Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

1

PASCUAL V PASCUAL-BAUTISTA the continuation of the proceedings until the final


determination thereof by the court, or by another
Principle: compromise agreement, as regards the claims of Olivia
Pascual and Hermes Pascual as legal heirs of the deceased,
There are only legitimate and illegitimate children.
Don Andres.
Acknowledged natural children are still considered
illegitimate children in the eyes of the law. The right of Petitioners insists of their hereditary rights
representation is not available to illegitimate descendants.
RTC denied their hereditary rights of Olivia and Hermes.
FACTS: CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Petitioners Olivia and Hermes are the acknowledged ISSUE:


natural children of the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being
the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres Pascual. Whether Article 992 of NCC can be interpreted to exclude
recognized natural children from the inheritance of the
Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October 12, 1973 deceased.
without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural,
adopted or spurious children and was survived by the Petitioner’s (Olivia and Hermes) contention:
following:
Petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely within
(a) Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, surviving spouses; the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized
(b) Children of Wenceslao, a brother of the full blood of the because being acknowledged natural children, their
deceased, to wit: E, M, J, S and ER illegitimacy is not due to the subsistence of a prior
marriage when such children were under conception.
(c) Children of Pedro, brother of the half blood of the
deceased, to wit: A,I, L, V, N, O and G Otherwise stated they say the term "illegitimate" children
as provided in Article 992 must be strictly construed to
(d) Acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual,
refer only to spurious children.
brother of the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Olivia and
Hermes Respondent’s (the legal heirs) contention:

(e) Intestate of Eleuterio, a brother of the half blood of the Petitioners are within the prohibition of Article 992 of the
deceased and represented by the following: D, M, A, R, Do, Civil Code (prohibiting absolutely a succession ab intestato
N, S, E. between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children
and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate
Adela, the surviving spouse of the late Don Andres Pascual,
child)
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a Special
Proceeding, for administration of the intestate estate of SC RULING:
her late husband. Adela later filed a Supplemental Petition
to the Petition for letters of Administration, where she Article 992 of NCC is interpreted to exclude recognized
expressly stated that Olivia and Hermes are among the natural children from the inheritance of the deceased.
heirs of Don Andres Pascual.
An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
Adela executed an affidavit, to the effect that of her own from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
knowledge, Eligio is the younger full blood brother of her mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the
late husband Don Andres, to belie the statement made by same manner from the illegitimate child.
the oppositors, that they were are not among the known
heirs of the deceased Don Andres Pascual. Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron
curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab
The above-mentioned heirs entered into a COMPROMISE intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
AGREEMENT, over the vehement objections of the children and relatives of the father or mother of said
petitioners Olivia and Hermes. The compromise agreement legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but
provides that the agreement shall be without prejudice to this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Article
2

992. Between the legitimate family and illegitimate family Spouses Mauricio Bravo (Mauricio) and
there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and Simona Andaya Bravo (Simona) owned two parcels of
incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully land. The Properties are registered and contain a large
looked down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in residential dwelling, a smaller house and other
turn hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the improvements.
privileged condition of the former, and the resources of
Mauricio and Simona had three children - Roland,
which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in
Cesar and Lily, all surnamed Bravo. Cesar died without
the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin,
issue. Lily Bravo married David Diaz, and had a son, David
palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does
Jr. Roland had six children, namely, Elizabeth, Edward,
no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further
Roland Jr., Senia, Benjamin, and their half-sister, Ofelia.
grounds of resentment.
Simona executed a General Power of Attorney
Eligio is a legitimate child but petitioners are his appointing Mauricio (the husband) as her attorney-in-fact.
illegitimate children. In the GPA, Simona authorized Mauricio to mortgage or
otherwise hypothecate, sell, assign and dispose of any and
Petitioners cannot represent their father Eligio in the
all of my property, real, personal or mixed, of any kind
succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the
whatsoever and wheresoever situated, or any interest
decedent Andres, full blood brother of their father.
therein xxx. Mauricio subsequently mortgaged the PNB
The right of representation is not available to illegitimate and DBP.
descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a
Mauricio executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of
legitimate grandparent. It may be argued, as done by
Real Estate Mortgage (Deed of Sale) conveying the
petitioners, that the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate
Properties to Roland, Ofelia, and Elizabeth (vendees- R,
child is entitled to represent by virtue of the provisions of
son of the spouses, O and E are the granddaughters). The
Article 982, which provides that "the grandchildren and
sale was conditioned on the payment of P1,000 and on the
other descendants shall inherit by right of representation."
assumption by the vendees of the PNB and DBP mortgages
Such a conclusion is erroneous.
over the Properties.
The term "illegitimate" refers to both natural and spurious. The Deed of Sale was not annotated. Neither was it
presented to PNB and DBP. The mortage loans and the
The Family Code provides that all illegitimate children are
receipts for loan payments issued by PNB and DBP
generally placed under one category, which undoubtedly
continued to be in Mauricios name even after his death.
settles the issue as to whether or not acknowledged
Simona died later.
natural children should be treated differently, in the
negative. Edward (son of Roland- apo ni Mauricio), represented
by his wife, Fatima, filed an action for the judicial partition
It may be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law of the Properties. Edward claimed that he and the other
(DURA LEX SED LEX). grandchildren of Mauricio and Simona (wife of Mauricio)
are co-owners of the Properties by succession. Despite
this, petitioners refused to share with him the possession
and rental income of the Properties. Edward later
BRAVO V. BRAVO-GUERRERO
amended his complaint to include a prayer to annul the
Principle: Deed of Sale, which he claimed was merely simulated to
prejudice the other heirs.
The law on legitime does not bar the disposition of
property for valuable consideration to descendants or David Jr., whose parents died and who was
compulsory heirs—in a sale, cash of equivalent value subsequently raised by Simona, moved to intervene in the
replaces the property taken from the estate, thus there is case. Both of them want to impugn the validity of the Deed
no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution in of Sale and praying for the partition of the Properties
values. among the surviving heirs of Mauricio and Simona.

