Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-28032 September 24, 1986 R!NC"SC! T"OCO #E P!P!, M!NUEL T"OCO, N"COL!S T"OCO $%& '!NU!R"O P!P!, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. #!L"S!( TONG)O C!M!C*O, PR"MO TONG)O $%& GO#O RE#O C!M!C*O, defendants-appellants. N!R+!S!, J.: This case, hich involves the application of !"ticle #$% of the &ivil &ode on reserva troncal, cou"t b* all the pa"ties on the follo in) +Stipulation of Facts and Pa"tial &o'p"o'ise+, as sub'itted fo" (ud)'ent in the lo e"

%. The* stipulate that the defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho and the plaintiffs, F"ancisco Tioco de Papa, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, a"e le)iti'ate "elatives, plaintiffs bein) said defendant.s )"andaunt and )"anduncles. /. The* stipulate that plaintiffs and defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)o-&a'acho have as a co''on ancesto" the late 0albino Tioco 1 ho had a siste" b* the na'e of Ro'ana Tioco2, fathe" of plaintiffs and )"eat )"andfathe" of defendant. The fa'il* "elationship of the pa"ties is as sho n in the cha"t attached he"eto as !nne3 .!. and 'ade an inte)"al pa"t of this stipulation. 4. The* stipulate that Ro'ana Tioco du"in) he" lifeti'e )"atuitousl* donated fou" 152 pa"cels of land to he" niece To"ibia Tioco 1le)iti'ate siste" of plaintiffs2, hich pa"cels of land a"e p"esentl* cove"ed b* T"ansfe" &e"tificates of Title Nos. !-65%67, 65%66 and 65%68 of the Re)ist"* of Deeds of Manila, copies of hich a"e attached to this stipulation as !nne3es .0., .0-l., and .0-/.. 5. The* stipulate that To"ibia Tioco died intestate in l$l7, su"vived b* he" husband, 9ustacio Di:on, and thei" t o le)iti'ate child"en, Faustino Di:on and T"inidad Di:on 1'othe" of defendant Dalisa* D, Ton)-o-&a'acho2 and leavin) the afo"e-'entioned fou" 152 pa"cels of land as the inhe"itance of he" said t o child"en in e;ual p"o-indiviso sha"es. 7. The* stipulate that in %$/#, 0albino Tioco died intestate, su"vived b* his le)iti'ate child"en b* his ife Ma"ciana Feli3 1a'on) the' plaintiffs2 and le)iti'ate )"andchild"en Faustino Di:on and T"inidad Di:on. In the pa"tition of his estate, th"ee 142 pa"cels of land no cove"ed b* T"ansfe" &e"tificates of Title Nos. %6757 and %6775 of the Re)ist"* of Deeds of Manila, copies of hich a"e attached he"eto as !nne3es .&. and .&-l., e"e ad(udicated as the inhe"itance of the late To"ibia Tioco, but as she had p"edeceased he" fathe", 0albino Tioco, the said th"ee 142 pa"cels of land devolved upon he" t o le)iti'ate child"en Faustino Di:on and T"inidad Di:on in e;ual p"o-indiviso sha"es. 6. The* stipulate that in %$48, Faustino Di:on died intestate, sin)le and ithout issue, leavin) his one-half 1%</2 p"oindiviso sha"e in the seven 182 pa"cels of land above-'entioned to his fathe", 9ustacio Di:on, as his sole intestate hei", ho "eceived the said p"ope"t* sub(ect to a "ese"va t"oncal hich as subse;uentl* annotated on the T"ansfe" &e"tificates of Title !nne3es .0., .0-l., .0-/., .&. and .&-l.. 8. The* stipulate that in %$4$ T"inidad Di:on-Ton)-o died intestate, and he" "i)hts and inte"ests in the pa"cels of land above'entioned e"e inhe"ited b* he" onl* le)iti'ate child, defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho, sub(ect to the usuf"uctua"* "i)ht of he" su"vivin) husband, defendant P"i'o Ton)-o. #. The* stipulate that on =une %5, %$67, 9ustacio Di:on died intestate, su"vived his onl* le)iti'ate descendant, defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho. $. The pa"ties a)"ee that defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho no o ns one-half 1%</2 of all the seven 182 pa"cels of land above'entioned as he" inhe"itance f"o' he" 'othe", T"inidad Di:on-Ton)-o. %>. Defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho also clai's, upon le)al advice, the othe" half of the said seven 182 pa"cels of land above'entioned b* vi"tue of the "ese"va t"oncal i'posed the"eon upon the death of Faustino Di:on and unde" the la s on intestate succession? but the plaintiffs, also upon le)al advice, oppose he" said clai' because the* clai' th"ee-fou"ths 14<52 of the one-half p"o-indiviso inte"est in said pa"cel of land, hich inte"est as inhe"ited b* 9ustacio Di:on f"o' Faustino Di:on, o" th"ee-ei)hts 14<#2 of the said pa"cels of land, b* vi"tue of thei" bein) also thi"d de)"ee "elatives of Faustino Di:on.

%%. The pa"ties he"eb* a)"ee to sub'it fo" (udicial dete"'ination in this case the le)al issue of hethe" defendant Dalisa* D. Ton)-o-&a'acho is entitled to the hole of the seven 182 pa"cels of land in ;uestion, o" hethe" the plaintiffs, as thi"d de)"ee "elatives of Faustino Di:on a"e "ese"vata"ios 1to)ethe" ith said defendant2 of the one-half p"o-indiviso sha"e the"ein hich as inhe"ited b* 9ustacio Di:on f"o' his son Faustino Di:on, and entitled to th"eefou"ths 14<52 of said one-half p"o-indiviso sha"e, o" th"ee ei)hts 14<#2 of said seven 182 pa"cels of land, and, the"efo"e, to th"ee-ei)hts 14<#2 of the "entals collected and to be collected b* defendant Dalisa* P. Ton)-o &a'acho f"o' the tenants of said pa"cels of land, 'inus the e3penses and<o" "eal estate ta3es co""espondin) to plaintiffs. sha"e in the "entals. %/. In vie of the fact that the pa"ties a"e close blood "elatives and have acted upon le)al advice in pu"suin) thei" "espective clai's, and in o"de" to "esto"e and p"ese"ve ha"'on* in thei" fa'il* "elations, the* he"eb* aive all thei" clai's a)ainst each othe" fo" da'a)es 1othe" than le)al inte"est on plaintiffs. so"e in the "entals hich this @ono"able &ou"t 'a* dee' p"ope" to a a"d2, atto"ne*.s fees and e3penses of liti)ation hich shall be bo"ne b* the "espective pa"ties. 1 On the basis the"eof, the lo e" &ou"t decla"ed the plaintiffs F"ancisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, as ell as the defendant Dalisa* Ton)-o-&a'acho, entitled, as reservatarios, to one-half of the seven pa"cels of land in dispute, in e;ual p"opo"tions, "ende"in) (ud)'ent as follo s, ... . Resolvin), the"efo"e, the le)al ;uestion sub'itted b* the pa"ties, the cou"t holds that plaintiffs F"ancisca Tioco, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco a"e entitled to th"ee-fou"ths 14<52 of one-half 1%</2 p"o-indiviso sha"es o" th"ee-ei)hts 14<#2 of the seven 182 pa"cels of land involved in this action. &onse;uentl*, the* a"e, li-e ise, entitled to th"ee-ei)hts 14<#2 of the "entals collected and to be collected b* the defendant Dalisa* D. Tioco-&a'acho f"o' the tenants of the said pa"cels of land, 'inus the e3penses and<o" "eal estate ta3es co""espondin) to plaintiffs. sha"e in the "entals. IN VI9A OF T@9 FOR9BOINB, and inas'uch as the pa"ties e3p"essl* aived all thei" clai's a)ainst each othe" fo" da'a)es includin) atto"ne*.s fees and e3penses of liti)ation othe" than the le)al inte"ests on plaintiffs. sha"e in the "entals, the cou"t "ende"s (ud)'ent ad(ud)in) the plaintiffs entitled to th"ee-ei)hts 14<#2 of the seven 182 pa"cels of land desc"ibed in T"ansfe" &e"tificate of Title Nos. T-65%67, T-65%66, T-65%68, T-%6756 and T-%6775 of the Re)ist"* of Deeds of Manila. The defendant Dalisa* D. Tioco-&a'acho is he"eb* o"de"ed to 'a-e an accountin) of all "ents "eceived b* he" on the p"ope"ties involved in this action fo" the pu"pose of dete"'inin) the le)al inte"ests hich should be paid to the plaintiffs on thei" sha"es in the "entals of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion. SO ORD9R9D. 2 Not satisfied, the defendant appealed to this &ou"t. The issue "aised is hethe", as contended b* the plaintiffs-appellees and "uled b* the lo e" &ou"t, all "elatives of the praepositus ithin the thi"d de)"ee in the app"op"iate line succeed ithout distinction to the "ese"vable p"ope"t* upon the death of the reservista, as see's to be i'plicit in !"t. #$% of the &ivil &ode, hich "eads, !"t. #$%. The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. 1#%%2, o", as asse"ted b* the defendant-appellant, the "i)hts of said "elatives a"e sub(ect to, and should be dete"'ined b*, the "ules on intestate succession. That ;uestion has al"ead* been ans e"ed in Padura vs. Baldovino, 3 he"e the reservatario as su"vived b* eleven nephe s and nieces of the praepositus in the line of o"i)in, fou" of hole blood and seven of half blood, and the clai' as also 'ade that all eleven e"e entitled to the "eve"siona"* p"ope"t* in e;ual sha"es. This &ou"t, spea-in) th"ou)h M". =ustice =.0.C. Re*es, decla"ed the p"inciples of intestac* to be cont"ollin), and "uled that the nephe s and nieces of hole blood e"e each entitled to a sha"e double that of each of the nephe s and nieces of half blood in acco"dance ith !"ticle %>>6 of the &ivil &ode. Said the &ou"t, The issue in this appeal 'a* be fo"'ulated as follo s, In a case of reserva troncal, he"e the onl* reservatarios 1"ese"vees2 su"vivin) the reservista, and belon)in) to the fine of o"i)in, a"e nephe s of the descendant 1prepositus2, but so'e a"e nephe s of the half blood and the othe"s a"e nephe s of the hole blood, should the "ese"ved p"ope"ties be appo"tioned a'on) the' equally, o" should the nephe s of the hole blood ta-e a sha"e t ice as la")e as that of the nephe s of the half bloodD 333 333 333

The case is one of fi"st i'p"ession and has divided the Spanish co''entato"s on the sub(ect. !fte" 'atu"e "eflection, e have concluded that the position of the appellants is co""ect. The reserva troncal is a special "ule desi)ned p"i'a"il* to assu"e the "etu"n of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* to the thi"d de)"ee "elatives belon)in) to the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* o"i)inall* ca'e, and avoid its bein) dissipated into and b* the "elatives of the inhe"itin) ascendant 1reservista2. 333 333 333 The stated pu"pose of the "ese"va is acco'plished once the p"ope"t* has devolved to the specified "elatives of the line of o"i)in. 0ut f"o' this ti'e on, the"e is no fu"the" occasion fo" its application. In the "elations bet een one reservatario and anothe" of the sa'e de)"ee the"e is no call fo" appl*in) !"t. #$% an* lon)e"? he"efo"e, the "espective sha"e of each in the "eve"siona"* p"ope"t* should be )ove"ned b* the o"dina"* "ules of intestate succession. In this spi"it the (u"isp"udence of this &ou"t and that of Spain has "esolved that upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the "ese"vable p"ope"t* should pass, not to all the reservatarios as a class but onl* to those nea"est in de)"ee to the descendant 1prepositus2, e3cludin) those reservatarios of 'o"e "e'ote de)"ee 1Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#$-5$>? T.S. # Nov. %#$5? Di". Ben. de los Re)ist"os, Resol. /> Ma"ch %$>72. !nd ithin the thi"d de)"ee of "elationship f"o' the descendant 1prepositus2, the "i)ht of "ep"esentation ope"ates in favo" of nephe s 1Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, supra2. Follo in) the o"de" p"esc"ibed b* la in le)iti'ate succession hen the"e a"e "elatives of the descendant ithin the thi"d de)"ee, the "i)ht of the nea"est "elative, called "ese"vata"ios ove" the p"ope"t* hich the "ese"vista 1pe"son holdin) it sub(ect to "ese"vation2 should "etu"n to hi', e3cludes that of the one 'o"e "e'ote. The "i)ht of "ep"esentation cannot be alle)ed hen the one clai'in) sa'e as a "ese"vata"io of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is not a'on) the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e, inas'uch as the "i)ht )"anted b* the &ivil &ode in !"ticle #%% is in the hi)hest de)"ee pe"sonal and fo" the e3clusive benefit of desi)nated pe"sons ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the pe"son f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e. The"efo"e, "elatives of the fou"th and the succeedin) de)"ees can neve" be conside"ed as "ese"vata"ios, since the la does not "eco)ni:e the' as such. In spite of hat has been said "elative to the "i)ht of "ep"esentation on the pa"t of one alle)in) his "i)ht as reservatario ho is not ithin the thi"d de)"ee of "elationship, nevertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephe s of the deceased pe"son f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e. ... . 1Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#>, 5#$-5$>2 19'phasis supplied2 See also Nieva and !lcala vs. !lcala and de Oca'po, 5% Phil. $%72 P"o3i'it* of de)"ee and "i)ht of "ep"esentation a"e basic p"inciples of o"dina"* intestate succession? so is the "ule that hole blood b"othe"s and nephe s a"e entitled to a sha"e double that of b"othe"s and nephe s of half blood. If in dete"'inin) the "i)hts of the reservatarios inter se, p"o3i'it* of de)"ee and the "i)ht of "ep"esentation of nephe s a"e 'ade to appl*, the "ule of double sha"e fo" i''ediate collate"als of the hole blood should be li-e ise ope"ative. In othe" o"ds, the reserva troncal 'e"el* dete"'ines the )"oup of "elatives reservatarios to ho' the p"ope"t* should be "etu"ned? but within that group, the individual "i)ht to the p"ope"t* should be decided b* the applicable "ules of o"dina"* intestate succession, since !"t. #$% does not specif* othe" ise. This conclusion is st"en)thened b* the ci"cu'stance that the reserva bein) an e3ceptional case, its application should be li'ited to hat is st"ictl* needed to acco'plish the pu"pose of the la . !s e3p"essed b* Man"esa in his &o''enta"ies 1Vol. 6, 6th 9d., p. /7>2, ... c"eandose un ve"dade"o estado e3cepcional del de"echo, no debe a'plia"se, sino 'as bien "est"in)i"se, el alcance del p"ecepto, 'anteniendo la e3cepcion 'ient"as fue"e necesa"ia * estuviese "eal'ente contenida en la disposicion, * aplicando las "e)las )ene"ales * funda'entales del &odi)o en 'ate"ia de sucesi6n, en a;uehos e3t"e'es no "esueltos de un 'odo e3p"eso, * ;ue ;uedan fue"a de la p"opia esfe"a de accion de la "ese"va ;ue se c"ea. The "est"ictive inte"p"etation is the 'o"e i'pe"ative in vie of the ne &ivil &ode.s hostilit* to successional reservas and "eve"sions, as e3e'plified b* the supp"ession of the reserva viudal and the reversion legal of the &ode of %##$ 1!"t. #%/ and $6#-$#>2. Reve"sion of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* bein) )ove"ned b* the "ules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees 'ust be held ithout an* "i)ht the"eto because, as aunt and uncles, "espectivel*, of Faustino Di:on 1the praepositus2, the* a"e e3cluded f"o' the succession b* his niece, the defendant-appellant, althou)h the* a"e "elated to hi' ithin the sa'e de)"ee as the latte". To this effect is Abellana vs. Ferraris 4 he"e !"ts. %>>%, %>>5, %>>7 and %>>$ of the &ivil &ode e"e cited and applied, Neve"theless, the t"ial cou"t as co""ect hen it held that, in case of intestac* nephe s and nieces of the de cujus e3clude all othe" collate"als 1aunts and uncles, fi"st cousins, etc.2 f"o' the succession. This is "eadil* appa"ent f"o' !"ticles %>>%, %>>5, %>>7 and %>>$ of the &ivil &ode of the Philippines, that p"ovide as follo s,

