faustino subject to a
reserva troncal. The plaintiffs, on the other hand seek to split the share between
themselves and Dalisay, claiming they are third-degree relatives of Faustino and therefore
entitled to succeed without distinction upon the death of the reservista Eustacio. The TC
agreed with the plaintiffs but the SC reversed, stating that Dalisay was entitled to the
entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs.
DOCTRINE: Upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the reservable property should
pass, not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to those within the third degree of
relationship from the descendant (prepositus) which will have the right of representation,
excluding reservatarios of more remote degree (Florentino v. Florentino).
FACTS:
1. This case involves the application of Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva
troncal to determine:
a. Whether defendant Dalisay is entitled to the entirety of 7 parcels of
land in question, OR
b. Whether plaintiffs Francisca, Manuel and Nicolas as uncles and aunts
of Faustino are reservatarios of share of all the land inherited by
their brother-in-law Eustacio from Faustino, and therefore each
entitled, along with Dalisay, to 3/4ths share of rentals from tenants.
2. In the lower court, all the parties submitted a "Stipulation of Facts and Partial
Compromise to establish their family relationship and claims.
a. 7 parcels of land are involved: 4 from Romana, 3 from Balbino Tioco.
i. Defendant Dalisays great-grandmother Romana donated 4
parcels to plaintiffs sister Toribia, who died in 1915 and left
such to children Faustino and defendants mother Trinidad.
Toribia, which again devolved upon Faustino and Trinidad.
b. Now that Faustino and Trinidad got 7 parcels of land, they had pro-
indiviso shares. Both shares went to Dalisay, but Faustinos share went
to her through Dalisays grandfather Eustacio under reserva troncal.
i. When Faustino died in 1937, he left his pro-indiviso share
to his father, Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who
received the property subject to a reserva troncal.
ii. In 1939 Trinidad died in 1939, and her father Eustacio in
1965, both intestate, with their only descendant Dalisay.
c. Defendant Dalisay owns of the 7 parcels of land as her inheritance
from mother Trinidad. What is disputed is the other from Faustino.
3. The lower court declared plaintiffs and defendant entitled, as reservatarios, to
one-half of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in equal proportions [Fact 1(b)],
thus this appeal by Dalisay.
ISSUE: Whether all nearest relatives of descendant Faustino (praepositus) within the third
degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon
death of the inheriting ascendant (reservista) by the rules on intestate successionNO.
RULE: 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. (811),
RATIO:
1. Plaintiffs have no right to the reversionary property: As aunt and uncles,
respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from the
succession by his niece, defendant-appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho, although
they are related to him within the same degree as the latter.
a. Plaintiffs excluded by other collaterals: In case of intestacy nephews
and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts, uncles,
first cousins, etc.) from the succession. To this effect is Abellana vs.
Ferraris where Arts. 1001, 1004, 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code
were cited and applied.
i. Art. 1009: absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces
of the decedent is a precondition to other collaterals being
called to succeed.
ii. Spanish Civil Code of 1889: Articles 952 and 954 of the
Code of 1889 stated that brothers and sisters and nephews
and nieces inherited ab intestato ahead of the surviving
spouse, while other collaterals succeeded only after the
widower or widow. The present Civil Code of the Philippines
merely placed the spouse on par with the nephews and
nieces and brothers and sisters of the deceased, but without
altering the preferred position of the latter vis a vis the other
collaterals.
b. Plaintiffs would normally have been excluded: Had the reversionary
property passed directly from the praepositus, there is no doubt that
the plaintiffs-appellees would have been excluded by the defendant-
appellant under the rules of intestate succession. There is no reason
 why a different result should obtain simply because "the transmission
of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva" i.e., the
property took a "detour" through an ascendant-thereby giving rise to
the reservation before its transmission to the reservatario.
2. Definition of reserva troncal: a special rule designed 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 dissipation into and by relatives of the
reservista. The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property
devolves to the specified relatives of the line of origin (Padura v. Baldovino)
a. Preference of reservatarios: 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, reservatario
over the property which the reservista (person holding it subject to
reservation) should return to him, excludes that of one more remote.
i. Intestate succession within groups of relatives in the same
degree: The reserva troncal determines the group of relative
reservatarios to whom the property should be returned;
but within that group, the individual right to the property
should be decided by applicable rules of ordinary intestate
succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise. In the
relations between one reservatario and another of the same
degree Art. 891 becomes inapplicable; wherefore, the shares
of each in the reversionary property should be governed by
ordinary rules of intestate succession.
ii. Limited application: Given 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. The restrictive interpretation is the more
imperative in view of the new Civil Code's hostility to
successional reservas and reversions, as exemplified by the
suppression of the reserva viudal and the reversion legal of
the Code of 1889 (Art. 812 and 968-980).
This was the ruling in Padura vs. Baldovino, where Justice J.B.L. Reyes
wrote the opinion of the Court. In that case, the reservatario was
survived by 11 nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of
origin, 4 of whole blood and 7 of half blood, and the claim was made
that all should get reversionary property in equal shares.
3. Reservatarios: The reservable property is not part of the estate of the reservista
who may not dispose of it by will as long as reservatarios exist.
The reservatario receives the property and acquires a life interest in such 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. Reservatarios inherit from the descendant praepositus,
upon surviving the reservista, as heirs mortis causa (Padura v. Baldovino).
4. Intestacy proceedings: These are not necessary to determine the right of
a reservatario where the final decree of the land court ordering issuance of title
in the name of the reservista over property subject to reserva troncal identifies
the reservatario and there are no other claimants to the latter's rights as such.
The reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes, by operation of law, the
owner of the reservable property (Cano v. Director of Lands).
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower Court is reversed and set
aside and the complaint is dismissed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.

NOTES:
1. 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. Relatives of the
fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios,
since the law does not recognize them as such.
2. Double share of immediate collateral of whole 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.
a. 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.
b. That nephews of whole blood should take a share twice as large as
that of nephews of half-blood is in accordance with Article 1006, CC.