FACTS: RTC upheld Mauricios sale of the Properties to the


vendees. The trial court ruled that the sale did not
3

prejudice the compulsory heirs, as the Properties were could alienate conjugal partnership property for valuable
conveyed for valuable consideration. The trial court also consideration without the wifes consent.
noted that the Deed of Sale was duly notarized and was in
Even under the present Civil Code, however, the Deed
existence for many years without question about its
of Sale is not void. It is well-settled that contracts
validity.
alienating conjugal real property without the wife’s
CA declared the Deed of Sale void for lack of Simonas consent are merely voidable under the Civil Code that is,
consent. The GPA executed by Simona in 1966 was not binding on the parties unless annulled by a competent
sufficient to authorize Mauricio to sell the Properties court and not void ab initio.
because CC requires a special power of attorney for such
Moreover, the respondent’s action to annul the Deed
transactions. The appellate court reasoned that the GPA
of Sale based on Article 166 must fail for having been filed
was executed merely to enable Mauricio to mortgage the
out of time. The marriage of Mauricio and Simona was
Properties, not to sell them.
dissolved when Mauricio died in 1973. More than ten
It also found that there was insufficient proof that the years have passed since the execution of the Deed of Sale.
vendees made the mortgage payments on the Properties,
Further, respondents, who are Simonas heirs, are not
since the PNB and DBP receipts were issued in Mauricios
the parties who can invoke Article 166. Article 173
name
reserves that remedy to the wife alone. Only Simona had
the right to have the sale of the Properties annulled on the
ISSUES:
ground that Mauricio sold the Properties without her
Is the sale valid? (relate it with: Whether the law on
consent.
legitime bars the disposition of property for valuable
consideration to descendants or compulsory heirs—in a Simona, however, did not assail the Deed of Sale
sale, cash of equivalent value replaces the property taken during her marriage or even after Mauricios death.
from the estate, thus there is no diminution of the estate
On the GPA
but merely a substitution in values.)
Simona authorized Mauricio to dispose of the
Petitioners:
Properties when she executed the GPA. True, Article 1878
The subject sale is valid as to Mauricios share in the requires a special power of attorney for an agent to
Properties. execute a contract that transfers the ownership of an
immovable. However, the Court has clarified that Article
Respondents:
1878 refers to the nature of the authorization, not to its
They are co-owners of the Properties by succession. form. Even if a document is titled as a general power of
Respondents argue that the sale of the conjugal Properties attorney, the requirement of a special power of attorney is
is void because: (1) Mauricio executed the Deed of Sale met if there is a clear mandate from the principal
without Simonas consent; and (2) the sale was merely specifically authorizing the performance of the act.
simulated, as shown by the grossly inadequate
A general power of attorney could contain a
consideration Mauricio received for the Properties.
special power to sell that satisfies the requirement.
SC RULING: (Take note: The petition is partly
meritorious.) There was no need to execute a separate and
special power of attorney since the general power of
Sale is valid. attorney had expressly authorized the agent or attorney in
fact the power to sell the subject property. The special
On the sale power of attorney can be included in the general power
Article 166 expressly applies only to properties when it is specified therein the act or transaction for which
acquired by the conjugal partnership after the effectivity of the special power is required.
the Civil Code of the Philippines. There is no dispute that
Simona expressly authorized Mauricio in the GPA
the Properties were conjugal properties of Mauricio and
to sell, assign and dispose of any and all of my property,
Simona, the records do not show, and the parties did not
real, personal or mixed, of any kind whatsoever and
stipulate, when the Properties were acquired. Under
wheresoever situated, or any interest therein xxx as well
Article 1413 of the old Spanish Civil Code, the husband
as to act as my general representative and agent, with full
4

authority to buy, sell, negotiate and contract for me and in repudiated the co-ownership. This action for partition
my behalf. does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.

As to the price

The law on legitime does not bar the disposition of


property for valuable consideration to descendants or MANUEL V. HON FERRER
compulsory heirs. In a sale, cash of equivalent value
replaces the property taken from the estate. There is no FACTS: Antonio Manuel and Beatriz Guiling are spouses.
diminution of the estate but merely a substitution in During his marriage with Beatriz, Antonio had an extra-
values. Donations and other dispositions by gratuitous marital affair with one Ursula Bautista. From this
title, on the other hand, must be included in the relationship, Juan Manuel was born.
computation of legitimes
Juan Manuel, the illegitimate son of Antonio, married
Gross inadequacy of price does not even affect the Esperanza Gamba. In consideration of the marriage, a
validity of a contract of sale, unless it signifies a defect in donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land, with an area
the consent or that the parties actually intended a of 2,700 square meters, was executed in favor of Juan
donation or some other contract. Manuel by Laurenciana Manuel (WHO?). Juan and
Esperanza took Modesta Manuel-Baltazar into their fold
Respondents even failed to establish that the and raised her as their own "daughter" (WARD).
consideration paid by the vendees for the Properties was
grossly inadequate. As the trial court pointed out, the Deed In 1980, Juan Manuel executed in favor of Estanislaoa
of Sale stipulates that, in addition to the payment Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro (with a 10-year
of P1,000, the vendees should assume the mortgage loans period of redemption) over a one-half (1/2) portion of his
from PNB and DBP. The consideration for the sale of the land.
Properties was thus P1,000 in cash and the assumption of
the P15,000 mortgage. Juan Manuel died intestate on 21 February 1990. Two
years later, or on 04 February 1992, Esperanza Gamba also
As to the deed of sale passed away.

The Deed of Sale was notarized and, as certified by


A month after the death of Esperanza, Modesta executed
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, entered in the notarial an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication claiming for herself the
books submitted to that court. As a document three parcels of land. Following the registration of the
acknowledged before a notary public, the Deed of Sale
document of adjudication with the Office of the Register of
enjoys the presumption of regularity and due execution. Deeds, the three titles were transferred in Modesta’s name.
On the partition
In 1992, Modesta executed in favor of her co-respondent
Court finds it proper to grant the partition of the Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim
Properties. over the unredeemed one-half (1/2) portion of the land
that was sold to the latter by Juan Manuel under the 1980
Petitioners have consistently claimed that their father
Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro. These acts of Modesta
is one of the vendees who bought the Properties. Vendees
apparently did not sit well with petitioners who are the
Elizabeth and Ofelia both testified that the Roland Sr. in the
legitimate children of spouses Antonio Manuel and Beatriz
Deed of Sale is their father, although their brother, Roland
Guiling.
Jr., made some of the mortgage payments.

As Roland, Sr. is also the father of respondent Petitioners argue that they are the legal heirs over
Edward, the latter is thus a compulsory heir of Roland Sr., one-half of Juan's intestate estate (while the other half
and entitled to a share, along with his brothers and sisters, would pertain to Juan's surviving spouse) under the
provision of the last paragraph of Article 994 of the Civil
in his father’s portion of the Properties. In short, Edward
Code, providing thusly:
and petitioners are co-owners of the Properties.

Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Art. 994. In default of the father or mother, an
Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her
surviving spouse, who shall be entitled to the
partition of the common property unless a co-owner has
entire estate.
5

If the widow or widower should survive with intent, and thus no part should be rendered
brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, she inoperative 11 by, but must always be construed in relation
or he shall inherit one-half of the estate, to, any other part as to produce a harmonious whole.
and the latter the other half. (Emphasis
supplied)

Respondents, in turn, submit that Article 994 should be


CHUA V CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
read in conjunction with Article 992 of the Civil Code,
which reads:
FACTS:

Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to DECEDENT - Consolacion de la Torre, DIED INTESTATE
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall First Marriage
such children or relative inherit in the same manner
from the illegitimate child. Jose Frias Chua ========= Patricia Militar (D)

In a summary judgment, the RTC dismissed the complaint


holding that petitioners, not being heirs ab intestato of
their illegitimate brother Juan Manuel, were not the real
parties-in-interest to institute the suit.
Ignacio Lorenzo (D) Manuel (D)
ISSUE: WON legitimate brothers and sisters can be an heir Dominador
Remedios
of their illegitimate brother who died intestate survived by
Reservees
a spouse and a ward (ampon)

HELD: NO Second Marriage

Jose Frias Chua ========= Consolacion De la Torre


Article 992, a basic postulate, enunciates what is so Origin Reservor
commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the
"principle of absolute separation between the legitimate
family and the illegitimate family." The doctrine rejects
succession ab intestato in the collateral line between
legitimate relatives, on the one hand, and illegitimate
relatives, on other hand, although it does not totally Juanito Frias Chua
disavow such succession in the direct line. Since the rule is Reservista
predicated on the presumed will of the decedent, it has no
application, however, on testamentary dispositions.
Consequently, when the law speaks of"brothers and sisters,
nephews and nieces" as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it
refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the
Ignacio, Dominador and Remedios filed a complaint
children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers
and sisters. praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399
which formerly belonged to Juanito Frias (child from
The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by second marriage) but which passed to Consolacion de la
the Court in several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that Torre upon the latter's death, be declared as a reservable
where the illegitimate child had half-brothers who were property for the reason that the lot in question was subject
legitimate, the latter had no right to the former's to reserval troncal.
inheritance; 6 that the legitimate collateral relatives of the
mother cannot succeed from her illegitimate child; 7 that a CFI Negros RULING: The respondent Court rendered a
natural child cannot represent his natural father in the decision dismissing the complaint of petitioner. The court
succession to the estate of the legitimate
held that there was no reserve troncal because there was
grandparent; 8 that the natural daughter cannot succeed to
the estate of her deceased uncle who is a legitimate no gratuitous transfer. The transfer to Consolacion and
brother of her natural father; 9 and that an illegitimate Juanito was found to be for a consideration, namely, that
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the the legatees were to pay the interest and cost and other
legitimate children and relatives of his father. 10 Indeed, fees resulting from the testate proceedings of Jose Frias
the law on succession is animated by a uniform general
6