!"t. %>>%. Should b"othe"s and siste"s o" thei" child"en su"vive ith the ido o" ido e", the latte" shall be entitle to one-half of the inhe"itance and the b"othe"s and siste"s o" thei" child"en to the othe" half. !"t. %>>5. Should the onl* su"vivo"s be b"othe"s and siste"s of the full blood, the* shall inhe"it in e;ual sha"es. !"t. %>>7. Should b"othe"s and siste"s su"vive to)ethe" ith nephe s and nieces ho a"e the child"en of the decedent.s b"othe"s and siste"s of the full blood, the fo"'e" shall inhe"it pe" capita, and the latte" pe" sti"pes. !"t. %>>$. Should the"e be neithe" b"othe"s no" siste"s, no" child"en of b"othe"s and siste"s, the othe" collate"al "elatives shall succeed to the estate. Ende" the last a"ticle 1%>>$2, the absence of b"othe"s, siste"s, nephe s and nieces of the decedent is a p"econdition to the othe" collate"als 1uncles, cousins, etc.2 bein) called to the succession. This as also and 'o"e clea"l* the case unde" the Spanish &ivil &ode of %##$, that i''ediatel* p"eceded the &ivil &ode no in fo"ce 1R.!. 4#62. Thus, !"ticles $7/ and $75 of the &ode of %##$ p"esc"ibed as follo s, !"t. $7/. In the absence of b"othe"s o" siste"s and of nephe s o" nieces, child"en of the fo"'e", hethe" of the hole blood o" not, the su"vivin) spouse, if not sepa"ated b* a final dec"ee of divo"ce shall succeed to the enti"e estate of the deceased. !"t. $75. Should the"e be neithe" b"othe"s no" siste"s, no" child"en of b"othe"s o" siste"s, no" a su"vivin) spouse, the othe" collate"al "elatives shall succeed to the estate of deceased. The latte" shall succeed ithout distinction of lines o" p"efe"ence a'on) the' b* "eason of the hole blood. It ill be seen that unde" the p"ecedin) a"ticles, b"othe"s and siste"s and nephe s and nieces inhe"ited ab intestato ahead of the su"vivin) spouse, hile othe" collate"als succeeded onl* afte" the ido e" o" ido . The p"esent &ivil &ode of the Philippines 'e"el* placed the spouse on a pa" ith the nephe s and nieces and b"othe"s and siste"s of the deceased, but ithout alte"in) the p"efe""ed position of the latte" vis a vis the othe" collate"als. 333 333 333 Ae, the"efo"e, hold, and so "ule, that unde" ou" la s of succession, a decedent.s uncles and aunts 'a* not succeed ab intestato so lon) as nephe s and nieces of the decedent su"vive and a"e illin) and ;ualified to succeed. ... This conclusion is fo"tified b* the obse"vation, also 'ade in Padura, supra, that as to the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, the reservatarios do not inhe"it f"o' the reservista, but f"o' the descendant praepositus: ... . It is li-e ise clea" that the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is no pa"t of the estate of the reservista, ho 'a* not dispose of it b* ill, as lon) as the"e a"e reservatarios e3istin) 1!""o*o vs. Be"ona, 7# Phil. /482. The latte", the"efo"e, do not inhe"it f"o' the reservista, but f"o' the descendant prepositus, of ho' the reservatarios a"e the hei"s mortis causa, sub(ect to the condition that the* 'ust su"vive the reservista. 1Sanche: Ro'an, Vol. VI, To'o /, p. /#6? Man"esa, &o''enta"ies, Vol. 6, 6th 9d., pp. /85, 4%>2 ... . To the sa'e effect is ano vs, !irector of "ands ,, he"e it as "uled that intestac* p"oceedin)s to dete"'ine the "i)ht of a reservatario a"e not necessa"* he"e the final dec"ee of the land cou"t o"de"in) issuance of title in the na'e of the reservista ove" p"ope"t* sub(ect to reserva troncal Identifies the reservatario and the"e a"e no othe" clai'ants to the latte".s "i)hts as such, The contention that an intestac* p"oceedin) is still necessa"* "ests upon the assu'ption that the reservatario in succeed in, o" inhe"it, the "ese"vable p"ope"t* f"o' the reservista. This is not t"ue. The reservatario is not the reservista#s successo" mortis causa no" is the "ese"vable p"ope"t* pa"t of the reservista#s estate? the reservatario "eceives the p"ope"t* as a conditional hei" of the descendant 1prepositus2, said p"ope"t* 'e"el* "eve"tin) to the line of o"i)in f"o' hich it had te'po"a"il* and accidentall* st"a*ed du"in) the reservista#s lifeti'e. The autho"ities a"e all a)"eed that the"e bein) reservatarios that su"vive the reservista, the 'atte" 'ust be dee'ed to have en(o*ed no 'o"e than a life inte"est in the "ese"vable p"ope"t*. It is a conse;uence of these p"inciples that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario nea"est to the prepositus 1the appellee in this case2 beco'es, automatically and by operation of law, the o ne" of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*. !s al"ead* stated, that p"ope"t* is no pa"t of the estate of the reservista, and does not even ans e" fo" the debts of the latte". ... . @ad the "eve"siona"* p"ope"t* passed di"ectl* f"o' the praepositus, the"e is no doubt that the plaintiffs-appellees ould have been e3cluded b* the defendant-appellant unde" the "ules of intestate succession. The"e is no "eason h* a diffe"ent "esult should obtain

si'pl* because +the t"ans'ission of the p"ope"t* as dela*ed b* the inte""e)nu' of the reserva?+ 6 i.e., the p"ope"t* too- a +detou"+ th"ou)h an ascendant-the"eb* )ivin) "ise to the "ese"vation befo"e its t"ans'ission to the reservatario. Epon the stipulated facts, and b* vi"tue of the "ulin)s al"ead* cited, the defendant-appellant Dalisa* Ton)-o-&a'acho is entitled to the enti"et* of the "eve"siona"* p"ope"t* to the e3clusion of the plaintiffs-appellees. A@9R9FOR9, the appealed (ud)'ent of the lo e" &ou"t is "eve"sed and set aside and the co'plaint is dis'issed, ith costs a)ainst the plaintiffs-appellants. SO ORD9R9D. $elencio%&errera, ru', Paras, and Feliciano, ((., concur. )ap, (., too* no part.
oot%ote% Reco"d on !ppeal, pp. 66-8%. / +d., pp. 85-87. 4 B.R. No. C-%%$6>, Dec. /8, %$7# 1un"epo"ted2? see %>5 Phil. %>67. 5 %// Phil. 4%$, a)ain pe" Re*es, =.0.C., =. 7 %>7 Phil. %, a)ain pe" Re*es, =.0.C., =. 6 Padu"a v. 0aldovino, B.R. No. C-%%$6>. Dec. /8, %$7#, supra? footnote.3

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S9&OND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-3439, M$. 19, 1981 /E!TR"0 L. GON0!LES, petitione", vs. COURT O "RST "NST!NCE O M!N"L! 1/R!NC* +2, /EN"TO . LEG!R#!, ROS!R"O L. +!L#E0, !LE'!N#RO LEG!R#!, TERES! LEG!R#!, 'OSE LEG!R#!, /EN"TO LEG!R#! ( ERN!N#E0, C!RMEN LEG!R#! ( ERN!N#E0, "LOMEN! LEG!R#! ( *ERN!N#E0, C!RMEN LEG!R#! ( *ERN!N#E0, !LE'!N#RO LEG!R#! ( *ERN!N#E0, R!MON LEG!R#! ( *ERN!N#E0, "LOMEN! LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, '!"ME LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, CELSO LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, !LE'!N#RO LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, M!. TERES! LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, M!. !NTON"! LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, 'OSE LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, ROS!R"O LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, /EN"TO LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, E#U!R#O LEG!R#! ( LO/REG!T, TR"N"#!# . LEG!R#!, $%& t3e EST!TE O #ON! "LOMEN! ROCES #E LEG!R#!, "espondents. !4U"NO, J.:1wph1.t 0eat"i: Ce)a"da Bon:ales appealed f"o' the decision of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Manila, dis'issin) he" co'plaint fo" pa"tition, accountin), "econve*ance and da'a)es and holdin), as not sub(ect to reserve troncal, the p"ope"ties hich he" 'othe" Filo'ena Races inhe"ited in %$54 f"o' Filo'ena Ce)a"da 1&ivil &ase No. 844472. The facts a"e as follo s, 0enito Ce)a"da * De la Pa:, the son of 0enito Ce)a"da * Tuason, died FManilaG on =une %8, %$44. @e as su"vived b* his ido , Filo'ena Races, and thei" seven child"en, fou" dau)hte"s na'ed 0eat"i:, Rosa"io, Te"esa and Filo'ena and th"ee sons na'ed 0enito, !le(and"o and =ose. On =ul* %/, %$4$, the "eal p"ope"ties left b* 0enito Ce)a"da * Tuason e"e pa"titioned in th"ee e;ual po"tions b* his dau)hte"s, &onsuelo and Rita, and the hei"s of his deceased son 0enito Ce)a"da * De la Pa: ho e"e "ep"esented b* 0enito F. Ce)a"da. Filo'ena Ce)a"da * Races died intestate and ithout issue on Ma"ch %$, %$54. @e" sole hei"ess as he" 'othe", Filo'ena Races Vda. de Ce)a"da. M"s. Ce)a"da e3ecuted on Ma* %/, %$58 an affidavit ad(udicatin) e3t"a(udiciall* to he"self the p"ope"ties hich she inhe"ited f"o' he" deceased dau)hte", Filo'ena Ce)a"da. The said p"ope"ties consist of the follo in), ,-wph.,./0t 1a2 Savin)s deposit in the National &it* 0an- of Ne Ho"- ith a c"edit balance of P4,6$$.64. 1b2 %,5/$ sha"es of the 0en)uet &onsolidated Minin) &o'pan* and a %<8 inte"est in ce"tain sha"es of the San Mi)uel 0"e e"*, Tuason I Ce)a"da, Ctd., Philippine Bua"ant* &o'pan*, Insula" Cife !ssu"ance &o'pan* and the $anila 1imes. 1c2 %<8 of the p"ope"ties desc"ibed in T&T Nos. #>//6, #>/48 to #>/54 18 titles2, #>/6>, #>/6% and 787%/ of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds. %</%st of the p"ope"ties cove"ed b* T&T Nos. 5#%65, #58%5, 5#/>%, 5#/>/, 5#/>7, 5#/>4, 5#/>6, 5#%6> and 5#%$/ of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds? %</%st of the p"ope"t* desc"ibed in T&T No. 5587 of the "e)ist"* of deeds of Ri:al, no Jue:on &it*? %<%5th of the p"ope"t* desc"ibed in T&T No. $66 of the "e)ist"* of deeds of 0a)uio? %<8th of the lot and i'p"ove'ents at %/8 !viles desc"ibed in T&T No. 5%#6/ of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds? %<8th of the lots and i'p"ove'ents at %#% San Rafael desc"ibe in T&T Nos. 7>5$7 and 5#%6% of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds? %<8th of the p"ope"t* desc"ibed in T&T No. 5#%64 of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds 1St"eets2? l</%st of the p"ope"ties desc"ibed in T&T Nos. 5#%$$ and 7877% of the Manila "e)ist"* of deeds 1St"eets and 9ste"o2, /</%st of the p"ope"t* desc"ibed in T&T No. %457# of tile "e)ist"* of deeds of T>a*abas. These a"e the p"ope"ties in liti)ation in this case. !s a "esult of the affidavit of ad(udication, Filo'ena Races succeeded he" deceased dau)hte" Filo'ena Ce)a"da as co-o ne" of the p"ope"ties held proindiviso b* he" othe" si3 child"en.

M"s. Ce)a"da on Ma"ch 6, %$74 e3ecuted t o hand "itten Identical docu'ents he"ein she disposed of the p"ope"ties, hich she inhe"ited f"o' he" dau)hte", in favo" of the child"en of he" sons, 0enito, !le(and"o and =ose 1si3teen )"andchild"en in all2. The docu'ent "eads, ,-wph.,./0t ! 'is hi(os , Dispon)o ;ue se "epa"ta a todos 'is nietos hi(os de 0en, Mandu * Pepito, los bienes ;ue he he"edado de 'i difunta hi(a Filo'ena * ta'bien los acciones de la Destile"ia Ca Rosa"io. "eciente'ente co'p"ada a los he"'anos Values Ce)a"da. De los bienes de 'i hi(a Filo'ena se deduci"a un tote de te""eno ;ue *o he >donada a las @i(as de =esus, en Buipit Ca case No. %#% San Rafael, la cede a 'i hi(o Mandu solo la casa? p"o;ue ella esta const"uida sob"e te""eno de los he"'anos Ce)a"da Races. ,-wph.,./0t 1S)d.2 FICOM9N! RO&9S C9B!RD! 6 Ma":o %$74 Du"in) the pe"iod f"o' =ul*, %$7# to Feb"ua"*, %$7$ M"s. Ce)a"da and he" si3 su"vivin) child"en pa"titioned the p"ope"ties consistin) of the one-thi"d sha"e in the estate of 0enito Ce)a"da * Tuason hich the child"en inhe"ited in "ep"esentation of thei" fathe", 0enito Ce)a"da * De la Pa:. M"s. Ce)a"da died on Septe'be" //, %$68. @e" ill as ad'itted to p"obate as a holo)"aphic ill in the o"de" dated =ul* %6, %$6# of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Manila in Special P"oceedin) No. 8>#8#, Testate 9state of Filo'ena Races Vda. de Ce)a"da. The dec"ee of p"obate as affi"'ed b* the &ou"t of !ppeals in "egarda vs. 2on'ales, &!-B.R. No. 545#>-R, =ul* 4>,%$86. In the testate p"oceedin), 0eat"i: Ce)a"da Bon:ales, a dau)hte" of the testat"i3, filed on Ma* />, %$6# a 'otion to e3clude f"o' the invento"* of he" 'othe".s estate the p"ope"ties hich she inhe"ited f"o' he" deceased dau)hte", Filo'ena, on the )"ound that said p"ope"ties a"e reservable p"ope"ties hich should be inhe"ited b* Filo'ena Ce)a"da.s th"ee siste"s and th"ee b"othe"s and not b* the child"en of 0enito, !le(and"o and =ose, all su"na'ed Ce)a"da. That 'otion as opposed b* the ad'inist"ato", 0enito F. Ce)a"da. Aithout a aitin) the "esolution on that 'otion, M"s. Bon:ales filed on =une />, %$6# an o"dina"* civil action a)ainst he" b"othe"s, siste"s, nephe s and nieces and he" 'othe".s estate fo" the pu"pose of secu"in) a decla"ation that the said p"ope"ties a"e "ese"vable p"ope"ties hich M"s. Ce)a"da could not be;ueath in he" holo)"aphic ill to he" )"andchild"en to the e3clusion of he" th"ee dau)hte"s and he" th"ee sons 1See Pa: vs. Mad"i)al, %>> Phil. %>#72. !s al"ead* stated, the lo e" cou"t dis'issed the action of M"s. Bon:ales. ln this appeal unde" Republic !ct No. 755> she contends in he" si3 assi)n'ents of e""o" that the lo e" cou"t e""ed in not "e)a"din) the p"ope"ties in ;uestion as "ese"vable p"ope"ties unde" a"ticle #$% of the &ivil &ode. On the othe" hand, defendants-appellees in thei" si3 counte"-assi)n'ents of e""o" contend that the lo e" cou"t e""ed in not holdin) that M"s. Ce)a"da ac;ui"ed the estate of he" dau)hte" Filo'enaG Ce)a"da in e3chan)e fo" he" con(u)al and he"edita"* sha"es in the estate of he" husband 0enito Ce)a"da * De la Pa: and in not holdin) that M"s. Bon:ales aived he" "i)ht to the "ese"vable p"ope"ties and that he" clai' is ba""ed b* estoppel, laches and p"esc"iption. The p"eli'ina"* issue "aised b* the p"ivate "espondents as to the ti'eliness of M"s. Bon:ales. petition fo" "evie is a closed 'atte". This &ou"t in its "esolution of Dece'be" %6, %$8% denied "espondents. 'otion to dis'iss and )ave due cou"se to the petition fo" "evie . In an appeal unde" Republic !ct No. 755> onl* le)al issues can be "aised unde" undisputed facts. Since on the basis of the stipulated facts the lo e" cou"t "esolved onl* the issue of hethe" the p"ope"ties in ;uestion a"e sub(ect to reserva troncal that is the onl* le)al issue to be "esolved in this appeal. The othe" issues "aised b* the defendants-appellees, pa"ticula"l* those involvin) factual 'atte"s, cannot be "esolved in this appeal. !s the t"ial cou"t did not pass upon those issues, the"e is no "ulin) hich can be "evie ed b* this &ou"t. The ;uestion is hethe" the disputed p"ope"ties a"e "ese"vable p"ope"ties unde" a"ticle #$% of the &ivil &ode, fo"'e"l* a"ticle #%%, and hethe" Filo'ena Races Vda. de Ce)a"da could dispose of the' in his ill in favo" of he" )"andchild"en to the e3clusion of he" si3 child"en.