Chua (to pay the Standare Oil co. of New York the amount of his father Jose Frias Chua was by means of a hereditary
of P3,971.20). The CFI also held succession and therefore gratuitous. The obligation of
paying the Standard Oil Co. of New York the amount of
ISSUE: P3,971.20 is imposed upon Consolacion de la Torre and
Juanito Frias Chua not personally by the deceased Jose
1. WON the property of Jose which passed to his son
Frias Chua in his last will and testament but by an order of
Juanito and upon the latter’s death, passed to the
mother Consolacion, became the reservable the court in the Testate Proceeding. It does not matter if
property of the sons of Jose from his first marriage later the court orders one of the heirs, in this case Juanito
upon the death of Consolacion Frias Chua, to pay the Standare oil co. of New York the
2. WON the transfer was gratuitous amount of P3,971.20. This does not change the gratuitous
3. WON the claim of the reserves had prescribed nature of the transmission of the property to him.

HELD: 3. It is claimed that the complaint of petitioners to recover


the one-half portion of Lot 399 which originally belonged
1. YES, property subject to reserve troncal to Juanito Frias Chua who died on February 27, 1952 has
already prescribed when it was filed on May 11, 1966. We
In order that a property may be impressed with a
do not believe so. It must be remembered that the
reservable character the following requisites must exist, to
petitioners herein are claiming as reservees did not arise
wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant
until the time the reservor, Consolacion de la Torre, died in
from an asscendant or from a brother or sister by
March 1966. When the petitioners therefore filed their
gratuitous title; (2) that said descendant died without an
complaint to recover the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot 399,
issue; (3) that the property is inherited by another
they were very much in time to do so.
ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there are
relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from PARTITION OF PROPERTY: Consolacion de la Torre, 1/2
which said property came. 5 In the case before Us, all of the undivided portion; Ignacio Frias Chua, 1/4 undivided
foregoing requisites are present. Thus, as borne out by the portion; and Dominador Chua and Remedios Chua, 1/4
records, Juanoito Frias Chua of the second marriage died undivided portion.
intestate in 1952; he died withour leaving any issue; his
pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was acquired by
his mother, Consolacion de la Torre died, Juannnito Frias
Chua who died intestate had relatives within the third CANO V DIRECTOR OF LANDS
degree. These relatives are Ignacio Frias Chua and
Dominador Chua and Remidios Chua, the suppose FACTS:
legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua,
who are the petitioners herein.  Court of First Instance of Sorsogon decreed the
registration of Lots Nos. 1798 and 1799 in the
2. YES, transfer was gratuitous name of Maria Cano (reservista) subject to
reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero.
"The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when  When the reservista died, Eustaquia Guerrero
the recipient does not give anything in return." It matters through counsel filed a motion and praying that
not whether the property transmitted be or be not subject the original Certificate of Title be ordered
to any prior charges; what is essential is that the cancelled and a new one issued in favor of him.
 This was opposed by Jose and Teotimo Fernandez,
transmission be made gratuitously, or by an act of mere
sons of the reservista Maria Cano insisting that the
liberality of the person making it, without imposing any ownership of the reservatorio can not be decreed
obligation on the part of the recipient; and that the person in a mere proceeding under sec. 112 of Act 496,
receiving the property gives or does nothing in return; or, but requires a judicial administration
as ably put by an eminent Filipino commentator, 6 "the proceedings, wherein the rights of appellee, as
essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so the reservatorio entitled to the reservable
gratuitously, from pure generosity, without requiring from property, are to be declared.
 They further argue that the reversion in favor of
the transferee any prestation." It is evident from the
the reservatorio requires the declaration of the
record that the transmission of the property in question to existence of the following facts:(1) The property
Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage upon the death was received by a descendant by gratuitous title
7

from an ascendant or from a brother or sister;(2) reverting to the line of origin from which it had
Said descendant dies without issue;(3) The temporarily and accidentally strayed during the
property is inherited by another ascendant by reservista's lifetime. The authorities are all agreed that
operation of law; and(4) The existence of relatives there being reservatarios that survive the reservista, the
within the third degree belonging the line from latter must be deemed to have enjoined no more than a life
which said property came. interest in the reservable property.

ISSUE: It is a consequence of these principles that upon the


death of the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the
1. WON the above-mentioned elements need to be prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes,
proven first before Guerrero be granted the automatically and by operation of law, the owner of
ownership of Lot 1799? the reservable property.
2. WON intestacy proceeding is still necessary before
reservatorio (Guerrero) can acquire the property?

RULING: LUNSOD V ORTEGA

NO. FACTS:

The requisites enumerated by appellants have already Upon the death of Mariano Ortega, he left three children,
been declared to exist by the decree of registration named Sinforoso, Francisca and Estanislao Ortega; (2) that
wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal Estanislao Ortega was married on May 8, 1895, to
were expressly recognized. Rufina Medel and died on September 26, 1902, leaving a
daughter born of said marriage, named Anacleta
It appears from their agreed stipulations of facts that:
Ortega, who also died on June 17, 1903, at the age of six
Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the Appellant Maria Cano by
inheritance from her deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero years, she and Estanislao Ortega having been survived
who, in turn, inherited the same from her father Evaristo by said Rufina Medel, who died on April 10,
Guerrero and, hence, falls squarely under the provisions of 1916.chanrob
Article 891 of the Civil Code; and that each and everyone of
the private oppositors are within the third degree of RUFINA MEDEL sold to Francisco Lunsod, for the sum of
consaguinity of the decedent Evaristo Guerrero. And that P2,000 and with the right to repurchase for two years,
Eustaquia Guerrero, who is the only living daughter of the three parcel of land planted with coconut trees.
decedent Evaristo Guerrero, by his former marriage, all the
other oppositors are grandchildren of the said Evaristo Francisco Lunsod filed in the justice of the peace court of
Guerrero, the latter being the nearest of kin, excludes all San Pablo a complaint against Sinforoso Ortega ALLEGING
the other private oppositors.
THAT he was deprived of the possession thereof by
Sinforoso Ortega and Candido Cariaga, who have been
This decree having become final, all persons
(appellees included) are bared thereby from collecting the fruits, thereby injuring him in the sum of
contesting the existence of the constituent elements of P150.
the reserva. The only requisites for the passing of the
title from the reservista to the appellee are: (1) the The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of the plaintiff
death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the Lunsod, sentencing Sinforoso Ortega to restore the
reservatario has survived the reservista. Both facts are possession of the property. The case was dismissed as to
admitted, and their existence is nowhere questioned. the defendant Cariaga

2. NO. An appeal was made

The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still The property while the case is pending was under the
necessary rests upon the assumption that the reservatario administration of Cipriano Medel (brother of Rufina
will succeed in, or inherit, the reservable property from the Medel).
reservista. This is not true. The reservatario is not the
reservista's successor mortis causa nor is the During inventory:
reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the
reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of defendants Sinforoso Ortega and Francisca Ortega
the descendant ( prepositus), said property merely asked that said parcels be excluded from the inventory
8

of the property of the deceased RUFINA on the ground father of the deceased Estanislao Ortega and the
that said parcels were their exclusive property and appellees Sinforoso and Francisco Ortega, who are
were then in their exclusive possession, having therefore relatives within the third degree of the child
inherited the same from their first cousin, Anacleta Anacleta Ortega, daughter of Estanislao Ortega, then
Ortega (daughter of Rufina and Estanislao Ortega). according to the provisions of said article 811, these
pieces of land constitute reservable property in favor
Cipriano Medel contends that her sister Rufina Medel is of said Sinforoso and Francisca Ortega, uncle and aunt
the legal owner of the being the sole heir of her daughter of the descendant's predecessor in interest with
Anacleta Ortega. Hence, the contracts entered into by respect to the property.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Rufina and Lunsod was valid. chanrobles virtual law

CONSOLIDATED CASES:

Three cases were actually filed by the parties here, " What are the rights in the property of the person who
In case No. 219, which is the land registration case; holds it subject to the reservation of article 811 of the
other two civil cases, Nos. 2286 and 2322 involving the Civil Code?"
land in question. These were tried jointly by common
consent of the parties. The ascendant who inherits from a descendant,
whether by the latter's wish or by operation of law,
TRIAL COURT’S DECISION: acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of
Ruled in favour of the defendants (Sinforoso
the right of ownership belong to him exclusively - use,
Ortega and Francisca Ortega).
enjoyment, disposal, and recovery. HOWEVER, subject to a
Hence, this appeal. condition that if there should be relatives within the third
degree who belong to the line whence the property
ISSUE: proceeded, then a limitation to that absolute ownership
would arise.
WON RUFINA IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE
PARCELS OF LAND WHICH WOULD RENDER
Manresa, with his recognized ability,
THE SALE TO LUNSOD AS VALID summarizes the subject under the
RULING: heading, "Rights and obligations during
the existence of the right required by law
YES, only during her lifetime but still subject to a to be reserved," in these words:
condition.
"During the whole period between the
According to article 811 of the Civil Code an constitution in legal form of the right
required by law to be reserved and the
ascendant who inherits from a descendant any property
extinction thereof, the relatives within the
acquired by the latter gratuitously from some other third degree, after the right that in their
ascendant, or from a brother or sister is obliged to reserve turn may pertain to them has been
such property as he may have acquired by operation of law assured, have only an expectation, and
in favor of the relatives within the third degree belonging therefore they do not even have the
to the line from which such property came. capacity to transmit that expectation to
their heirs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the case at bar, Rufina Medel inherited by operation chanrobles virtual law library
of law from her daughter Anacleta Ortega, who died at
the age of six years, the three parcels of land in "The ascendant is in the first place a
usufructuary who should use and enjoy
question situated in the barrio of Sta. Catalina in the
the things according to their nature, in the
municipality of San Pablo Province of Laguna, which manner and form already set forth in
parcels had been acquired by said Anacleta Ortega commenting upon the articles of the Code
gratuitously, that is to say, also by inheritance from an referring to use and
ascendant, who was her father Estanislao Ortega, and usufruct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
said three parcels having come from Mariano Ortega, chanrobles virtual law library
9

"But since in addition to being the RESERVA TRONCAL; DUTY TO ANNOTATE


usufructuary he is, even though RESERVATIONS; WHEN DEMANDABLE
conditionally, the owner in fee simple of
the property, he can dispose of it in the Reservor is obliged to have the reservation noted in the
manner provided in article 974 to 976 of registry of deeds in accordance with the provisions of the
the same Code. Mortgage Law which fixes the period of ninety (90) days
for accomplishing it. According to article 203 of the
It is, therefore, indisputable, in view of the preceding General Regulation for the application of the Mortgage
discussion made in the decision of this court just cited, that
Law, this time must be computed from the acceptance of
the person obliged to reserve, that is, Rufina Medel, heir of
her daughter Anacleta Ortega, was not only a usufructuary the inheritance. But as this portion of the Civil Code,
but also the owner in fee simple of the three parcels of land regarding the acceptance of the inheritance, has been
in question, notwithstanding the fact that they have the repealed, the time, as has been indicated, must be
character of reservable property in favor of Sinforoso and computed from the adjudication of the property by the
Francisca Ortega. court to the heirs, in line with the decision of this court
hereinabove quoted. After the expiration of this period
But it is also indisputable that Rufina Medel acquired these the reservees may demand compliance with this
parcels subject to a resolutory condition, that is to say, her
obligation.
ownership of said property was subject to said condition,
to wit, that there should or should not exist at the time of
FACTS:
her death relatives of Anacleta Ortega from whom she
inherited said property, included within the third degree
a. Maria Corral is married to Mariano Riosa.
and belonging to the line from which said property came,
b. Mariano Riosa, now deceased, left a will giving 11
therefore she could not have effected said sale without
parcels of land to Jose Riosa.
saving the rights of the persons entitled to have the
c. Upon death of Jose Riosa, he left a will giving all of
property reserved to them, by securing to the latter the
the lands to his wife Marcelina.
value thereof.
d. The will of Jose was filed for probate.
e. On account of preterition of Maria Corral who
SINCE said Rufina Medel did not comply with what the being the mother Jose Riosa, Maria and Marcelina
law requires when she did not mentioned in said entered into a contract dividing land among them.
document the fact that said property was reservable, (The case did not explain how the parties became
said alienation is void and can have no effect as against aware of the preterition)
the persons entitled to have such property reserved, f. Marcelina thereafter sold two (2) parcels of land
who are Sinforoso and Francisca Ortega. to Pablo Rocha.
g. The complaint prays for the following:
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is 1. The property be declared reservable; (Trial
affirmed with the addition that Sinforoso Ortega is court RULED, YES)
absolved from the complaint filed against him by Francisco 2. That the reservation be noted in registry of
Lunsod. deeds; (Trial court RULED, YES)
3. That the sale of land by Marcelina Casas to
Pablo be declared valid insofar as it saves the
right of reservation in favor of Magin and
Consolacion;
TUAZON V REYES
4. That the right above (3) be registered in the
deed of sale made by Marcelina to Pablo;
(Trial court RULED, NO)
5. That Marcelina and Pablo give a bond in favor
EDROSO V SABLAN of reserves. (Trial court RULED, YES)
h. Magin filed an appeal urging the court that
Marcelina and Pablo be ordered to acknowledge
the reservation of the two (2) parcels of land and
to have the said reservation noted on their titles.

RIOSA V ROCHA ISSUE:


1. Whether or not Pablo is can be compelled to make
PRINCIPLE: the reservation on his title to the land. NO
2. WON Pablo is required to give a bond. NO
10