Did M"s. Ce)a"da have the "i)ht to conve* mortis causa hat she inhe"ited f"o' he" dau)hte" Filo'ena to the "ese"vees ithin the third degree and to b*pass the "ese"vees in the second degree o" should that inhe"itance auto'aticall* )o to the "ese"vees in the second de)"ee, the si3 child"en of M"s. Ce)a"daD !s ill he"einafte" be sho n that is not a novel issue o" a ;uestion of fi"st i'p"ession. lt as "esolved in Florentino vs. Florentino, 5> Phil. 5#>. 0efo"e discussin) the applicabilit* to this case of the doct"ine in the Florentino case and othe" pe"tinent "ulin)s, it 'a* be useful to 'a-e a b"ief discou"se on the natu"e of reserve troncal, also called lineal, familiar, e3traordinaria o semi%troncal. Much ti'e, effo"t and ene")* e"e spent b* the pa"ties in thei" five b"iefs in descantin) on the natu"e of reserve troncal hich to)ethe" ith the reserva viudal and reversion legal, as abolished b* the &ode &o''ission to p"event the decedent.s estate f"o' bein) entailed, to eli'inate the unce"taint* in o ne"ship caused b* the "ese"vation 1 hich unce"taint* i'pedes the i'p"ove'ent of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*2 and to discou"a)e the confine'ent of p"ope"t* ithin a ce"tain fa'il* fo" )ene"ations hich situation alle)edl* leads to econo'ic oli)a"ch*, and is inco'patible ith the sociali:ation of o ne"ship. The &ode &o''ission "e)a"ded the reservas as "e'nants of feudalis' hich fo'ented a)"a"ian un"est. Mo"eove", the reserves, insofa" as the* penali:e le)iti'ate "elationship, is conside"ed un(ust and ine;uitable. @o eve", the la 'a-in) bod*, not a)"eein) enti"el* ith the &ode &o''ission, "esto"ed the reserve troncal, a le)al institution hich, acco"din) to Man"esa and &astan Tobenas has p"ovo-ed ;uestions and doubts that a"e difficult to "esolve. 4eserva troncal is p"ovided fo" in a"ticle #%% of the Spanish &ivil &ode, no a"ticle #$%, hich "eads, ,-wph.,./0t !RT. #%%. 9l ascendiente ;ue he"eda"e de su descendiente bienes ;ue este hubiese ad;ui"ido po" titulo luc"ative de ot"o ascendiente, o de un he"'ano, se halla obli)ado a "ese"vas los ;ue hubie"e ad;ui"ido po" 'iniste"io de la le* en favo" de los pa"ientes ;ue eaten dent"o del te"ce" )"ade * pe"tene:can a la linea de donde los bienes p"oceden !RT. #$%. The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. In reserve troncal 1%2 a descendant inhe"ited o" ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title p"ope"t* f"o' an ascendant o" f"o' a b"othe" o" siste"? 1/2 the sa'e p"ope"t* is inhe"ited b* anothe" ascendant o" is ac;ui"ed b* hi' b* ope"ation of la f"o' the said descendant, and 142 the said ascendant should "ese"ve the said p"ope"t* fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the deceased descendant 1prepositus2 and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich the said p"ope"t* ca'e. So, th"ee t"ans'issions a"e involved, 1I2 a fi"st t"ans'ission b* luc"ative title 1inhe"itance o" donation2 f"o' an ascendant o" b"othe" o" siste" to the deceased descendant? 1/2 a poste"io" t"ans'ission, b* ope"ation of la 1intestate succession o" le)iti'e2 f"o' the deceased descendant 1causante de la reserve2 in favo" of anothe" ascendant, the "ese"vo" o" reservista, hich t o t"ans'issions p"ecede the "ese"vation, and 142 a thi"d t"ans'issions of the sa'e p"ope"t* 1in conse;uence of the "ese"vation2 f"o' the "ese"vo" to the "ese"vees 1reservatarios2 o" the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the deceased descendant belon)in) to the line of the fi"st ascendant, b"othe" o" siste" of the deceased descendant 16 &astan Tobenas De"echo &ivil, Pa"t l, %$6>, 6th 9d., pp. %$#-$2. If the"e a"e onl* t o t"ans'issions the"e is no reserve. Thus, he"e one 0onifacia Cace"na died and he" p"ope"ties e"e inhe"ited b* he" son, =uan Ma"bebe, upon the death of =uan, those lands should be inhe"ited b* his half-siste", to the e3clusion of his 'ate"nal fi"st cousins. The said lands a"e not "ese"vable p"ope"t* ithin the 'eanin) of a"ticle #%% 1Cace"na vs. Vda. de &o"cino, l l l Phil. #8/2. The pe"sons involved in reserve troncal a"e 1%2 the ascendant o" b"othe" o" siste" f"o' ho' the p"ope"t* as "eceived b* the descendant b* luc"ative o" )"atuitous title, 1/2 the descendant o" prepositus 1prepositus2 ho "eceived the p"ope"t*, 142 the "ese"vo" 1reservista2 the othe" ascendant ho obtained the p"ope"t* f"o' the 1prepositus2 b* ope"ation of la and 152 the "ese"ves 1reservatario2 ho is ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the prepositus and ho belon)s to the 1line o tronco2 f"o' hich the p"ope"t* ca'e and fo" ho' the p"ope"t* should be "ese"ved b* the "ese"vo". The "ese"vees 'a* be half-b"othe"s and siste"s 1Rod"i)ue: vs. Rod"i)ue:, %>% Phil. %>$#? &hua vs. &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ne)"os Occidental, C-/$$>%, !u)ust 4%, %$88, 8# S&R! 5%/2. Fou"th de)"ee "elatives a"e not included 1=a"din vs. Villa'a*o", 8/ Phil. 4$/2. The "ationale of reserve troncal is to avoid +el peli)"o de ;ue bienes poseidos secula"'ente po" una fa'ilia pasen b"usca'ente a titulo )"atuito a 'anos e3t"aKas po" el a:a" de los enlaces * 'ue"tes p"e'atu"as o" i'pede" ;ue, po" un a:a" de la vide pe"sonas e3t"anas a una fa'ilia puedan ad;ui"i" bienes ;ue sin a;uel hubie"an ;uedado en ella 16 &astan Tobenas De"echo &ivil, Pa"t l, 6th 9d., %$#>, p. />4? Padu"a vs. 0aldovino, %>5 Phil. %>672.

!n illust"ation of reserve troncal is found in 5droso vs. 6ablan, /7 Phil. /$7. ln that case, Ped"o Sablan inhe"ited t o pa"cels of land f"o' his fathe" Victo"ians. Ped"o died in %$>/, sin)le and ithout issue. @is 'othe", Ma"celina 9d"oso, inhe"ited f"o' hi' the t o pa"cels of land. It as held that the land as "ese"vable p"ope"t* in the hands of Ma"celina. The "ese"vees e"e Pablo Sablan and 0asilio Sablan, the pate"nal uncles of Ped"o Sablan, the prepositus. Ma"celina could "e)iste" the land unde" the To""ens s*ste' in he" na'e but the fact that the land as "ese"vable p"ope"t* in favo" of he" t o b"othe"s-in-la , should the* su"vive he", should be noted in the title. In anothe" case, it appea"s that Ma"ia !)libot died intestate in %$>6. @e" one-half sha"e of a pa"cel of con(u)al land as inhe"ited b* he" dau)hte", =uliana MaKalac. Ahen =uliana died intestate in %$/>, said one-half sha"e as inhe"ited b* he" fathe", !nacleto MaKalac ho o ned the othe" one-half po"tion. !nacleto died intestate in %$5/, su"vived b* his second ife and thei" si3 child"en. lt as held that the said one-half po"tion as "ese"vable p"ope"t* in the hands of !nacleto MaKalac and, upon his death, should be inhe"ited b* Ceona !)libot and 9va"ista !)libot, siste"s of Ma"ia and 'ate"na aunts of =uliana MaKalac, ho belon)ed to the line f"o' hich said one-half po"tion ca'e 1!)libot vs. MaKalac %%5 Phil. $652. Othe" illust"ations of reserva troncal a"e found in Flo"entino vs Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#>? Nieva and !lcala vs. !lcala and Deoca'po, 5% Phil. $%7? Ma)hi"an) and 2utierre' vs. Balcita 56 Phil. 77%? "unsod vs. 7rtega, 56 Phil. 665? !i'on vs. 2alang, 5# Phil. 6>%? 4iosa vs. 4ocha, 5# Phil. 848? enteno vs. enteno 7/ Phil. 4//? 8elayo Bernardo vs. 6iojo, 7# Phil. #$? !irector of "ands vs. Aguas, 64 Phil. /8$? Fallorfina vs. Abille, &! 4$ O.B. %8#5. The pe"son f"o' ho' the de)"ee should be "ec-oned is the descendant, o" the one at the end of the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* ca'e and upon ho' the p"ope"t* last "evolved b* descent. @e is called the prepositus 1&aba"do vs. Villanueva. 55 Phil. %#6, %$>2. In the abardo case, one &o"nelia !bo"do inhe"ited p"ope"t* f"o' he" 'othe", 0asilia &aba"do. Ahen &o"nelia died, he" estate passed to he" fathe", Co"en:o !bo"do. ln his hands, the p"ope"t* as "ese"vable p"ope"t*. Epon the death of Co"en:o, the pe"son entitled to the p"ope"t* as Rosa &aba"do, a 'ate"nal aunt of &o"nelia, ho as he" nea"est "elative ithin the thi"d de)"ee. Fi"st cousins of the prepositus a"e in the fou"th de)"ee and a"e not "ese"vees. The* cannot even "ep"esent thei" pa"ents because "ep"esentation is confined to "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee 1Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#>2. Aithin the thi"d de)"ee, the nea"est "elatives e3clude the 'o"e "e'ote sub(ect to the "ule of "ep"esentation. 0ut the "ep"esentative should be ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the prepositus 1Padu"a vs. 0aldovino, %>5 Phil. %>672. 4eserva troncal conte'plates le)iti'ate "elationship. ille)iti'ate "elationship and "elationship b* affinit* a"e e3cluded. B"atuitous title o" titulo lucrativo "efe"s to a t"ans'ission he"ein the "ecipient )ives nothin) in "etu"n such as donacion and succession 1&aba"do vs. Villanueva, 55 Phil. %#6, %#$-%$>, citin) 6 Man"esa, &odi)o &ivil, 8th 9d., %$7 l, p. 46>2. The reserva c"eates t o "esoluto"* conditions, na'el*, 1%2 the death of the ascendant obli)ed to "ese"ve and 1/2 the su"vival, at the ti'e of his death, of "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* ca'e 1Sienes vs. 9 9spa"cia l l l Phil. 45$, 4742. The "ese"vo" has the le)al title and do'inion to the "ese"vable p"ope"t* but sub(ect to the "esoluto"* condition that such title is e3tin)uished if the "ese"vo" p"edeceased the "ese"vee. The "ese"vo" is a usuf"uctua"* of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*. @e 'a* alienate it sub(ect to the "ese"vation. The t"ansfe"ee )ets the "evocable and conditional o ne"ship of the "ese"vo". The t"ansfe"ee.s "i)hts a"e "evo-ed upon the su"vival of the "ese"vees at the ti'e of the death of the "ese"vo" but beco'e indefeasible hen the "ese"vees p"edecease the "ese"vo". 1Sienes vs. 9spa"cia, %%% Phil. 45$, 474? 9d"oso vs. Sablan, /7 Phil. /$7? Cunsod vs. O"te)a, 56 Phil. 665? Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#>, Di"ecto" of Cands vs. !)uas, 64 Phil. /8$.2 The "ese"vo".s title has been co'pa"ed ith that of the vendee a retro in a pacta de retro sale o" to a fideicomiso conditional.

The "ese"vo".s alienation of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is sub(ect to a "esoluto"* condition, 'eanin) that if at the ti'e of the "ese"vo".s death, the"e a"e "ese"vees, the t"ansfe"ee of the p"ope"t* should delive" it to the "ese"vees. lf the"e a"e no "ese"vees at the ti'e of the "ese"vo".s death, the t"ansfe"ee.s title ould beco'e absolute. 1Cunsod vs. O"te)a, 56 Phil. 665? Bueco vs. Cacson, %%# Phil. $55? Mono vs. Ne;uia $4 Phil. %/>2. On the othe" hand, the "ese"ves has onl* an inchoate, e3pectant o" contin)ent "i)ht. @is e3pectant "i)ht ould disappea" if he p"edeceased the "ese"vo". lt ould beco'e absolute should the "ese"vo" p"edecease the "ese"ves. The "ese"ves cannot i'pu)n an* conve*ance 'ade b* the "ese"vo" but he can "e;ui"e that the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"t* be "eco)ni:ed b* the pu"chase" 1Riosa vs. Rocha 5# Phil. 848? 9d"oso vs. Sablan, /7 Phil. /$7, 4%/-4? Bueco vs. Cacson, %%# Phil. $552.