HELD: reservation and the reservees did not them have any right
to compel her to fulfill such an obligation.
NO!
Marcelina Casas, as well as Pablo Rocha, Knew of the
The reservor is obliged to have the reservation noted in reservable character of the property when they bought it.
the registry of deeds in accordance with the provisions of They had knowledge of the provisions of the last will and
the Mortgage Law which fixes the period of ninety (90) testament of Mariano Riosa by virtue of which these
days for accomplishing it. According to article 203 of the parcels were transferred to Jose Riosa. Pablo Rocha was
General Regulation for the application of the Mortgage one of the legatees in the will. Marcelina Casas was the one
Law, this time must be computed from the acceptance of who entered into the contract of partition with Maria
the inheritance. But as this portion of the Civil Code, Corral, whereby these parcels were adjudicated to the
regarding the acceptance of the inheritance, has been latter, as a legitimate heir of Jose Riosa. Pablo Rocha was
repealed, the time, as has been indicated, must be the very person who drafted the contracts of sale of these
computed from the adjudication of the property by the parcels of land by Maria Corral to Marcelina Casas and by
court to the heirs, in line with the decision of this court the latter to himself. These facts, together with the
hereinabove quoted. After the expiration of this period relationship existing between Maria Corral and Marcelina
the reservees may demand compliance with this Casas and Pablo Rocha, the former a daughter-in-law and
obligation. the latter a nephew of Maria Corral, amply support the
conclusion that both of them knew that these parcels of
If Maria Corral had not transferred parcels 10 and 11 to
another there would be no doubt that she could be land had been inherited by Maria Corral, as her legitime
compelled to cause the reservable character of this from her son Jose Riosa who had inherited them, by will,
property to be noted in the registry of deeds. This land from his father Mariano Riosa, and were reservable
having been sold to Marcelina Casas who, in turn, sold it to property. Wherefore, the duty of Maria Corral of
Pablo Rocha the question arises whether the latter can be recording the reservable character of lots 10 and 11
compelled to have this reservation noted on his title. has been transferred to Pablo Rocha and the reservees
have an action against him to compel him to comply
This acquisition by Pablo Rocha took place when it
was the duty of Maria Corral to make the notation of with this obligation.
the reservation in the registry and at the time when
the reservees had no right to compel Maria Corral to The appellant also claims that the obligation imposed upon
make such notation, because this acquisition was Maria Corral of insuring the return of these parcels of land,
made before the expiration of the period of ninety or their value, to the reservees by means of a mortgage or
days from November 12, 1920, the date of the a bond in the amount of P30,000, also applies to Pablo
adjudication by the court, after which the right of the Rocha. The law does not require that the reservor give
reservees to commence an action for the fulfillment of the this security, the recording of the reservation in the
obligation arose. But the land first passed to Marcelina
registry of deeds being sufficient (art. 977 of the Civil
Casas and later to Pablo Rocha together with the obligation
that the law imposes upon Maria Corral. Code). There is no ground for this requirement
inasmuch as, the notation once is made, the property
They could not have acquired a better title than that held will answer for the efficacy of the reservation.
by Maria Corral and if the latter's title was limited by the
reservation and the obligation to note it in the registry of
deeds, this same limitation is attached to the right
acquired by Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha. GONZALES V. CFI

In the transmission of reservable property the law PRINCIPLES:


imposes the reservation as a resolutory condition for the
RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVEES; EXCLUSION;
benefit of the reservees The fact that the resolvable
character of the property was not recorded in the registry Within the third degree, the nearest relatives exclude the
of deed at the time that it was acquired by Marcelina Casas more remote subject to the rule of representation. But the
and Pablo Rocha cannot affect the right of the reservees for representative should be within the third degree from
the reason that the transfers were made at the time when the prepositus .
it was the obligation of the reservor to note only such
11

RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVEES; REPRESENTATION; survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the
Confined within the third degree third degree belonging to the line from which the property
came.
First cousins of the prepositus are in the fourth degree and
are not reservees. They cannot even represent their The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the
parents because representation is confined to relatives reservable property but subject to the resolutory condition
within the third degree that such title is extinguished if the reservor predeceased
the reservee.
RESERVA TRONCAL; THREE (3) TRANSMISSIONS;
RESERVA TRONCAL; EFFECT OF TRANSFER BY
Three transmissions are involved: RESERVOR; RIGHTS OF TRANSFEREE

(I) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property.
donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the He may alienate it subject to the reservation. The
deceased descendant; transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership of
the reservor.(Because he cannot get a better right than that
(2) a posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate
of the transferor)(Italics is mine. Haha) The transferee's
succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant
rights are revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the
(causante de la reserve) in favor of another ascendant, the
time of the death of the reservor but become indefeasible
reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede
when the reservees predecease the reservor.
the reservation, and
The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is
(3) a third transmissions of the same property (in
subject to a resolutory condition, meaning that if at the
consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the
time of the reservor's death, there are reservees, the
reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third
transferee of the property should deliver it to the
degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the line
reservees. lf there are no reservees at the time of the
of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased
reservor's death, the transferee's title would become
descendant
absolute.
RESERVA TRONCAL; PERSONS INVOLVED
RESERVA TRONCAL; RIGHTS OF RESERVEE
The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the
The reserves has only an inchoate, expectant or contingent
ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property
right. His expectant right would disappear if he
was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous
predeceased the reservor. lt would become absolute
title, (2) the descendant or prepositus (prepositus) who
should the reservor predecease the reserves.
received the property, (3) the reservor (reservista) the
other ascendant who obtained the property from the The reserves cannot impugn any conveyance made by the
(prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the reserves reservor but he can require that the reservable character
(reservatario) who is within the third degree from of the property be recognized by the purchaser
theprepositus and who belongs to the (line o tronco) from
which the property came and for whom the property There is a holding that the renunciation of the reservee's
should be reserved by the reservoir. right to the reservable property is illegal for being a
contract regarding future inheritance
RESERVA TRONCAL; CONTEMPLATES LEGITIMATE
RELATIONSHIP And there is a dictum that the reservee's right is a real
right which he may alienate and dispose of conditionally.
Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. The condition is that the alienation shall transfer
illegitimate relationship and relationship by affinity are ownership to the vendee only if and when the reserves
excluded. survives the reservoir
RESERVA TRONCAL; RESOLUTORY CONDITION Even during the reservista's lifetime, the reservatarios, who
are the ultimate acquirers of the property, can already
The reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1)
assert the right to prevent the reservista from doing
the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the
anything that might frustrate their reversionary right, and,
12

for this purpose, they can compel the annotation of their inventory of her mother's estate the properties
right in the registry of property even while the (reservista) which she inherited from her deceased daughter,
is alive. Filomena, on the ground that said properties
are reservable properties which should be
RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVABLE PROPERTY DOES NOT inherited by Filomena Legarda's three sisters and
FORM PART OF RESERVOR’S ESTATE three brothers and not by the children of Benito,
Alejandro and Jose, all surnamed Legarda.
lt is likewise clear that the reservable property is no part
of the estate of the reservista who may not dispose of them ISSUE:
(it) by will, so long as there are reservatarios existing
Whether or not the reservor could dispose of by will the
The latter, therefore, do not inherit from the reservista but reservable properties to the 3rd degree relative of the
from the descendant (prepositus) of whom propositus, while there exists 2nd degree relatives.
the reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa, subject to the
HELD:
condition that they must survive thereservista.
NO!
Hence, upon the reservista's death, the reservatario nearest
to the prepositus becomes, "automatically and by operation As repeatedly held in the Cano and Padura cases, the
of law, the owner of the reservable property. reservees inherit the reservable properties from
theprepositus, not from the reservor.
RESERVA; RESERVEES INHERIT FROM PROPOSITUS, NOT
FROM RESERVOR Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties
should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the
It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit
third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the
from the reservor but from the reservor but from the
six children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the
prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis
reservees to whom the reservable property should be
causa subject to the condition that they must survive
given and deprive the other reservees of their share
the reservor
therein.
FACTS:
We hold that Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her
a. Benito Legarda y Tuason died leaving real holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the
properties for the surviving children Benito reservable properties which she had inherited from her
Legarda y Dela Paz (the ORIGIN), Conseula, and daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did
Rita. not form part of her estate (Cabardo vs. Villanueva, 44 Phil.
b. Benito Legarda y Dela Paz is married to Filomena 186, 191). The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis
Legarda y Races (the RESERVOR) and have 4 causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees
daughters (Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Filomena) survived the reservor.
and 3 sons (Benito, Alejandro, Jose)
c. The real properties left by Benito Legarda y It was held that the said properties, being reservable
Tuason were partitioned in three equal portions properties, did not form part of Severina's estate and could
by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs not be inherited from her by her daughter Mercedes alone.
of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz
who were represented by Benito F. Legarda (son) Under the rule of stare decisis et non quieta movere, we are
d. Filomena Legarda y Races (PROPOSITUS) died bound to follow in this case the doctrine of
intestate and without issue on March 19, 1943. theFlorentino case. That doctrine means that as long as
Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Races during the reservor's lifetime and upon his death
Vda. de Legarda. there are relatives within the third degree of
e. Mrs. Legarda executed a holographic will wherein the prepositus regardless of whether those reservees
she disposed of the properties, which she are common descendants of the reservor and the
inherited from her daughter, in favor of the ascendant from whom the property came, the
children of her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose
property retains its reservable character. The
(sixteen grandchildren in all)
property should go to the nearest reservees. The
f. Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the
reservor cannot, by means of his will, choose the
testatrix, filed a motion to exclude from the
13