The"e is a holdin) that the "enunciation of the "ese"vee.s "i)ht to the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is ille)al fo" bein) a cont"act "e)a"din) futu"e inhe"itance 1Vela*o 0e"na"do vs. Sio(o, 7# Phil. #$, $62. !nd the"e is a dictu' that the "ese"vee.s "i)ht is a "eal "i)ht hich he 'a* alienate and dispose of conditionall*. The condition is that the alienation shall t"ansfe" o ne"ship to the vendee onl* if and hen the "ese"ves su"vives the "ese"vo" 1Sienes vs. 9spa"cia, %%% Phil. 45$, 4742. ,-wph.,./0t The reservatario "eceives the p"ope"t* as a conditional hei" of the descendant 1prepositus2 said p"ope"t* 'e"el* "eve"tin) to the line of o"i)in f"o' hich it had te'po"a"il* and accidentall* sta*ed du"in) the reservista#s lifeti'e. The autho"ities a"e all a)"eed that the"e bein) "ese"vata"ios that su"vive the "ese"vists, the latte" 'ust be dee'ed to have en(o*ed no 'o"e than a than inte"est in the "ese"vable p"ope"t*. 1(. =. 0. C. Re*es in &ane vs. Di"ecto" of Cands, %>7 Phil. l7.2 9ven du"in) the reservista#s lifeti'e, the reservatarios, ho a"e the ulti'ate ac;ui"e"s of the p"ope"t*, can al"ead* asse"t the "i)ht to p"event the reservista f"o' doin) an*thin) that 'i)ht f"ust"ate thei" "eve"siona"* "i)ht, and, fo" this pu"pose, the* can co'pel the annotation of thei" "i)ht in the "e)ist"* of p"ope"t* even hile the 1"ese"vista2 is alive 1Ce* @ipoteca"ia de Elt"a'a", !"ts. %6#, %$$? 9d"oso vs. Sablan, /7 Phil. /$72. This "i)ht is inco'patible ith the 'e"e e3pectanc* that co""esponds to the natu"al hei"s of the "ese"vista lt is li-e ise clea" that the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is no pa"t of the estate of the "ese"vista ho 'a* not dispose of the' 1it2 b* ill, so lon) as the"e a"e "ese"vata"ios e3istin) 1!""o*o vs. Be"ona, 7# Phil. //6, /482. The latte", the"efo"e, do not inhe"it f"o' the reservista but f"o' the descendant 1p"epositus2 of ho' the reservatarios a"e the hei"s mortis causa, sub(ect to the condition that the* 'ust su"vive the reservista. 1Sanche: Ro'an, Vol. VI To'o /, p. /#6? Man"esa, &o''enta"ies, Vol. 6, 6th 9d., pp. /85, 4%>, cited b* =. =.0.C. Re*es in Padu"a vs. 0aldovino, C-%%$6>, Dece'be" /8, %$7#, %>5 Phil. %>672. @ence, upon the reservista#s death, the reservatario nea"est to the prepositus beco'es, +auto'aticall* and b* ope"ation of la , the o ne" of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*.+ 1&ane vs. Di"ecto" of Cands, %>7 Phil. l7.2 In the instant case, the p"ope"ties in ;uestion e"e indubitabl* "ese"vable p"ope"ties in the hands of M"s. Ce)a"da. Endoubtedl*, she as a "ese"vo". The "ese"vation beca'e a ce"taint* hen at the ti'e of he" death the "ese"vees o" "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the prepositus Filo'ena Ce)a"da e"e livin) o" the* su"vived M"s. Ce)a"da. So, the ulti'ate issue in this case is hethe" M"s. Ce)a"da, as "ese"vo", could conve* the "ese"vable p"ope"ties b* ill o" mortis causa to the "ese"vees ithin the third degree 1he" si3teen )"andchild"en2 to the e3clusion of the "ese"vees in the second degree, he" th"ee dau)hte"s and th"ee sons. !s indicated at the outset, that issue is al"ead* res judicata o" cosa ju'gada. Ae hold that M"s. Ce)a"da could not conve* in he" holo)"aphic ill to he" si3teen )"andchild"en the "ese"vable p"ope"ties hich she had inhe"ited f"o' he" dau)hte" Filo'ena because the "ese"vable p"ope"ties did not fo"' pa"t of he" estate 1&aba"do vs. Villanueva, 55 Phil. %#6, %$%2. The "ese"vo" cannot 'a-e a disposition mortis causa of the "ese"vable p"ope"ties as lon) as the "ese"vees su"vived the "ese"vo". !s "epeatedl* held in the "ese"vo". ano and Padura cases, the "ese"vees inhe"it the "ese"vable p"ope"ties f"o' the prepositus, not f"o' the

!"ticle #$% clea"l* indicates that the "ese"vable p"ope"ties should be inhe"ited b* all the nea"est "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the prepositus ho in this case a"e the si3 child"en of M"s. Ce)a"da. She could not select the "ese"vees to ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* should be )iven and dep"ive the othe" "ese"vees of thei" sha"e the"ein. To allo the "ese"vo" in this case to 'a-e a testa'enta"* disposition of the "ese"vable p"ope"ties in favo" of the "ese"vees in the third degree and, conse;uentl*, to i)no"e the "ese"vees in the second degree ould be a )la"in) violation of a"ticle #$%. That testa'enta"* disposition cannot be allo ed. Ae have stated ea"lie" that this case is )ove"ned b* the doct"ine of Florentino vs. Florentino, 5> Phil. 5#>, a si'ila" case, "uled, ,-wph.,./0t he"e it as

Rese"vable p"ope"t* left, th"ou)h a ill o" othe" ise, b* the death of ascendant 1reservista2 to)ethe" ith his o n p"ope"t* in favo" of anothe" of his descendants as fo"ced hei", fo"'s no pa"t of the latte".s la ful inhe"itance no" of the le)iti'e, fo" the "eason that, as said p"ope"t* continued to be "ese"vable, the hei" "eceivin) the sa'e as an inhe"itance f"o' his ascendant has the st"ict obli)ation of its delive"* to the "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of the p"edecesso" in inte"est 1prepositus2, ithout p"e(udicin) the "i)ht of the hei" to an ali;uot pa"t of the p"ope"t*, if he has at the sa'e ti'e the "i)ht of a reservatario 1"ese"ves2.

ln the Flo"entino case, it appea"s that !polonio Flo"entino II and his second ife Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon be)ot t o child"en, Me"cedes and !polonio III. These t o inhe"ited p"ope"ties f"o' thei" fathe". Epon !polonio III death in %#$%, his p"ope"ties e"e inhe"ited b* his 'othe", Seve"ina, ho died in %$>#. ln he" ill, she instituted he" dau)hte" Me"cedes as hei"ess to all he" p"ope"ties, includin) those co'in) f"o' he" deceased husband th"ou)h thei" son, !polonio III. The su"vivin) child"en, be)otten b* !polonio II ith his fi"st ife !ntonia Fa: de Ceon and the descendants of the deceased child"en of his fi"st 'a""ia)e, sued Me"cedes Flo"entino fo" the "ecove"* of thei" sha"e in the "ese"vable p"ope"ties, hich Seve"ina de Ceon had inhe"ited f"o' !polonio III hich the latte" had inhe"ited f"o' his fathe" !polonio II and hich Seve"ina illed to he" dau)hte" Me"cedes. Plaintiff.s theo"* as that the said p"ope"ties, as "ese"vable p"ope"ties, could not be disposed of in Seve"ina.s ill in favo" of Me"cedes onl*. That theo"* as sustained b* this &ou"t. +t was held that the said properties, being reservable properties, did not form part of 6everina#s estate and could not be inherited from her by her daughter $ercedes alone. !s the"e e"e seven "ese"vees, Me"cedes as entitled, as a "ese"ves, to one-seventh of the p"ope"ties. The othe" si3 sevenths po"tions e"e ad(udicated to the othe" si3 "ese"vees. Ende" the "ule of stare decisis et non quieta movere, e a"e bound to follo in this case the doct"ine of the Florentino case. That doct"ine 'eans that as lon) as du"in) the "ese"vo".s lifeti'e and upon his death the"e a"e "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the prepositus "e)a"dless of hethe" those "ese"vees a"e co''on descendants of the "ese"vo" and the ascendant f"o' ho' the p"ope"t* ca'e, the p"ope"t* "etains its "ese"vable cha"acte". The p"ope"t* should )o to the nea"est "ese"vees. The "ese"vo" cannot, b* 'eans of his ill, choose the "ese"ves to ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* should be a a"ded. The alle)ed opinion of Sanche: Ro'an that the"e is no reserva troncal hen the onl* "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee a"e the co''on descendants of the p"edeceased ascendant and the ascendant ho ould be obli)ed to "ese"ve is i""elevant and sans bindin) fo"ce in the li)ht of the "ulin) in the Florentino case. It is contended b* the appellees he"ein that the p"ope"ties in ;uestion a"e not "ese"vable p"ope"ties because onl* "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' the pate"nal line have su"vived and that hen M"s. Ce)a"da illed the said p"ope"ties to he" si3teen )"andchild"en, ho a"e thi"d-de)"ee "elatives of Filo'ena Ce)a"da and ho belon) to the pate"nal line, the "eason fo" the reserva troncal has been satisfied, +to p"event pe"sons outside a fa'il* f"o' secu"in), b* so'e special accident of life, p"ope"t* that ould othe" ise have "e'ained the"ein+. That sa'e contention as advanced in the Florentino case he"e the "ese"vo" illed the "ese"vable p"ope"ties to he" dau)hte", a fullblood siste" of the prepositus and i)no"ed the othe" si3 "ese"vo"s, the "elatives of the half-blood of the prepositus. In "e(ectin) that contention, this &ou"t held that the "ese"vable p"ope"t* be;ueathed b* the "ese"vo" to he" dau)hte" does not fo"' pa"t of the "ese"vo".s estate no" of the dau)hte".s estate but should be )iven to all the seven "ese"vees o" nea"est "elatives of the p"epositus ithin the thi"d de)"ee. This &ou"t noted that, hile it is t"ue that b* )ivin) the "ese"vable p"ope"t* to onl* one "ese"ves it did not pass into the hands of st"an)e"s, neve"theless, it is li-e ise t"ue that the hei"ess of the "ese"vo" was only one of the reservees and there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other reservees should be deprived of their shares in the reservable property 1pp. #$5-72. !ppl*in) that doct"ine to this case, it "esults that M"s. Ce)a"da could not dispose of in he" ill the p"ope"ties in ;uestion even if the disposition is in favo" of the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee f"o' Filo'ena Ce)a"da. The said p"ope"ties, b* ope"ation of !"ticle #$%, should )o to M"s. Ce)a"da.s si3 child"en as "ese"vees ithin the second de)"ee f"o' Filo'ena Ce)a"da. It should be "epeated that the "ese"vees do not inhe"it f"o' the "ese"vo" but f"o' the reservor but from the prepositus, of ho' the "ese"vees a"e the hei"s mortis causa sub(ect to the condition that the* 'ust su"vive the "ese"vo" 1Padu"a vs. 0aldovino, C-%%$6>, Dece'be" /8, %$7#, %>5 Phil. %>672. The t"ial cou"t said that the disputed p"ope"ties lost thei" "ese"vable cha"acte" due to the non-e3istence of thi"d-de)"ee "elatives of Filo'ena Ce)a"da at the ti'e of the death of the "ese"vo", M"s. Ce)a"da, belon)in) to the Ce)a"da fa'il*, +e3cept thi"d-de)"ee "elatives ho pe"tain to both+ the Ce)a"da and Races lines. That holdin) is e""oneous. The "ese"vation could have been e3tin)uished onl* b* the absence of "ese"vees at the ti'e of M"s. Ce)a"da.s death. Since at the ti'e of he" death, the"e e"e 1and still a"e2 "ese"vees belon)in) to the second and thi"d de)"ees, the disputed p"ope"ties did not lose thei" "ese"vable cha"acte". The disposition of the said p"ope"ties should be 'ade in acco"dance ith a"ticle #$% o" the "ule on "ese"va t"oncal and not in acco"dance ith the "ese"vo".s holo)"aphic ill. The said p"ope"ties did not fo"' pa"t of M"s. Ce)a"da.s estate. 1&ane vs. Di"ecto" of Cands, %>7 Phil. l, 52.

A@9R9FOR9, the lo e" cou"t.s decision is "eve"sed and set aside. lt is he"eb* ad(ud)ed that the p"ope"ties inhe"ited b* Filo'ena Roces Vda. de Ce)a"da f"o' he" dau)hte" Filo'ena Ce)a"da, ith all the f"uits and accessions the"eof, a"e "ese"vable p"ope"ties hich belon) to 0eat"i:, Rosa"io, Te"esa, 0enito, !le(and"o and =ose, all su"na'ed Ce)a"da * Roces, as "ese"vees. The sha"es of Rosa"io C. Valdes and 0enito F. Ce)a"da, ho died in %$6$ and %$84, "espectivel*, should pe"tain to thei" "espective hei"s. &osts a)ainst the p"ivate "espondents. SO ORD9R9D. Barredo, 2uerrero, Abad 6antos and !e astro, ((., concur.,-wph.,./0t (ustice oncepcion, (r., is on leave. (ustice 2uerrero was designated to sit in the 6econd !ivision.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 9N 0!N&

G.R. No. L-14603

!pr56 29, 1961

R"C!R#O L!RCERN!, ET !L., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. !G!TON! P!UR"LLO +#!. #E CORC"NO, defendant-appellee. '!CO/! M!R/E/E, inte"veno"-appellee. CONCEPC"ON, J.7 !ppeal f"o' a decision of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Iloilo decla"in) that the pa"cels of land in liti)ation a"e p"ope"t* of inte"veno" =acoba Ma"bebe. This action as instituted b* Rica"do, Pat"ocinia, Pat"ia, Faustino, Ceono", Ra'ona, !suncion, 9'iliana, !"senio and Felipe, all su"na'ed Cace"na, fo" the "ecove"* of th"ee pa"cels of un"e)iste"ed lands, situated in the 'unicipalit* of Maasin, Iloilo, and 'o"e specificall* desc"ibed in the co'plaint, upon the )"ound that said lands belon)ed to the deceased =uan Ma"bebe, and that his cousins, plaintiffs he"ein, a"e his sole hei"s. In he" ans e", defendant !)atona Vda. de &o"cino alle)ed, inter alia, that =uan Ma"bebe 'i)ht still be alive? that she held the disputed lands unde" a po e" of atto"ne* e3ecuted b* =uan Ma"bebe? and that, if he has died, she is entitled to succeed hi' in the sa'e 'anne" as plaintiffs he"ein, she bein) "elated to hi' in the sa'e 'anne" as plaintiffs a"e. Aith the cou"t.s pe"'ission, =acoba Ma"bebe filed an ans e" in inte"vention alle)in) that she is a half siste" of =uan Ma"bebe ho died intestate, leavin) neithe" ascendants no" descendants, and that, as his half siste", she is entitled, b* succession, to the p"ope"ties in dispute. !fte" due t"ial, the cou"t "ende"ed (ud)'ent fo" the inte"veno". @ence, this appeal b* the plaintiffs. The lo e" cou"t found, and appellants do not ;uestion, that the lands desc"ibed in the co'plaint belon)ed o"i)inall* to 0onifacia Cace"na. Epon he" death in %$4/, the* passed, b* succession, to he" onl* son, =uan Ma"bebe ho as, subse;uentl*, ta-en to &ulion he"e he died intestate, sin)le and ithout issue on Feb"ua"* /%, %$54. The ;uestion fo" dete"'ination is, ho shall succeed hi'D It appea"s that his 'othe", 0onifacia Cace"na, had a siste", !)atona Pau"illo Vda. de &o"cino, the defendant he"ein? that &atalino Cace"na died in %$7> and as su"vived b* his child"en, plaintiffs Rica"do, Pat"ocinia and Pat"ia, all su"na'ed Cace"na? and that Ma"celo Cace"na ho died in %$74, as su"vived b* his child"en, the othe" plaintiffs he"ein, na'el*, Ra'ona, Faustino, Ceono", !suncion 9'iliano, !"senio and Felipe, all su"na'ed Cace"na. Epon the othe" hand, inte"veno" =acoba Ma"bebe is dau)hte", b* fi"st 'a""ia)e, of Valentin Ma"bebe, husband of 0onifacia Cace"na and fathe" of =uan Ma"bebe, ho, acco"din)l*, is a half b"othe" of said inte"veno". Aith this factual bac-)"ound, the issue is na""o ed do n to hethe" =acoba Ma"bebe, as half siste" of =uan Ma"bebe, on his fathe".s side, is his sole hei", as held b* @is @ono", the T"ial =ud)e, o" hethe" plaintiffs he"ein, as fi"st cousins of =uan Ma"bebe, on his 'othe" side, have a bette" "i)ht to succeed hi', to the e3clusion of =acoba Ma"bebe, as plaintiffs-appellants 'aintain. The latte".s p"etense is based upon the theo"* that, pu"suant to !"ticle #$% of the &ivil &ode of the Philippines, establishin) hat is -no n as +"ese"va t"oncal+, the p"ope"ties in dispute should pass to the hei"s of the deceased ithin the thi"d de)"ee, who belong to the line from which said properties ca'e, and that since the sa'e e"e inhe"ited b* =uan Ma"bebe f"o' his 'othe", the* should )o to his nea"est "elative ithin the thi"d de)"ee on the 'ate"ial line, to hich plaintiffs belon), not to inte"veno", =acoba Ma"bebe, despite the )"eate" p"o3i'it* of he" "elationship to the deceased, fo" she belon)s to the pate"nal line. =acoba Ma"bebe contends, ho eve", and the lo e" cou"t held, that b"othe"s and siste"s e3clude all othe" collate"al "elatives in the o"de" of intestate succession, and that, as =uan Ma"bebe.s half-siste", she has, acco"din)l*, a bette" "i)ht than plaintiffs he"ein to inhe"it his p"ope"ties. The 'ain fla in appellants. theo"* is that it assu'es that said p"ope"ties a"e sub(ect to the +"ese"va t"oncal+, hich is not a fact, fo" !"ticle #$% of the &ivil &ode of the Philippines, p"ovides, The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo"

the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and supplied.2

ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. 19'phasis

This a"ticle applies onl* to p"ope"ties inhe"ited, unde" the conditions the"ein set fo"th, by an ascendant from a descendant, and this is not the case befo"e us, fo" the lands in dispute e"e inhe"ited by a descendant, =uan Ma"bebe, from an ascendant, his 'othe", 0onifacia Cace"na. Said le)al p"ovision is, the"efo"e, not in point, and the t"ans'ission of the afo"e'entioned lands, b* inhe"itance, as p"ope"l* dete"'ined b* @is @ono", the T"ial =ud)e, in acco"dance ith the o"de" p"esc"ibed fo" intestate succession, pa"ticula"l* !"ticles %>>4 to %>>$ of the &ivil &ode of the Philippines, pu"suant to hich a siste", even if onl* a half-siste", in the absence of othe" siste"s o" b"othe"s, o" of child"en of b"othe"s o" siste"s, e3cludes all othe" collate"al "elatives, "e)a"dless of hethe" o" not the latte" belon) to the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* of the deceased ca'e. A@9R9FOR9, the decision appealed f"o' is he"eb* affi"'ed, ith costs a)ainst plaintiffs-appellants. It is so o"de"ed. Beng'on, .(., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, "abrador, 4eyes, (.B."., Barrera, Paredes and !i'on, ((., concu".

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 9N 0!N&

G.R. No. 6888

September 13, 1913

M!RCEL"N! E#ROSO, petitione"-appellant, vs. P!/LO $%& /!S"L"O S!/L!N, opponents-appellees. Francisco !omingue' for appellant. rispin 7ben for appellees. !RELL!NO, C.J.7 The sub(ect 'atte" of this appeal is the "e)ist"ation of ce"tain p"ope"t* classified as "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved. Ma"celina 9d"oso applied fo" "e)ist"ation and issuance of title to t o pa"cels of land situated in the 'unicipalit* of Pa)san(an, P"ovince of Ca)una, one of % hecta"e 88 a"es and 64 centa"es, and the othe" % hecta"e 6 a"es and /6 centa"es. T o applications e"e filed, one fo" each pa"cel, but both e"e hea"d and decided in a sin)le (ud)'ent. Ma"celina 9d"oso as 'a""ied to Victo"iano Sablan until his death on Septe'be" //, %##/. In this 'a""ia)e the* had a son na'ed Ped"o, ho as bo"n on !u)ust %, %##%, and ho at his fathe".s death inhe"ited the t o said pa"cels. Ped"o also died on =ul* %7, %$>/, un'a""ied and ithout issue and b* this decease the t o pa"cels of land passed th"ou)h inhe"itance to his 'othe", Ma"celina 9d"oso. @ence the he"edita"* title he"eupon is based the application fo" "e)ist"ation of he" o ne"ship. T o le)iti'ate b"othe"s of Victo"iano Sablan L that is, t o uncles )e"'an of Ped"o Sablan L appea"ed in the case to oppose the "e)ist"ation, clai'in) one of t o thin)s, 9ithe" that the "e)ist"ation be denied, +o" that if )"anted to he" the "i)ht "ese"ved b* la to the opponents be "eco"ded in the "e)ist"ation of each pa"cel.+ 10. of 9., %%, %/.2 The &ou"t of Cand Re)ist"ation denied the "e)ist"ation and the application appealed th"ou)h a bill of e3ceptions. Re)ist"ation as denied because the t"ial cou"t held that the pa"cels of land in ;uestion pa"ta-e of the natu"e of p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved and that in such a case application could onl* be p"esented (ointl* in the na'es of the 'othe" and the said t o uncles of Ped"o Sablan. The appellant i'pu)ns as e""oneous the fi"st idea advanced 1second assi)n'ent of e""o"2, and denies that the land hich a"e the sub(ect 'atte" of the application a"e "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved L a contention e "e)a"d as indefensible. Facts, 1%2 The applicant ac;ui"ed said lands f"o' he" descendant Ped"o Sablan b* inhe"itance? 1/2 Ped"o Sablan had ac;ui"ed the' f"o' his ascendant Victo"iano Sablan, li-e ise b* inhe"itance? 142 Victo"iano Sablan had li-e ise ac;ui"ed the' b* inhe"itance f"o' his ascendants, Ma"iano Sablan and Ma"ia Rita Fe"nande:, the* havin) been ad(udicated to hi' in the pa"tition of he"edita"* p"ope"t* had bet een hi' and his b"othe"s. These a"e ad'itted facts. ! ve"* definite conclusions of la is that the he"edita"* title is one ithout a valuable conside"ation F)"atuitous titleG, and it is so cha"acte"i:ed in a"ticle $6# of the &ivil &ode, fo" he ho ac;ui"es b* inhe"itance )ives nothin) in "etu"n fo" hat he "eceives? and a ve"* definite conclusion of la also is that the uncles )e"'an a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee of blood "elationship. The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant p"ope"t* hich the latte" ac;ui"ed ithout a valuable conside"ation f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" f"o' a b"othe" o" siste", is unde" obli)ation to "ese"ve hat he has ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and belon) to the line hence the p"ope"t* p"oceeded. 1&ivil &ode, a"t. #%%.2 Ma"celina 9d"oso, ascendant of Ped"o Sablan, inhe"ited f"o' hi' these t o pa"cels of land hich he had ac;ui"ed ithout a valuable conside"ation L that is, b* inhe"itance f"o' anothe" ascendant, his fathe" Victo"iano. @avin) ac;ui"ed the' b* ope"ation of la , she is obli)ated to "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee and belon) to the line of Ma"iano Sablan and Ma"ia Rita Fe"nande:, hence the lands p"oceeded. The t"ial cou"t.s "ulin) that the* pa"ta-e of the natu"e p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved is the"efo"e in acco"dance ith the la . 0ut the appellant contends that it is not p"oven that the t o pa"cels of land in ;uestion have been ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la , and that onl* p"ope"t* ac;ui"ed ithout a valuable conside"ation, hich is b* ope"ation of la , is "e;ui"ed b* la to "ese"ved.

The appellees (ustl* a")ue that this defense as not alle)ed o" discussed in fi"st instance, but onl* he"ein. &e"tainl*, the alle)ation in fi"st instance as 'e"el* that +Ped"o Sablan ac;ui"ed the p"ope"t* in ;uestion in %##/, befo"e the enfo"ce'ent of the &ivil &ode, hich establishes the alle)ed "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, of hich the opponents spea-? hence, p"esc"iption of the "i)ht of action? and finall*, opponents. "enunciation of thei" "i)ht, ad'ittin) that it e3isted and that the* had it+ 1p. 5$2. @o eve" that be, it is not supe"flous to sa*, althou)h it 'a* be unnecessa"*, that the applicant inhe"ited the t o pa"cels of land f"o' he" son Ped"o, ho died +un'a""ied and ithout issue.+ The t"ial cou"t so held as a conclusion of fact, ithout an* ob(ection on the appellant.s pa"t. 10. of 9., %8, />.2 Ahen Ped"o Sablan died ithout issue, his 'othe" beca'e his hei" b* vi"tue of he" "i)ht to he" son.s le)al po"tion unde" a"ticle $47 of the &ivil &ode, In the absence of le)iti'ate child"en and descendants of the deceased, his ascendants shall f"o' hi', to the e3clusion of collate"als. The cont"a"* could onl* have occu""ed if the hei"ess had de'onst"ated that an* of these lands had passed into he" possession b* f"ee disposal in he" son.s ill? but the case p"esents no testa'enta"* p"ovision that de'onst"ate an* t"ansfe" of p"ope"t* f"o' the son to the 'othe", not b* ope"ation of la , but b* he" son.s ish. The le)al p"esu'ption is that the t"ansfe" of the t o pa"cels of land as abintestate o" b* ope"ation of la , and not b* ill o" the ish of the p"edecesso" in inte"est. 1!ct No. %$>, sec. 445, No. /6.2 !ll the p"ovision of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode have the"efo"e been full* co'plied ith. If Ped"o Sablan had instituted his 'othe" in a ill as the unive"sal hei"ess of his p"ope"t*, all he left at death ould not be "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, but onl* hat he ould have pe"fo"ce left he" as the le)al po"tion of a le)iti'ate ascendant. The le)al po"tion of the pa"ents o" ascendants is constituted b* one-half of the he"edita"* estate of the child"en and descendants. The latte" 'a* un"est"ictedl* dispose of the othe" half, ith the e3ception of hat is established in a"ticle #46. 1&ivil &ode, a"t. #>$.2 In such case onl* the half constitutin) the le)al po"tion ould be "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, because it is hat b* ope"ation of la could full to the 'othe" f"o' he" son.s inhe"itance? the othe" half at f"ee disposal ould not have to be "ese"ved. This is all that a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode sa*s. No e""o" has been incu""ed in holdin) that the t o pa"cels of land hich a"e the sub(ect 'atte" of the application a"e "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, because the inte"ested pa"t* has not p"oved that eithe" of the' beca'e he" inhe"itance th"ou)h the f"ee disposal of he" son. P"oof testate succession devolves upon the hei" o" hei"ess ho alle)es it. It 'ust be ad'itted that a half of Ped"o Sablan.s inhe"itance as ac;ui"ed b* his 'othe" b* ope"ation of la . The la p"ovides that the othe" half is also p"esu'ed to be ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la L that is, b* intestate succession. Othe" ise, p"oof to offset this p"esu'ption 'ust be p"esented b* the inte"ested pa"t*, that is, that the othe" half as ac;ui"ed b* the 'an.s ish and not b* ope"ation of la . No" is the thi"d assi)n'ents of e""o" ad'issible L that the t"ial cou"t failed to sustain the "enunciation of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, hich the applicant att"ibutes to the opponents. Such "enunciation does not appea" in the case. The appellant deduces it f"o' the fact that the appellees did not cont"adict the follo in) state'ent of he"s at the t"ial, The da* afte" my brother%in%law Pablo 6ablan dies and as bu"ied, his b"othe" ca'e to '* house and said that those "ice lands e"e 'ine, because e had al"ead* tal-ed about 'a-in) delive"* of the'. 1p. $%2. The othe" b"othe" alluded to is 0asilio Sablan, as stated on pa)e $/. F"o' the fact that 0asilio Sablan said that the lands belon) to the appellant and 'ust be delive"ed to he" it cannot be deduced that he "enounced the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved in such lands b* vi"tue of the p"ovisions of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, fo" the* "eall* belon) to he" and 'ust be delive"ed to he". The fou"th assi)n'ents of e""o" set up the defense of p"esc"iption of the "i)ht of action. The appellant alle)es p"esc"iption of the opponent.s "i)ht of action fo" "e;ui"in) fulfill'ent of the obli)ation the* att"ibute to he" "eco"din) in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"* the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, in acco"dance ith the p"ovisions of the Mo"t)a)e Ca ? and as such obli)ation is c"eated b* la , it p"esc"ibed in the ti'e fi3ed in No. / of section 54 of !ct No. %$>. She adds, +P"esc"iption of the right alle)ed to the "ese"ved b* fo"ce of la has not been invo-ed.+ 19i)ht alle)ation.2 The appellant does not state in he" b"ief hat those p"ovisions of the Mo"t)a)e Ca a"e. No" did she do so in fi"st instance, he"e she sa*s onl* the follo in), hich is ;uoted f"o' the "eco"d, +I do not "efe" to the p"esc"iption of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved in the p"ope"t*? I "efe" to the p"esc"iption of the "i)ht of action of those ho a"e entitled to the guaranty of that "i)ht fo" see-in) that )ua"ant*, fo" those ho a"e entitled to that "i)ht the Mo"t)a)e Ca )"ants a pe"iod of ti'e fo" "eco"din) it in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"*, if I "e'e'be" co""ectl*, ninet* da*s, fo" see-in) ent"* in the "e)ist"*? but as the* have not e3e"cised that "i)ht of action, such "i)ht of action fo" see-in) he"e that it be "eco"ded has p"esc"ibed. 1he right of action for requiring that the property be reserved has not p"esc"ibed, but the "i)ht of action fo" )ua"anteein) in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"* that this p"ope"t* is "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved+ 1p. 6$ of the "eco"d2.