reserves to whom the It is contended by the appellees NIEVA V ALCALA


herein that the properties in question are not reservable
properties because only relatives within the third degree FACTS:
from the paternal line have survived and that when Mrs. Juliana Nieva, the alleged natural mother of the plaintiff
Legarda willed the said properties to her sixteen Segunda Maria Nieva, married Francisco Deocampo. Of
grandchildren, who are third-degree relatives of Filomena said marriage Alfeo Deocampo was born.
Legarda and who belong to the paternal line, the reason for
the reserva troncal has been satisfied: "to prevent persons Juliana Nieva died intestate on April 19, 1889, and her said
outside a family from securing, by some special accident of son, Alfeo Deocampo, inherited from her, ab intestate, two
life, property that would otherwise have remained parcels of land.
therein".
Alfeo Deocampo died intestate and without issue on July 7,
That same contention was advanced in the Florentino case 1890. Thereupon the two parcels of land above-mentioned
where the reservor willed the reservable properties to her passed to his father, Francisco Deocampo, by intestate
daughter, a full-blood sister of the prepositus and ignored succession. Thereafter Francisco Deocampo married
the other six reservors, the relatives of the half-blood of defendant Manuela Alcala, of which marriage was born
the prepositus. Jose Deocampo, the other defendant herein.

In rejecting that contention, this Court held that the Francisco Deocampo died on August 15, 1914, whereupon
reservable property bequeathed by the reservor to her his widow and son, the defendants herein, took possession
daughter does not form part of the reservor's estate nor of of the parcels of land in question, under the claim that the
the daughter's estate but should be given to all the seven said son, the defendant Jose Deocampoo (a minor) had
reservees or nearest relatives of the prepositus within the inherited the same, ab intestate, from his deceased father.
third degree.
On September 30, 1915, the plaintiff herein, claiming to be
This Court noted that, while it is true that by giving the an acknowledged natural daughter of the said Juliana
reservable property to only one reserves it did not pass Nieva, instituted the present action for the purposes of
into the hands of strangers, nevertheless, it is likewise true recovering from the defendants the parcels of land in
that the heiress of the reservor was only one of the question invoking the provisions of article 811 of the Civil
reservees and there is no reason founded upon law and Code.
justice why the other reservees should be deprived of their
shares in the reservable property (pp. 894-5). The LOWER COURT held that the plaintiff was not entitled
to the property here in question because an illegitimate
Applying that doctrine to this case, it results that Mrs. relative has no right to the reserva troncal under the
Legarda could not dispose of in her will the properties provisions of article 811 of the Civil Code.
in question even if the disposition is in favor of the
relatives within the third degree from Filomena ISSUE:
Legarda. The said properties, by operation of Article
1. Whether or not the plaintiff is an acknowledged
891, should go to Mrs. Legarda's six children as
natural daughter of the deceased Juliana Nieva.
reservees within the second degree from Filomena
2. Whether or not an illegitimate relative within the
Legarda.
third degree is entitled to the reserva troncal
It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit provided for by article 811 of the Civil Code
from the reservor but from the reservor but from the
RULING:
prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis
causa subject to the condition that they must survive 1. Yes. Plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva is an
the reservor (Padura vs. Baldovino, L-11960, December acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva.
27, 1958, 104 Phil. 1065).
It appears from the record that the said Juliana
reservable property should be awarded.
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
14

father ;that the said Juliana Nieva nourished and third degree and belong to the line from which the
reared her said child, the plaintiff herein; that the properties came.
plaintiff lived with her said mother until the latter
was married to Francisco Deocampo; that the said It treats of blood relationship, which is applicable to
mother treated the plaintiff, and exhibited her questions on succession, according to articles 915 to
publicly, as a legitimate daughter. 920. It could not be otherwise, because relationship by
affinity is established between each spouse and the
2. No. Article 811 of the Civil Code reads as follows: family of the other, by marriage, and to admit it, would
be to favor the transmission of the properties of the
Any ascendant who inherits from his
family of one spouse to that of the other, which is just
descendant any property acquired by
what the article intends to prevent.
the latter gratuitously from some other
ascendant, or from a brother or sister, It also treats of legitimate relationship. The person
is obliged to reserve such of the obliged to reserve it is a legitimate ascendant who
property as he may have acquired by inherits from a descendant property which proceeds
operation of law for the benefit of from the same legitimate family, and this being true,
relatives within the third degree there can be no question, because the line from which
belonging to the line from which such the properties proceed must be the line of that family
property came. and only in favor of that line is the reservation
established.
The property here in question was inherited, by
operation by law, by Francisco Deocampo from his son To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property
Alfeo Deocampo, who, in turn, had inherited it, in the left by her natural brother, Alfeo Deocampo, by
same manner, from his mother Juliana Nieva, the operation of law, would be a fragrant violate of the
natural mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is express provision of the foregoing article.
the natural sister of Alfeo Deocampo, and she belongs
to the same line from which the property in question
came.
FLORENTINO V FLORENTINO
There can be no question whatever but that, under
said Article 811 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff would be FACTS:
entitled to the property in question if she were
a legitimate daughter of Julian Nieva. But in said Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married the first time
Article 811 the legislator uses the generic terms Antonia Faz de Leon; that during the marriage he begot
nine children called, Jose, Juan, Maria, Encarnacion, Isabel,
"ascendant," "descendant," and "relatives," without
Espirita, Gabriel, Pedro, and Magdalena of the surname
specifying whether or not they have to be legitimate. Florentino y de Leon. On becoming a widower he married
the second time Severina Faz de Leon with whom he
The eminent commentators on the Spanish Civil Code, had two children, Mercedes and Apolonio III of the
who have devoted their lives to the study and solution surname Florentino y de Leon.
of the intricate and difficult problems that may arise
under the provisions of that Code, have dealt with the Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II died on February 13, 1890
very question now before us, and are unanimous in and was survived by his second wife Severina Faz de Leon
the opinion that the provision of Article 811 of the and the ten children first above mentioned and the
Civil Code apply only to legitimate relative. eleventh son, Apolonio III, was born on March 4,1890.