The appellees "epl*, It is t"ue that thei" "i)ht of action has p"esc"ibed fo" "e;ui"in) the applicant to constitute the 'o"t)a)e i'posed b* the Mo"t)a)e Ca fo" )ua"anteein) the effectiveness of the "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved? but because that "i)ht of action has p"esc"ibed, that p"ope"t* has not been divested of its cha"acte" of p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved? that it has such cha"acte" b* vi"tue of a"ticle #%%/ of the &ivil &ode, hich ent into effect in the Philippine in Dece'be", %##$, and not b* vi"tue of the Mo"t)a)e Ca , hich onl* ent into effect in the count"* b* la of =ul* %5, %#$4? that f"o' Dece'be", %##$, to =ul*, %#$4, p"ope"t* hich unde" a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode ac;ui"ed the cha"acte" of p"ope"t* "ese"ved b* ope"ation of la as such independentl* of the Mo"t)a)e Ca , hich did not *et fo"' pa"t of the positive le)islation of the count"*? that althou)h the Mo"t)a)e Ca has been in effect in the count"* since =ul*, %#$4, still it has in no a* alte"ed the fo"ce of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, but has ope"ated to "einfo"ce the sa'e 'e"el* b* )"antin) the "i)ht of action to the pe"sons in hose favo" the "i)ht is "ese"ved b* ope"ation of la to "e;ui"e of the pe"son holdin) the p"ope"t* a )ua"ant* in the fo"' of a 'o"t)a)e to ans e" fo" the enfo"ce'ent, in due ti'e, of the "i)ht? that to lose the "i)ht of action to the )ua"ant* is not to lose the "i)ht itself? that the "i)ht "ese"ved is the p"incipal obli)ation and the 'o"t)a)e the accesso"* obli)ation, and loss of the accesso"* does not 'ean loss of the p"incipal. 1Fifth and si3th alle)ations.2 The e3istence of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved in the t o pa"cels of land in ;uestion bein) indisputable, even thou)h it be ad'itted that the "i)ht of action hich the Mo"t)a)e Ca )"ants as a )ua"ant* of final enfo"ce'ent of such "i)ht has p"esc"ibed, the onl* thin) to be dete"'ined b* this appeal is the ;uestion "aised in the fi"st assi)n'ent of e""o", that is, ho said t o pa"cels of land can and ou)ht to be "e)iste"ed, not in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"* ne l* established b* the Mo"t)a)e Ca , but in the "e)ist"* ne l* o")ani:ed b* !ct No. 5$6. 0ut as the have slipped into the alle)ations ;uoted so'e "athe" ine3act ideas that fu"the" obscu"e such an int"icate sub(ect as this of the "i)hts "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved in Spanish-Philippine la , a b"ief dis)"ession on the 'ost essential points 'a* not be out of place he"e. The Mo"t)a)e Ca of =ul* %5, %#$4, to hich the appellees allude, is the a'ended one of the colonies, not the fi"st enfo"ced in the colonies and conse;uentl* in the Philippines. The p"ea'ble of said a'ended Mo"t)a)e Ca states, The Mo"t)a)e Ca in fo"ce in Spain fo" thi"t* *ea"s ent into effect, ith the 'odifications necessa"* fo" its adaptation, in the !ntilles on Ma* %, %##>, and in the Philippines on Dece'be" %, %##$, thus co''encin) in those "e)ions the "enovation of the la on "eal p"ope"t*, and conse;uentl* of a)"a"ian c"edit. The &ivil &ode ent into effect in the Philippines in the sa'e *ea", %##$, but on the ei)ht da*. to be "ese"ved a"e distin)uished in the &ivil &ode, as set fo"th in a"ticle $6# the"eof, he"e it

T o -inds of p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la sa*s,

0esides the "ese"vation i'posed b* a"ticle 9,,, the ido o" ido e" cont"actin) a seconds 'a""ia)e shall be obli)ed to set apa"t fo" the child"en and descendants of the fi"st 'a""ia)e the o ne"ship of all the p"ope"t* he o" she 'a* have "e;ui"ed f"o' the deceased spouse b* ill, b* intestate succession, b* )ift, o" othe" t"ansfe" ithout a valuable conside"ation.+ The Mo"t)a)e Ca of Spain and the fi"st la that ent into effect in the Philippines on Dece'be" %, %#$, do not contain an* p"ovision that can be applied to the "i)ht "ese"ved b* a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, fo" such "i)ht is a c"eation of the &ivil &ode. In those la s appea" 'e"el* the p"ovisions intended to )ua"antee the effectiveness of the "i)ht in favo" of the child"en of the fi"st 'a""ia)e hen thei" fathe" o" 'othe" cont"acts a second 'a""ia)e. Neve"theless, the holdin) of the sup"e'e cou"t of Spain, fo" the fi"st ti'e set fo"th in the decision on appeal of Nove'be" #, %#$5, has been "eite"ated, That hile the p"ovisions of a"ticles $88 and $8# of the &ivil &ode that tend to secu"e the "i)ht "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved in the p"ope"t* "efe" especiall* to the spouses ho cont"act second o" late" 'a""ia)es, the* do not the"eb* cease to be applicable to the "i)ht establishes in a"ticle #%%, because, aside f"o' the le)al "eason, hich is the sa'e in both cases, such 'ust be the const"uction f"o' the i'po"tant and conclusive ci"cu'stance that said p"ovisions a"e set fo"th in the chapte" that deals ith inhe"itances in co''on, eithe" testate o" intestate, and because a"ticle $6#, hich heads the section that deals in )ene"al ith p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, 'a-es "efe"ence to the p"ovisions in a"ticle #%%? and it ould conse;uentl* be cont"adicto"* to the p"inciple of the la and of the co''on natu"e of said p"ovisions not to hold the' applicable to that "i)ht. Thus it as a)ain stated in a decision on appeal, Dece'be" 4>, %#$8, that, +!s the sup"e'e cou"t has al"ead* decla"ed, the )ua"anties that the &ode fi3es in a"ticle $88 and $8# fo" the "i)hts "e;ui"ed b* la to the "ese"ved to hich said a"ticles "efe", a"e applicable to the special "i)ht dealt ith in a"ticle #%%, because the sa'e p"inciple e3ists and because of the )ene"al natu"e of the p"ovisions of the chapte" in hich the* a"e found.+ F"o' this p"inciple of (u"isp"udence it is infe""ed that if f"o' Dece'be", %##$, to =ul*, %#$4, a case had occu""ed of a "i)ht "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved b* a"ticle #%%, the pe"sons entitled to such "i)ht ould have been able to institute, a)ainst the ascendant ho 'ust 'a-e the "ese"vation, p"oceedin)s fo" the assu"ance and )ua"ant* that a"ticle $88 and $8# )"ant to the child"en of a fi"st 'a""ia)e a)ainst thei" fathe" o" 'othe" ho has 'a""ied a)ain. The p"oceedin)s fo" assu"ance, unde" a"ticle $88? a"e, Invento"* of the p"ope"t* sub(ect to the "i)ht "ese"ved, annotation in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"* of such "i)ht "ese"ved in the "eal p"ope"t* and app"aisal of the pe"sonal p"ope"t*? and the )ua"ant*, unde" a"ticle $8#, is the assu"ance b* 'o"t)a)e, in the case of "ealt*, of the value of hat is validl* alienated.

0ut since the a'ended Mo"t)a)e Ca ent into effect b* la of =ul* %5, %#$4, in the Philippines this is not onl* a p"inciple of (u"isp"udence hich 'a* be invo-ed fo" the applicabilit* to the "i)ht "ese"ved in a"ticle #%% of the "e'edies of assu"ance and )ua"ant* p"ovided fo" the "i)ht "ese"ved in a"ticle $6#, but the"e is a positive p"ovision of said la , hich is an advanta)e ove" the la of Spain, to it, a"ticle %$$, hich "ead thus, The special 'o"t)a)e fo" )ua"anteein) the "i)ht "ese"ved b* a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode can onl* be "e;ui"ed b* the "elatives in hose favo" the p"ope"t* is to be "ese"ved, if the* a"e of a)e? if 'ino"s, it ill be "e;ui"e b* the pe"son ho should le)all* "ep"esent the'. In eithe" case the "i)ht of the pe"sons in hose favo" the p"ope"t* 'ust be "ese"ved ill be secu"ed b* the same "e;uisites as set fo"th in the p"ecedin) a"ticle 1"elative to the "i)ht "ese"ved b* a"ticle $6# of the &ivil &ode2, appl*in) to the pe"son obligated to "ese"ve the "i)ht the p"ovisions ith "espect to the father. In a"ticle %6# of the sa'e la the ne thus, subsection / is added in connection ith a"ticle %$$ ;uoted, so that said a"ticle %6# "eads as

Ce)al 'o"t)a)e is established, %. . . . /. In favo" of the "elatives to ho' a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode "efe"s, fo" the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved, upon the p"ope"t* of the pe"son obli)ed to "ese"ve it. This bein) ad'itted, and ad'itted also that both the liti)atin) pa"ties a)"ee that the pe"iod of ninet* da*s fi3ed fo" the "i)ht of action to the )ua"ant*, that is, to "e;ui"e the 'o"t)a)e that )ua"antees the effectiveness of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, has p"esc"ibed, it is necessa"* to la* do n a p"inciple in this 'atte". No it should b* noted that such action has not p"esc"ibed, because the pe"iod of ninet* da*s fi3ed b* the Mo"t)a)e Ca is not fo" the e3e"cise of the "i)ht of action of the pe"sons entitled to the "i)ht "ese"ved, but fo" the fulfill'ent of the obli)ation of the pe"son ho 'ust 'a-e the "ese"vation. !"ticle %$% of the "eads thus, +If ninet* da*s pass ithout the fathe".s institutin) in cou"t the p"oceedin) to hich the fo"e)oin) a"ticle "efe"s, the "elatives the'selves 'a* de'and fulfill'ent, etc., . . . appl*in), acco"din) to said a"ticle %$$, to the pe"son obli)ated to "ese"ve the "i)ht the p"ovisions ith "espect to the fathe".+ !"ticle />4 of the "e)ulation fo" the application of the Mo"t)a)e Ca sa*s, +In the case of a"ticle %$$ of the la the p"oceedin)s to hich a"ticle %$> the"eof "efe"s ill be instituted ithin the ninet* da*s succeedin) the date of the date of the acceptation of the inhe"itance b* the pe"son obli)ated to "ese"ve the p"ope"t*? after this period has elapsed, the inte"ested pa"ties 'a* "e;ui"e the institution of such p"oceedin)s, if the* a"e of a)e? and in an* othe" case, thei" le)al "ep"esentatives.+ Thus it clea"l* appea"s that the lapse of the ninet* da*s is not the e3pi"ation b* p"esc"iption of the pe"iod fo" the "i)ht 'ust be "ese"ved, but "eall* the co''ence'ent the"eof, enables the' to e3e"cise it at an* ti'e, since no li'its is set in the la . So, if the annotation of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved in the t o pa"cels of land in ;uestion 'ust be 'ade in the p"ope"t* "e)ist"* of the Mo"t)a)e Ca , the pe"sons entitled to it 'a* no institute p"oceedin)s to that end, and an alle)ation of p"esc"iption a)ainst the e3e"cise of such "i)ht of action cannot be sustained. Since the applicant confesses that she does not alle)e p"esc"iption of the "i)ht of action fo" requiring that the property be reserved, fo" she e3plicitl* so stated at the t"ial, and as the case p"esents no necessit* fo" the p"oceedin)s that should be instituted in acco"dance ith the p"ovisions of the Mo"t)a)e Ca , this p"esc"iption of the "i)ht of action cannot ta-e place, because such "i)ht of action does not e3ist ith "efe"ence to institutin) p"oceedin)s fo" annotation in the "e)ist"* of !ct No. 5$6 of the "i)ht to the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved. It is sufficient, as as done in the p"esent case, to inte"vene in the "e)ist"ation p"oceedin)s ith the clai' set up b* the t o opponents fo" "eco"din) the"ein the "i)ht "ese"ved in eithe" pa"cel of land. No co'es the 'ain point in the appeal. The t"ial cou"t denied the "e)ist"ation because of this findin) set fo"th in its decision, !bsolute title to the t o pa"cels of land undoubtedl* belon)s to the applicant and the t o uncles of the deceased Ped"o Sablan, and the application cannot be 'ade e3cept in the na'e of all of the' in co''on. 10. of 9., p. />.2 It 'ust be "e'e'be"ed that absolute title consists of the "i)hts to use, en(o*, dispose of, and "ecove". The pe"son ho has in hi'self all these "i)hts has the absolute o" co'plete o ne"ship of the thin)? othe" ise, the pe"son ho has the "i)ht to use and en(o* ill have the usuf"uct, and the pe"son ho has the "i)hts of disposal and "ecove"* the di"ect title. The pe"son ho b* la , act, o" cont"act is )"anted the "i)ht of usuf"uct has the fi"st t o "i)hts o" usin) an en(o*in), and then he is said not to have the fee si'ple L that is, the "i)hts of disposal and "ecove"*, hich pe"tain to anothe" ho, afte" the usuf"uct e3pi"es, ill co'e into full o ne"ship. The ;uestion set up in the fi"st assi)n'ent of e""o" of the appellant.s b"ief is this, :hat are the rights in the property of the person who holds it subject to the reservation of article 9,, of the ivil ode;

The"e a"e not lac-in) "ite"s ho sa*, onl* those of a usuf"uctua"*, the ulti'ate title belon)in) to the pe"son in hose favo" the "ese"vation is 'ade. If that e"e so, the pe"son holdin) the p"ope"t* could not appl* fo" "e)ist"ation of title, but the pe"son in hose favo" it 'ust be "ese"ved, ith the fo"'e".s consent. This opinion does not see' to be ad'issible, althou)h it appea"s to be suppo"ted b* decisions of the sup"e'e cou"t of Spain of Ma* /%, %#6%, and =une %#, %##>, p"io" to the &ivil &ode, and of =une //, %#$7, so'e hat subse;uent to the enfo"ce'ent the"eof. !nothe" "ite" sa*s, +This opinion onl* loo-s at t o salient points L the usuf"uct and the fee si'ple? the "e'ainin) featu"es of the a""an)e'ent a"e not pe"ceived, but beco'e obscu"e in the p"esence of that deceptive e'phasis hich onl* b"in)s out t o thin)s, that the pe"son holdin) the p"ope"t* ill en(o* it and that he 'ust -eep hat he en(o*s fo" othe" pe"sons.+ 1Man"esa, VII, %#$.2 In anothe" place he sa*s, +Ae do not believe that the thi"d opinion can no be 'aintained L that is, that the su"vivin) spouse 1the pe"son obli)ed b* a"ticle $6# to 'a-e the "ese"vation2 can be "e)a"ded as a 'e"e usuf"uctua"* and the descendants i''ediatel* as the o ne"? such theo"* has no se"ious foundation in the &ode.+ 1+bid., /4#.2 The ascendants ho inhe"its f"o' a descendants, hethe" b* the latte".s ish o" b* ope"ation of la , "e;ui"es the inhe"itance b* vi"tue of a title pe"fectl* t"ansfe""in) absolute o ne"ship. !ll the att"ibutes of the "i)ht of o ne"ship belon) to hi' e3clusivel* L use, en(o*'ent, disposal and "ecove"*. This absolute o ne"ship, hich is inhe"ent in the he"edita"* title, is not alte"ed in the least, if the"e be no "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in the line hence the p"ope"t* p"oceeds o" the* die befo"e the ascendant hei" ho is the possesso" and absolute o ne" of the p"ope"t*. If the"e should be "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee ho belon) to the line hence the p"ope"t* p"oceeded, then a li'itation to that absolute o ne"ship ould a"ise. The natu"e and scope of this li'itation 'ust be dete"'ined ith e3actness in o"de" not to vitiate "i)hts that the la ishes to be effective. The opinion hich 'a-es this li'itation consist in "educin) the ascendant hei" to the condition in of a 'e"e usuf"uctua"*, dep"ivin) hi' of the "i)ht of disposal and "ecove"*, does not see' to have an* suppo"t in the la , as it does not have, acco"din) to the opinion that he has been e3p"essed in spea-in) of the "i)hts of the fathe" o" 'othe" ho has 'a""ied a)ain. The"e is a 'a"-ed diffe"ence bet een the case he"e a 'an.s ish institutes t o pe"sons as his hei"s, one as usuf"uctua"* and the othe" as o ne" of his p"ope"t*, and the case of the ascendant in a"ticle #%% o" of the fathe" o" 'othe" in a"ticle $6#. In the fi"st case, the"e is not the sli)htest doubt that the title to the he"edita"* p"ope"t* "esides in the he"edita"* o ne" and he can dispose of and "ecove" it, hile the usuf"uctua"* can in no a* pe"fo"' an* act of disposal of the he"edita"* p"ope"t* 1e3cept that he 'a* dispose of the "i)ht of usuf"uct in acco"dance ith the p"ovisions of a"ticle 5#> of the &ivil &ode2, o" an* act of "ecove"* the"eof e3cept the li'ited one in the fo"' p"esc"ibed in a"ticle 5#6 of the &ode itself, because he totall* lac-s the fee si'ple. 0ut the ascendants ho holds the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* a"ticle #%% to be "ese"ved, and the fathe" of 'othe" "e;ui"ed b* a"ticle $#6 to "ese"ve the "i)ht, can dispose of the p"ope"t* the* 'i)ht itself, the fo"'e" f"o' his descendant and the latte" f"o' his of he" child in fi"st 'a""ia)e, and "ecove" it f"o' an*one ho 'a* un(ustl* detain it, hile the pe"sons in hose favo" the "i)ht is "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved in eithe" case cannot pe"fo"' an* act hatsoeve" of disposal o" of "ecove"*. !"ticle $87 states e3plicitl* that the fathe" o" 'othe" "e;ui"ed b* a"ticle $6#8 to "ese"ve the "i)ht 'a* dispose of the p"ope"t* itself, !lienation of the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved hich 'a* be 'ade b* the su"vivin) spouse after cont"actin) a second 'a""ia)e shall be valid onl* if at his o" he" death no le)iti'ate child"en o" descendants of the fi"st 'a""ia)e su"vive, ithout p"e(udice to the p"ovisions of the Mo"t)a)e of Ca . It thus appea"s that the alienation is valid, althou)h not alto)ethe" effective, but unde" a condition subse;uent, to it, +If at his o" he" death no le)iti'ate child"en o" descendants of the fi"st 'a""ia)e su"vive.+ If the title did not "eside in the pe"son holdin) the p"ope"t* to be "ese"ved, his alienation the"eof ould necessa"il* be null and void, as e3ecuted ithout a "i)ht to do so and ithout a "i)ht hich he could t"ans'it to the ac;ui"e". The la sa*s that the alienation subsists 1to sub(ect is to continue to e3ist2 + ithout p"e(udice to the p"ovisions of the Mo"t)a)e Ca .+ !"ticle %>$ of this Ca sa*s, The possesso" of p"ope"t* sub(ect to conditions subse;uent that are still pending 'a* 'o"t)a)e o" alienate it, p"ovided al a*s that he p"ese"ve the "i)ht of the pa"ties inte"ested in said conditions b* e3p"essl* "ese"vin) that "i)ht in the "e)ist"ation. In such case, the child o" le)iti'ate descendants of the fi"st 'a""ia)e in hose favo" the "i)ht is "ese"ved cannot i'pu)n the validit* of the alienation so lon) as the condition subse;uent is pendin), that is, so lon) as the "e'a""ied spouse ho 'ust "ese"ve the "i)ht is alive, because it 'i)ht easil* happen that the pe"son ho 'ust "ese"ve the "i)ht should outlive all the pe"son in hose favo" the "i)ht is "ese"ved and then the"e ould be no "eason fo" the condition subse;uent that the* su"vive hi', and, the ob(ect of the la havin) disappea"ed, the "i)ht "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved ould disappea", and the alienation ould not onl* be valid but also in ve"* a* absolutel* effective. &onse;uentl*, the alienation is valid hen the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved to the child"en is "espected? hile the effects of the alienation depend upon a condition, because it ill o" ill not beco'e definite, it ill continue to e3ist o" cease to e3ist, acco"din) to ci"cu'stances. This is hat the la establishes ith "efe"ence to the "ese"vation of a"ticle $6#, he"ein the le)islato" e3p"essl* di"ects that the su"vivin) spouse ho cont"acts a second 'a""ia)e shall "ese"ve to the child"en o" descendants of the fi"st 'a""ia)e ownership. !"ticle #%% sa*s nothin) 'o"e than that the ascendants 'ust 'a-e the "ese"vation. Man"esa, ith his "eco)ni:ed abilit*, su''a"i:es the sub(ect unde" the headin), +4ights and obli)ations du"in) the e3istence of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved,+ in these o"ds,