Manresa, one of the eminent commentators, in Juan, Maria and Isabel died single, without leaving any
determining the persons in whose favor the ascendants or descendants. Ramon, Miguel, Victorino,
Antonio, and Rosario are the legitimate children of the
reservation is established, says: Persons in whose
deceased Jose Florentino who was one of the children of
favor thereservation is established — This is one of the deceased Apolonio Isabelo. Emilia, Jesus, Lourdes,
the most delicate points in the interpretation of article Caridad, and Dolores are the legitimate children of Espirita
811. According to this article, the reservation is Florentino, now deceased, and her husband Eugenio
established in favor of the parents who are within the Singson. Jose and Asuncion are the children of Pedro
15

Florentino, another son of the deceased Apolonio Isabelo 1. Whether or not the properties inherited by
Florentino. Severina Faz from her son, Apolonio III, constitute
reservable properties.
On January 17 and February 13, 1890, Apolonio Isabelo 2. Whether or not the testator can dispose by will
Florentino executed a instituting as his universal heirs his the properties subject to reserva troncal.
aforementioned ten children, the posthumos Apolonio III 3. Whether or not the reservista can choose which
and his widow Severina Faz de Leon. He declared that all reservatorio can inherit the property subject to
his property should be divided among all of his children of reserva troncal.
both marriages.
RULING:
That, in the partition of the said testator's estate, there was
given to Apolonio Florentino III, his posthumos son, the 1. At the death of Apolonio II, under a will, his 11
property marked with the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F in the children succeeded to the inheritance he left. In
complaint, a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of 1891, Apolonio III died; he was succeeded by his
table service, livestock, palay, some personal property and mother Severina Faz (included in the inheritance
other objects mentioned in the complaint. is the property in question).

Apolonio Florentino III, the posthumos son of the second That Apolonio III acquired the property in
marriage, died in 1891 and his mother, Severina Faz de question by a lucrative title or by inheritance from
Leon, succeeded to all his property. Severina Faz de Leon his father is without any doubt. Thus, when, on
died on November 18, 1908, leaving a will instituting as the death of Apolonio III, without issue, the same
her universal heiress her only living daughter, Mercedes passed by operation of law into the hands of his
Florentino and said daughter took possession of all the mother, it became reservable property, with the
property left at the death of her mother. object that the same should not fall into the
possession of persons other than those
That several times the plaintiffs have asked the defendants comprehended within the order of succession
to deliver their corresponding part of the reservable traced by the law from Apolonio II, the source of
property but without any justifiable motive the defendants said property.
have refused and do refuse to deliver said property or to
pay for its value. When Severina Faz died in 1908, she left in her
will said property, together with her own, to her
To the preceding complaint counsel for the defendants only daughter and forced heiress, Mercedes.
demurred, alleging that the cause of action is based on the However, the reservable nature of such property
obligation of the widow Severina Faz de Leon to reserve was not lost.
the property she inherited from her deceased son
Apolonio Florentino y de Leon who, in turn, inherited same The law so provides that ascendants do not inherit
from his father Apolonio Isabelo Florentino. After the the reservable property, but only its enjoyment,
hearing of the demurrer, on August 22, 1918, the judge use or trust. The law imposes the obligation to
absolved the defendants from the complaint and reserve and preserve the same for certain
condemned the plaintiffs to pay the costs. designated persons who, upon the death of the
said ascendants-reservists, (taking into
On appeal the trial judge sustained the demurrer of the consideration the nature of the line from which
defendants to the complaint of the plaintiffs, but, instead of such property came) acquire the ownership of
ordering the latter to amend their complaint within the said property in fact and by operation of law in the
period prescribed by the rules — undoubtedly believing same manner as forced heirs.
that the plaintiffs could not alter nor change the facts
constituting the cause of action, and that, as both parties These designated persons (reservatarios) are the
were agreed as to the facts alleged in the complaint as well relatives, within the third degree, of the
as in the demurrer, every question reduced itself to one of descendant from whom the reservable property
the law, already submitted to the decision of the court — came.
the said judge, disregarding the ordinary procedure
established by law, decided the case by absolving the 2. Reservable property neither comes, nor falls
defendants from the complaint and by condemning the under, the absolute dominion of the ascendant
plaintiffs to pay the costs of the instance. who inherits and receives the same from his
descendant. Therefore, it does not form part of his
ISSUES: own property nor become the legitime of his
forced heirs. It becomes his own property, only, in
16

case all the relatives of his descendant shall have whom being his half-brothers and the remaining
died (reservista), in which case said reservable 12 being his nephews as they are the children of
property losses such character. his 3 half-brothers). As the first 4 are his relatives
within the third degree in their own right and the
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant other 12 are such by representation, all of them
any property, while there are living, within the are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the
third degree, relatives of the latter, is nothing but property.
a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reservable
property received. But if, afterwards, all of the It is true that when Mercedes Florentino, the
relatives, within the third degree, of the heiress of the reservista Severina, took possession
descendant die or disappear, the said property of the property in question, same did not pass into
becomes free property, by operation of law, and the hands of strangers. But it is likewise true that
the ascendant heir can transmit it at his death to Mercedes is not the only reservataria. And there is
his legitimate successors or testamentary heirs. no reason founded upon law and upon the
principle of justice why the other reservatarios,
If this property was clothed with the character the other brothers and nephews, relatives within
and condition of reservable property when the third degree should be deprived of portions of
Severina Faz inherited the same from her son the property which, as reservable property,
Apolonio III, she did not acquire the dominion or pertain to them.
right of ownership but only the right of usufruct or
of fiduciary, with the necessary obligation to As there were seven reservees, Mercedes was
preserve and to deliver or return it as such entitled, as a reservee, to one-seventh of the
reservable property to her deceased son's properties. The other six-sevenths portions were
relatives within the third degree, among whom is adjudicated to the other six reservees.
her daughter, Mercedes.

With full right, Severina Faz de Leon could have


disposed in her will of all her own property in Obiter:
favor of her only living daughter as forced heiress.
But whatever provision there is in her will ON THE QUESTION OF RIGHT OF
concerning the reservable property received from REPRESENTATION
her son Apolonio III, is unlawful, null and void,
inasmuch as said property is not her own.
The right of representation cannot be alleged
when the one claming as a reservatario of the
3. Following the order prescribed by law in reservable property is not among the relatives
legitimate succession, when there are relatives of within the third degree belonging to the line from
the descendant within the 3rd degree, the right of which such property came.
the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the
property which the reservista (person holding it
subject to reservation) should return to him, Thus, there is a right of representation on the part
excludes that of the one more remote. 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
There are then 7 "reservatarios" who are entitled property came. These reservatarios have the right
to the reservable property left at the death of to represent their ascendants (fathers and
Apolonio III: mothers) who are the brothers of the said
deceased person and relatives, within the third
a. the 3 children of the 1st marriage of degree.
Apolonio II - Encarnacion, Gabriel,
Magdalena;
b. the other 3 children, Jose, Espirita and
Pedro, represented by their own 12
children respectively; and TIOCO DE PAPA V CAMACHO
c. Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by 2nd
marriage. Facts:

All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the This case, which involves the application of Article 891 of
deceased Apolonio III, within the 3rd degree (4 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal, was submitted for
17

judgment in the lower court by all the parties on the usufructuary right of her surviving husband, defendant
following "Stipulation of Facts and Partial Compromise": Primo Tongko.