Du"in) the hole pe"iod bet een the constitution in le)al fo"' of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved and the e3tinction the"eof, the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee, afte" the "i)ht that in their turn 'a* pe"tain to the' has been assured, have onl* an e3pectation, and the"efo"e the* do not even have the capacit* to t"ans'it that e3pectation to thei" hei"s. The ascendant is in the fi"st place a usuf"uctua"* ho should use and en(o* the thin)s acco"din) to thei" natu"e, in the 'anne" and fo"' al"ead* set fo"th in co''entin) upon the a"ticle of the &ode "efe""in) to use and usuf"uct. 0ut since in addition to bein) the usuf"uctua"* he is, even thou)h conditionall*, the o ne" in fee si'ple of the p"ope"t*, he can dispose of it in the 'anne" p"ovided in a"ticle $85 and $86 of the sa'e &ode. Doubt a"ose also on this point, but the !ireccion 2eneral of the "e)ist"ies, in an opinion of =une /7, %#$/, decla"ed that a"ticles $85 and $87, hich a"e applicable b* analo)*, fo" the* "efe" to p"ope"t* "ese"ved b* la , "eveal in the clea"est 'anne" the attitude of the le)islato" on this sub(ect, and the "elatives ith the thi"d de)"ee ou)ht not to be 'o"e p"ivile)ed in the "i)ht "ese"ved in a"ticle #%% than the child"en in the "i)ht "ese"ved b* a"ticle $87, chiefl* fo" the "eason that the "i)ht "e;ui"ed to be "ese"ved ca""ies ith it a condition subse;uent, and the p"ope"t* sub(ect to those conditions can validl* be alienated in acco"dance ith a"ticle %>$ of the Mo"t)a)e Ca , such alienation to continue, pendin) fulfill'ent of the condition.+ 1&ivil &ode, VI, /8>.2 !nothe" co''entato" co""obo"ates the fo"e)oin) in eve"* a*. @e sa*s, The ascendants ac;ui"es that p"ope"t* ith a condition subse;uent, to it, hethe" o" not the"e e3ists at the ti'e of his death "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the descendants f"o' ho' the* inhe"it in the line hence the p"ope"t* p"oceeds. If such "elatives e3ist, the* ac;ui"e o ne"ship of the p"ope"t* at the death of the ascendants. If the* do not e3ist, the ascendants can f"eel* dispose the"eof. If this is t"ue, since the possesso" of p"ope"t* sub(ect to conditions subse;uent can alienate and encu'be" it, the ascendants 'a* alienate the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved, but he ill alienate hat he has and nothin) 'o"e because no one can )ive hat does not belon) to hi', and the ac;ui"e" ill the"efo"e "eceive a limited and revocable title. The "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee ill in thei" tu"n have an e3pectation to the p"ope"t* hile the ascendant lives, an e3pectation that cannot be t"ans'itted to thei" hei"s, unless these a"e also ithin the thi"d de)"ee. !fte" the pe"son ho is "e;ui"ed b* la to "ese"ve the "i)ht has died, the "elatives 'a* "escind the alienation of the "ealt* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved and the* ill co'plete o ne"ship, in fee simple, because the condition and the usuf"uct have been te"'inated b* the death of the usuf"uctua"*. 1$orell, 5studios sobre bienes reservable, 4>5, 4>7.2 The conclusion is that the pe"son "e;ui"ed b* a"ticle #%% to "ese"ve the "i)ht has, be*ond an* doubt at all, the "i)hts of use and usuf"uct. @e has, 'o"eove", fo" the "easons set fo"th, the le)al title and do'inion, althou)h unde" a condition subse;uent. &lea"l* he has, unde" an e3p"ess p"ovision of the la , the "i)ht to dispose of the p"ope"t* "ese"ved, and to dispose of is to alienate, althou)h unde" a condition. @e has the "i)ht to "ecove" it, because he is the one ho possesses o" should possess it and have title to it, althou)h a li'ited and "evocable one. In a o"d, the le)al title and do'inion, even thou)h unde" a condition, "eside in hi' hile he lives. !fte" the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved has been assu"ed, he can do an*thin) that a )enuine o ne" can do. On the othe" hand, the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in hose favo" of the "i)ht is "ese"ved cannot dispose of the p"ope"t*, fi"st because it is no a*, eithe" actuall*, const"uctivel* o" fo"'all*, in thei" possession? and, 'o"eove", because the* have no title of o ne"ship o" of the fee si'ple hich the* can t"ans'it to anothe", on the h*pothesis that onl* hen the pe"son ho 'ust "ese"ve the "i)ht should die befo"e the' ill the* ac;ui"e it, thus c"eatin) a fee si'ple, and onl* then ill the* ta-e thei" place in the succession of the descendants of ho' the* a"e "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee, that it to sa*, a second contin)ent place in said le)iti'ate succession in the fashion of aspi"ants to a possible futu"e le)ac*. If an* of the pe"sons in hose favo" the "i)ht is "ese"ved should, afte" thei" "i)hts has been assu"ed in the "e)ist"*, da"e to dispose of even nothin) 'o"e than the fee si'ple of the p"ope"t* to be "ese"ved his act ould be null and void, fo", as as definitel* decided in the decision on appeal of Dece'be" 4>, %#$8, it is i'possible to dete"'ine the pa"t +that 'i)ht pe"tain the"ein to the "elative at the ti'e he e3e"cised the "i)ht, because in vie of the natu"e and scope of the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved the e3tent of his "i)ht cannot be fo"eseen, fo" it 'a* disappea" b* his d*in) befo"e the pe"son "e;ui"ed to "ese"ve it, (ust as 'a* even beco'e absolute should that pe"son die.+ &a"eful conside"ation of the 'atte" fo"ces the conclusion that no act of disposal inter vivos of the pe"son "e;ui"ed b* la to "ese"ve the "i)ht can be i'pu)ned b* hi' in hose favo" it is "ese"ved, because such pe"son has all, absolutel* all, the "i)hts inhe"ent in o ne"ship, e3cept that the le)al title is bu"dened ith a condition that the thi"d pa"t* ac;ui"e" 'a* asce"tain f"o' the "e)ist"* in o"de" to -no that he is ac;ui"in) a title sub(ect to a condition subse;uent. In conclusion, it see's to us that onl* an act of disposal mortis causa in favo" of pe"sons othe" than "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the descendants f"o' ho' he )ot the p"ope"t* to be "ese"ved 'ust be p"ohibited to hi', because this alone has been the ob(ect of the la , +To p"event pe"sons outside a fa'il* f"o' secu"in), b* so'e special accident of life, p"ope"t* that ould othe" ise have "e'ained the"ein.+ 1Decision of Dece'be" 4>, %#$8.2 P"acticall*, even in the opinion of those ho "educe the pe"son "ese"vin) the "i)ht to the condition of a 'e"e usuf"uctua"*, the pe"son in hose favo" it 'ust be "ese"ved cannot attac- the alienation that 'a* be absolutel* 'ade of the p"ope"t* the la "e;ui"es to be "ese"ved, in the p"esent case, that hich the appellant has 'ade of the t o pa"cels of land in ;uestion to a thi"d pa"t*, because the conditional alienation that is pe"'itted he" is e;uivalent to an alienation of the usuf"uct, hich is autho"i:ed b* a"ticle 5#> of the &ivil &ode, and, p"acticall*, use and en(o*'ent of the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to be "ese"ved a"e all that the pe"son ho 'ust "ese"ve it has du"in) his lifeti'e, and in alienatin) the usuf"uct all the usefulness of the thin) ould be t"ans'itted in an incont"ove"tible 'anne". The ;uestion as to hethe" o" not she t"ans'its the fee si'ple is pu"el* acade'ic, sine re, fo" it is not "eal, actual positive, as is the case of the institution of t o hei"s, one a usuf"uctua"* and the othe" the o ne", b* the e3p"ess ish of the p"edecesso" in inte"est.

If the pe"son ho' a"ticle #%% "e;ui"es to "ese"ve the "i)ht has all the "i)hts inhe"ent in o ne"ship, he can use, en(o*, dispose of and "ecove" it? and if, in addition to usuf"uctua"*, he is in fact and in la the "eal o ne" and can alienate it, althou)h unde" a condition, the hole ;uestion is "educed to the follo in) te"'s, &annot the hei" of the p"ope"t* "e;ui"ed b* la to "ese"ved, 'e"el* because a condition subse;uent is anne3ed to his "i)ht of disposal, hi'self alone "e)iste" the o ne"ship of the p"ope"t* he has inhe"ited, hen the pe"sons in hose favo" the "ese"vation 'ust be 'ade de)"ee the"eto, p"ovided that the "i)ht "ese"ved to the' in the t o pa"cels of land be "eco"ded, as the la p"ovidesD It is ell -no n that the vendee unde" pacto de retracto ac;ui"es all the "i)hts of the vendo", The vendee substitutes the vendo" in all his "i)hts and actions. 1&ivil &ode, a"t. %7%%.2 If the vendo" can "e)iste" his title, the vendee can also "e)iste" this sa'e title afte" he has once ac;ui"ed it. This title, ho eve", in its att"ibute of bein) disposable, has a condition subse;uent anne3ed L that the alienation the pu"chase" 'a* 'a-e ill be te"'inated, if the vendo" should e3e"cise the "i)ht )"anted hi' b* a"ticle %7>8, hich sa*s, &onventional "ede'ption shall ta-e place hen the vendo" "ese"ves to hi'self the "i)ht to "ecove" the thin) sold, ith the obli)ation to co'pl* ith a"ticle %7%#, and hateve" 'o"e 'a* have been a)"eed upon,+ that is, if he "ecove"s the thin) sold b* "epa*in) the vendee the p"ice of the sale and othe" e3penses. Not ithstandin) this condition subse;uent, it is a point not at all doubtful no that the vendee 'a* "e)iste" his title in the sa'e a* as the o ne" of a thin) 'o"t)a)ed L that is to sa*, the latte" ith the consent of his c"edito" and the fo"'e" ith the consent of the vendo". @e 'a* alienate the thin) bou)ht hen the ac;ui"e" -no s b* ell f"o' the title ente"ed in the "e)ist"* that he ac;ui"es a title "evocable afte" a fi3ed pe"iod, a thin) 'uch 'o"e ce"tain and to be e3pected than the pu"el* contin)ent e3pectation of the pe"son in hose favo" is "ese"ved a "i)ht to inhe"it so'e da* hat anothe" has inhe"ited. The pu"pose of the la ould be defeated in not appl*in) to the pe"son ho 'ust 'a-e the "ese"vation the p"ovision the"ein "elative to the vendee unde" pacto de retracto, since the a")u'ent in his favo" is the 'o"e po e" and conclusive? ubi eadem ratio, eadem legis dispositivo. The"efo"e, e "eve"se the (ud)'ent appealed f"o', and in lieu the"eof decide and decla"e that the applicant is entitled to "e)iste" in he" o n na'e the t o pa"cels of land hich a"e the sub(ect 'atte" of the applicants, "eco"din) in the "e)ist"ation the "i)ht "e;ui"ed b* a"ticle #%% to be "ese"ved to eithe" o" both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and 0asilio Sablan, should the* su"vive he"? ithout special findin)s as to costs. 1orres, $apa, (ohnson, arson and 1rent, ((., concu".