1. They stipulate that the defendant Dalisay D. 8. They stipulate that on June 14, 1965, Eustacio Dizon
Tongko-Camacho and the plaintiffs, Francisco Tioco de died intestate, survived his only legitimate descendant,
Papa, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are legitimate defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.
relatives, plaintiffs being said defendant's grandaunt and
granduncles. 9. The parties agree that defendant Dalisay D.
Tongko-Camacho now owns one-half (1/2) of all the seven
2. They stipulate that plaintiffs and defendant Dalisay D. (7) parcels of land abovementioned as her inheritance
Tongo-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late from her mother, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko.
Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana
Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great grandfather of 10. xxx
defendant.
11. xxx

12.xxx
3. They stipulate that Romana Tioco during her lifetime
On the basis thereof, the lower Court declared the plaintiffs
gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece
Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, as well as
Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs)
the defendant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho, entitled, as
4. They stipulate that Toribia Tioco died intestate in l9l5, reservatarios, to one-half of the seven parcels of land in
survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon, and their two dispute, in equal proportions
legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon
Issue:
(mother of defendant Dalisay D, Tongko-Camacho) and
leaving the afore-mentioned four (4) parcels of land as the Whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-appellees and
inheritance of her said two children in equal pro-indiviso ruled by the lower Court, all relatives of the praepositus
shares. within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed
without distinction to the reservable property upon the
5. They stipulate that in 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate,
death of the reservista, as seems to be implicit in Art. 891
survived by his legitimate children by his wife Marciana
of the Civil Code or, as asserted by the
Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren
defendant-appellant, the rights of said relatives are subject
Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of his
to, and should be determined by, the rules on intestate
estate, three (3) parcels of land now covered by Transfer
succession.
Certificates of Title Nos. 16545 and 16554 of the Registry
of Deeds of Manila, copies of which are attached hereto as Ruling:
Annexes 'C' and 'C-l', were adjudicated as the inheritance
of the late Toribia Tioco, but as she had predeceased her The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to
father, Balbino Tioco, the said three (3) parcels of land assure the return of the reservable property to the third
devolved upon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
and Trinidad Dizon in equal pro-indiviso shares. property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated
into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant
6. They stipulate that in 1937, Faustino Dizon died (reservista).
intestate, single and without issue, leaving his one- half
(1/2) pro-indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land xxx xxx xxx
above-mentioned to his father, Eustacio Dizon, as his sole
intestate heir, who received the said property subject to a The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the
reserva troncal. property has devolved to the specified relatives of the line
of origin. But from this time on, there is no further
7. They stipulate that in 1939 Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died occasion for its application. In the relations between one
intestate, and her rights and interests in the parcels of land reservatario and another of the same degree there is no
abovementioned were inherited by her only legitimate call for applying Art. 891 any longer; wherefore, the
child, defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho, subject to the respective share of each in the reversionary property
18

should be governed by the ordinary rules of intestate not specify otherwise. This conclusion is strengthened by
succession. In this spirit the jurisprudence of this Court the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional
and that of Spain has resolved that upon the death of the case, its application should be limited to what is strictly
ascendant reservista, the reservable property should pass, needed to accomplish the purpose of the law.
not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to those
nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding Reversion of the reservable property being governed by
those reservatarios of more remote degree. the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees
must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt
Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the
succession when there are relatives of the descendant praepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his
within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative, niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related
called reservatarios over the property which the reservista to him within the same degree as the latter.
(person holding it subject to reservation) should return to
him, excludes that of the one more remote. The right of Had the reversionary property passed directly from the
representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming praepositus, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs-appellees
same as a reservatario of the reservable property is not would have been excluded by the defendant-appellant
among the relatives within the third degree belonging to under the rules of intestate succession. There is no reason
the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the why a different result should obtain simply because "the
right granted by the Civil Code in Article 811 is in the transmission of the property was delayed by the
highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of interregnum of the reserva;" 6 i.e., the property took a
designated persons who are within the third degree of the "detour" through an ascendant-thereby giving rise to the
person from whom the reservable property came. reservation before its transmission to the reservatario.
Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings
degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since
already cited, the defendant-appellant Dalisay Tongko-
the law does not recognize them as such.
Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary
In spite of what has been said relative to the right of property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.
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
PADURA V BALDOVINO
the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree
mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the FACTS:
deceased person from whom the reservable property
came. ... . (Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil. 480, 489-490) The case is an appeal from an order of the CFI of Laguna in
(Emphasis supplied) See also Nieva and Alcala vs. Alcala Special Proceedings 451, declaring all the reservees
and de Ocampo, 41 Phil. 915) WITHOUT DISTINCTION as “co-owners, pro indiviso in
equal shares of the parcels of land” subject matter of the
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic suit
principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule
that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a ISSUE:
share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. If
in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, WON all claiming reservees may be declared as co-owners
proximity of degree and the right of representation of of the subject property without distinction
nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for
HELD:
immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be
likewise operative. NO

In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the The reservatarios who are nephews of the full blood are
group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property declared entitled to a share TWICE AS LARGE as that of the
should be returned; but within that group, the individual nephews of the half-blood.
right to the property should be decided by the applicable
rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does
19

CARILLO V DE PAZ On April 22, 1963, Prima Carrillo and Lorenzo Licup filed
the present suit for recovery of 2/3 of 1/2 of No. 221
Facts: against Francisca Salak de Paz and Ernesto Bautista.

Severino Salak and Petra Garcia were the owners of Lot Issue:
No. 221 of the Cadastral Survey of Tarlac. Petra Garcia died
on September 21, 1941. On August 16, 1943, Severino Whether or not the suit for recovery filed by Carillo and
Salak sold to Honoria Salak for P812.00 his 1⁄2 portion of Licup has already prescribed.
said lot. A year later, on December 5, 1944, Severino Salak
died. Ruling:

Sometime in January 1945, Honoria Salak and other Yes.


members of her family died — massacred by the Japanese.
Reserva troncal in this jurisdiction is treated in Article 891
As a result, two settlement proceedings were instituted in of the new Civil Code and Article 811 of the old Civil Code,
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac: (1) Special Proceeding which states:
No. 3, to settle the estates of Severino Salak and Petra
The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
Garcia and (2) Special Proceeding No. 23, to settle the
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous
estates of the Salak family (parents Simeon Salak and
title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is
Isabel Carrillo; and children Adolfo, Honoria, Consuelo and
obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired
Ligaya).
by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are
On September 4, 1946, a Project of Partition was within the third degree and who belong to the line from
submitted in Special Proceeding No. 3, which the court which said property came.
approved on November 19, 1946. Said project adjudicated
The reserva troncal arose — as had been finally decided by
inter alia Lot No. 221, which was given thereunder to
the Court of Appeals in Special Proceeding No. 23 — when
Francisca Salak de Paz. From 1946 up to the present
Agustina acquired by operation of law all the properties of
Francisca Salak has possessed all of Lot No. 221.
her descendant Adolfo (grandson), who acquired them by
On the other hand, in Special Proceeding No. 23, on gratuitous title from another ascendant, Isabel (Adolfo's
February 26, 1948, the court a quo held that the heirs mother).
entitled to the estates of the Salak family were Agustina de
According to Manresa, the reserva is extinguished upon
Guzman Vda. de Carillo (3/4 share) and Ernesto Bautista
the death of the reservista, as it then becomes a right of full
(1/4 share), applying the survivorship presumption [Rule
ownership on the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a
123, Sec. 69(ii), now Rule 131, Sec. 5(jj) of the Rules of
reivindicatory suit therefor. Nonetheless, this right, if not
Court].
exercised within the time for recovering real properties,
On November 9, 1948, Agustina de Guzman Vda. de can be lost by prescription.
Carrillo filed an action in the Court of First Instance of
Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure fixes 10 years as
Tarlac (docketed therein as Case No. 351) against the heirs
the period of prescription for actions to recover real
in Special Proceeding No. 3 to recover 1⁄2 of Lot No. 221
property, counted from the time the cause of action
which as aforementioned has been possessed by Francisca
accrued. This is the applicable law because Article 1116 of
Salak de Paz. On April 24, 1950, Agustina died.
the New Civil Code provides that "Prescription already
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court of First running before the effectivity of this Code [August 30,
Instance of Tarlac in Special Proceeding No. 23, and further 1950] shall be governed by laws previously in force."
decreed that the properties inherited by Agustina de
Plaintiffs-appellants' suit herein, having been filed only on
Guzman Vda. de Carrillo were subject to reserva troncal.
April 22, 1963, or more than ten (10) years from April 24,
On December 20, 1960, the lower court dismissed Civil
1950, has prescribed.

Case No. 351.
20