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 9N 0!N&

G.R. No. L-148,6

No9ember 1,, 1919

ENC!RN!C"ON LORENT"NO, ET !L., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MERCE#ES LORENT"NO, ET !L., defendants-appellees. 4amon <uerubin, 6imeon 4amos and 7rense and 8era for appellants. 8icente Fo', (ose 6ingsong 1ongson and Angel 5ncarnacion for appellees. TORRES, J.: On =anua"* %8, %$%#, counsel fo" 9nca"nacion 1to)ethe" ith he" husband Si'eon Se""ano2, Bab"iel, Ma)dalena, Ra'on, Mi)uel, Victo"ino, and !ntonino of the su"na'e Flo"entino? fo" Mi)uel Flo"entino, )ua"dian ad litem of the 'ino" Rosa"io Flo"entino? fo" 9u)enio Sin)son, the fathe" and )ua"dian ad litem of 9'ilia, =esus, Cou"des, &a"idad, and Dolo"es of the su"na'e Sin)son * Flo"entino? and fo" 9u)enio Sin)son, )ua"dian of the 'ino"s =ose and !suncion Flo"entino, filed a co'plaint in the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ilocos Su", a)ainst Me"cedes Flo"entino and he" husband, alle)in) as follo s, That !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II 'a""ied the fi"st ti'e !ntonia Fa: de Ceon? that du"in) the 'a""ia)e he be)ot nine child"en called, =ose, =uan, Ma"ia, 9nca"nacion, Isabel, 9spi"ita, Bab"iel, Ped"o, and Ma)dalena of the su"na'e Flo"entino * de Ceon? that on beco'in) a ido e" he 'a""ied the second ti'e Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon ith ho' he had t o child"en, Me"cedes and !polonio III of the su"na'e Flo"entino * de Ceon? that !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II died on Feb"ua"* %4, %#$>? that he as su"vived b* his second ife Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon and the ten child"en fi"st above 'entioned? that his eleventh son, !polonio III, as bo"n on the follo in) 5th of Ma"ch %#$>. That of the deceased !polonio Isabelo.s afo"e'entioned eleven child"en, (uan, $aria and +sabel died sin)le, without leaving any ascendants or descendants? that Ra'on, Mi)uel, Victo"ino, !ntonio, and Rosa"io a"e the le)iti'ate child"en of the deceased =ose Flo"entino ho as one of the child"en of the deceased !polonio Isabelo? that 9'ilia, =esus, Cou"des, &a"idad, and Dolo"es a"e the le)iti'ate child"en of 9spi"ita Flo"entino, no deceased, and he" husband 9u)enio Sin)son? that =ose and !suncion a"e the child"en of Ped"o Flo"entino, anothe" son of the deceased !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino. That on =anua"* %8 and Feb"ua"* %4, %#$>, !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino e3ecuted a ill befo"e the nota"* public of Ilocos Su", institutin) as his unive"sal hei"s his afo"e'entioned ten child"en, the posthu'os !polonio III and his ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon? that he decla"ed, in one of the pa"a)"aphs of said ill, all his p"ope"t* should be divided a'on) all of his child"en of both 'a""ia)es. That, in the pa"tition of the said testato".s estate, the"e as )iven to !polonio Flo"entino III, his posthu'os son, the p"ope"t* 'a"-ed ith the lette"s !, 0, &, D, 9, and F in the co'plaint, a )old "osa"*, pieces of )old, of silve" and of table se"vice, livestoc-, pala*, so'e pe"sonal p"ope"t* and othe" ob(ects 'entioned in the co'plaint. That !polonio Flo"entino III, the posthu'os son of the second 'a""ia)e, died in %#$%? that his 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, succeeded to all his p"ope"t* desc"ibed in the co'plaint? that the ido , Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon died on Nove'be" %#, %$>#, leavin) a ill institutin) as he" unive"sal hei"ess he" onl* livin) dau)hte", Me"cedes Flo"entino? that, as such hei", said dau)hte" too- possession of all the p"ope"t* left at the death of he" 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon? that a'on) sa'e is included the p"ope"t*, desc"ibed in the co'plaint, hich the said Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon inhe"ited f"o' he" deceased son, the posthu'os !polonio, as "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that, as a "ese"vist, the hei" of the said Me"cedes Flo"entino deceased had been )athe"in) fo" he"self alone the f"uits of lands desc"ibed in the co'plaint? that each and eve"* one of the pa"ties 'entioned in said co'plaint is entitled to one-seventh of the f"uits of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* desc"ibed the"ein, eithe" b* di"ect pa"ticipation o" b* "ep"esentation, in the 'anne" 'entioned in pa"a)"aph $ of the co'plaint. That seve"al ti'es the plaintiffs have, in an a'icable 'anne", as-ed the defendants to delive" thei" co""espondin) pa"t of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that ithout an* (ustifiable 'otive the defendants have "efused and do "efuse to delive" said p"ope"t* o" to pa* fo" its value? that fo" nine *ea"s Me"cedes Flo"entino has been "eceivin), as "ent fo" the lands 'entioned, 46> bundles of pala* at fift* pesos pe" bundle and $> bundles of co"n at fou" pesos pe" bundle? that the"eb* the plaintiffs have suffe"ed da'a)es in the su' of fifteen thousand fou" hund"ed and t ent*-ei)ht pesos and fift*-ei)ht centavos, in addition to th"ee hund"ed and ei)ht pesos and fift*ei)ht centavos fo" the value of the f"uits not )athe"ed, of one thousand pesos 1P%,>>>2 fo" the un(ustifiable "etention of the afo"e'entioned "ese"vable p"ope"t* and fo" the e3penses of this suit. Ahe"efo"e the* p"a* it be decla"ed that all the fo"e)oin) p"ope"t* is "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that the plaintiffs had and do have a "i)ht to the sa'e, in the ;uantit* and p"opo"tion 'entioned in the afo"e'entioned pa"a)"aph $ of the co'plaint? that the defendants Me"cedes Flo"entino and he" husband be o"de"ed to delive" to the plaintiffs thei" sha"e of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion, of the pala* and of the co"n above 'entioned, o" thei" value? and that the* be conde'ned to pa* the plaintiffs the su' of one thousand pesos 1P%,>>>2 to)ethe" ith the costs of this instance.

To the p"ecedin) co'plaint counsel fo" the defendants de'u""ed, alle)in) that the cause of action is based on the obli)ation of the ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon to "ese"ve the p"ope"t* she inhe"ited f"o' he" deceased son !polonio Flo"entino * de Ceon ho, in tu"n, inhe"ited sa'e f"o' his fathe" !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino? that, the"e bein) no alle)ation to the cont"a"*, it is to be p"esu'ed that the ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon did not "e'a""* afte" the death of this husband no" have an* natu"al child? that the "i)ht clai'ed b* the plaintiffs is not that 'entioned in a"ticle $6# and the follo in) a"ticles, but that established in a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode? that the ob(ect of the p"ovisions of the afo"e'entioned a"ticles is to avoid the t"ansfe" of said "ese"vable p"ope"t* to those e3t"aneous to the fa'il* of the o ne" the"eof? that if the p"ope"t* inhe"ited b* the ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon f"o' he" deceased son !polonio Flo"entino * Fa: de Ceon 1p"ope"t* hich o"i)inated f"o' his fathe" and he" husband2 has all passed into the hands of the defendant, Me"cedes Flo"entino * 9nca"nacion, a dau)hte" of the co''on ancesto".s second 'a""ia)e 1said !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino ith the deceased Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon2 it is evident that the p"ope"t* left at the death of the posthu'os son !polonio Flo"entino * Fa: de Ceon did not pass afte" the death of his 'othe" Seve"ina, his le)iti'ate hei"s as an ascendant, into the hands of st"an)e"s? that said p"ope"t* havin) been inhe"ited b* Me"cedes Flo"entino * 9nca"nacion f"o' he" 'othe" 1Seve"ina2, a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode is absolutel* inapplicable to the p"esent case because, hen the defendant Me"cedes, b* ope"ation la , ente"ed into and succeeded to, the possession, of the p"ope"t* la full* inhe"ited f"o' he" 'othe" Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, said p"ope"t* had, hile in the possession of he" 'othe", lost the cha"acte" of "ese"vable p"ope"t* L the"e bein) a le)iti'ate dau)hte" of Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon ith the "i)ht to succeed he" in all he" "i)hts, p"ope"t* and actions? that the "est"aints of the la he"eb* said p"ope"t* 'a* not passed into the possession of st"an)e"s a"e void, inas'uch as the said ido had no obli)ation to "ese"ve sa'e, as Me"cedes Flo"entino is a fo"ced hei"ess of he" 'othe" Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon? that, in the p"esent case, the"e is no p"ope"t* "ese"ved fo" the plaintiffs since the"e is a fo"ced hei"ess, entitled to the p"ope"t* left b* the death of the ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon ho neve" "e'a""ied? that the obli)ation to "ese"ve is seconda"* to the dut* of "espectin) the le)iti'e? that in the instant case, the ido Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon as in dut* bound to "espect the le)iti'e of he" dau)hte" Me"cedes the defendant? that he" obli)ation to "ese"ve the p"ope"t* could not be fulfilled to the p"e(udice of the le)iti'e hich belon)s to he" fo"ced hei"ess, citin) in suppo"t of these state'ents the decision of the sup"e'e cou"t of Spain of =anua"* 5, %$%%? that, finall*, the application of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode in favo" of the plaintiffs ould p"esuppose the e3clusion of the defendant f"o' he"e "i)ht to succeed e3clusivel* to all the p"ope"t*, "i)hts and actions left b* he" le)iti'ate 'othe", althou)h the said defendant has a bette" "i)ht than the plaintiffs? and that the"e ould be in(ustice if the p"ope"t* clai'ed be ad(udicated to the plaintiffs, as ell as violation of section 7 of the =ones Ca hich invalidates an* la dep"ivin) an* pe"son of an e;ual p"otection. Ahe"efo"e the* p"a*ed that the de'u""e" be sustained, ith costs a)ainst the plaintiffs. !fte" the hea"in) of the de'u""e", on !u)ust //, %$%#, the (ud)e absolved the defendants f"o' the co'plaint and conde'ned the plaintiffs to pa* the costs. &ounsel fo" the plaintiffs e3cepted to this o"de", 'oved to vacate it and to )"ant the' a ne t"ial? said 'otion as ove""uled? the plaintiffs e3pected the"eto and filed the co""espondin) bill of e3ceptions hich as allo ed, ce"tified and fo" a"ded to the cle"- of this cou"t. On appeal the t"ial (ud)e sustained the de'u""e" of the defendants to the co'plaint of the plaintiffs, but, instead of o"de"in) the latte" to a'end thei" co'plaint ithin the pe"iod p"esc"ibed b* the "ules L undoubtedl* believin) that the plaintiffs could not alte" no" chan)e the facts constitutin) the cause of action, and that, as both pa"ties e"e a)"eed as to the facts alle)ed in the co'plaint as ell as in the de'u""e", eve"* ;uestion "educed itself to one of the la , al"ead* sub'itted to the decision of the cou"t L the said (ud)e, dis"e)a"din) the o"dina"* p"ocedu"e established b* la , decided the case b* absolvin) the defendants f"o' the co'plaint and b* conde'nin) the plaintiffs to pa* the costs of the instance. The"e ce"tainl* as no "eal t"ial, inas'uch as the defendants, instead of ans e"in) the co'plaint of the plaintiffs, confined the'selves to filin) a de'u""e" based on the )"ound that the facts alle)ed in the co'plaint do not constitute a cause of action. @o eve", the (ud)e p"efe""ed to absolve the defendants, the"eb* 'a-in) an end to the cause, instead of dis'issin) the sa'e, because undoubtedl* he believed, in vie of the cont"ove"s* bet een the pa"ties, that the a")u'ents adduced to suppo"t the de'u""e" ould be the sa'e hich the defendants ould alle)e in thei" ans e" L those dealin) ith a 'e"e ;uestion of la hich the cou"ts ould have to decide L and that, the de'u""e" havin) been sustained, if the plaintiffs should insist L the* could do no less L upon alle)in) the sa'e facts as those set out in thei" co'plaint and if anothe" de'u""e" e"e afte" a"ds set up, he ould be obli)ed to dis'iss said co'plaint ith costs a)ainst the plaintiffs L in spite of bein) undoubtedl* convinced in the instant case that the plaintiffs absolutel* lacthe "i)ht to b"in) the action stated in thei" co'plaint. 0ein) of the opinion that the e'endation of the indicated defects is not necessa"* L as in this case hat has been done does not p"e(udice the pa"ties L the appellate cou"t ill no p"oceed to decide the suit acco"din) to its 'e"its, as found in the "eco"d and to the le)al p"ovisions applicable to the ;uestion of la in cont"ove"s* so that unnecessa"* dela* and )"eate" e3pense 'a* be avoided, inas'uch as, even if all the o"dina"* p"oceedin)s be follo ed, the suit ould be subse;uentl* decided in the 'anne" and te"'s that it is no decided in the opinion thou)htfull* and conscientiousl* fo"'ed fo" its dete"'ination. In o"de" to decide hethe" the plaintiffs a"e o" a"e not entitled to invo-e, in thei" favo", the p"ovisions of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, and hethe" the sa'e a"ticle is applicable to the ;uestion of la p"esented in this suit, it is necessa"* to dete"'ine hethe" the p"ope"t* enu'e"ated in pa"a)"aph 7 of the co'plaint is of the natu"e of "ese"vable p"ope"t*? and if so, hethe" in acco"dance ith the p"ovision of the &ivil &ode in a"ticle #%%, Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon 1the ido of the deceased !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino2 ho inhe"ited said p"ope"t* f"o' he" son !polonio Flo"entino III 1bo"n afte" the death of his fathe" !polonio Isabelo2 had the obli)ation to p"ese"ve and "ese"ve sa'e fo" the "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of he" afo"e'entioned deceased son !polonio III. The above 'entioned a"ticle "eads,

!n* ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* ac;ui"ed b* the latte" )"atuitousl* f"o' so'e othe" ascendant, o" f"o' a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such of the p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e. Du"in) the 'a""ia)e of !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II and Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon t o child"en e"e bo"n, na'el* the defendant Me"cedes Flo"entino and !polonio Flo"entino III 1bo"n afte" the death of his fathe"2. !t the death of !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino unde" a ill, his eleven child"en succeeded to the inhe"itance he left, one of ho', the posthu'os son !polonio III, as )iven, as his sha"e, the afo"e'entioned p"ope"t* enu'e"ated in the co'plaint. In %#$% the said posthu'os son !polonio Flo"entino III died and as succeeded b* his le)iti'ate 'othe" Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, ho inhe"ited the p"ope"t* he left and ho on d*in), Nove'be" %#, %$>#, instituted b* ill as he" sole hei"ess he" su"vivin) dau)hte", Me"cedes Flo"entino, the defendant he"ein, ho too- possession of all p"ope"t* left b* he" fathe", sa'e constitutin) the inhe"itance. Included in said inhe"itance is the p"ope"t*, specified in b* the posthu'os son !polonio Flo"entino III f"o' his fathe" !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino, and hich, at the death of the said posthu'os son, had in tu"n been inhe"ited b* his 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon. 9ven if Seve"ina left in he" ill said p"ope"t*, to)ethe" ith he" o n, to he" onl* dau)hte" and fo"ced hei"ess, Me"cedes Flo"entino, neve"theless this p"ope"t* had not lost its "ese"vable natu"e inas'uch as it o"i)inated f"o' the co''on ancesto" of the liti)ants, !polonio Isabelo? as inhe"ited b* his son !polonio III? as t"ans'itted b* sa'e 1b* ope"ation of la 2 to his le)iti'ate 'othe" and ascendant, Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon. The posthu'os son, !polonio Flo"entino III, ac;ui"ed the p"ope"t*, no clai'ed b* his b"othe"s, b* a luc"ative title o" b* inhe"itance f"o' his afo"e'entioned le)iti'ate fathe", !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II. !lthou)h said p"ope"t* as inhe"ited b* his 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, neve"theless, she as in dut* bound, acco"din) to a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, to "ese"ve the p"ope"t* thus ac;ui"ed fo" the benefit of the "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e. !cco"din) to the p"ovisions of la , ascendants do not inhe"it the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, but its en(o*'ent, use o" t"ust, 'e"el* fo" the "eason that said la i'poses the obli)ation to "ese"ve and p"ese"ve sa'e fo" ce"tain desi)nated pe"sons ho, on the death of the said ascendants "ese"vists, 1ta-in) into conside"ation the natu"e of the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e2 ac;ui"e the o ne"ship of said p"ope"t* in fact and b* ope"ation of la in the sa'e 'anne" as fo"ced hei"s 1because they are also such2 L said p"ope"t* "eve"ts to said line as lon) as the afo"e'entioned pe"sons ho, f"o' the death of the ascendant-"ese"vists, ac;ui"e in fact the "i)ht of reservatarios 1pe"son fo" ho' p"ope"t* is "ese"ved2, and a"e "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of the descendant f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e. !n* ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t*, hile the"e a"e livin), ithin the thi"d de)"ee, "elatives of the latte", is nothin) but a life usuf"uctua"* o" a fiducia"* of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* "eceived. @e is, ho eve", the le)iti'ate o ne" of his o n p"ope"t* hich is not "ese"vable p"ope"t* and hich constitutes his le)iti'e, acco"din) to a"ticle #>$ of the &ivil &ode. 0ut if, afte" a"ds, all of the "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of the descendant 1f"o' ho' ca'e the "ese"vable p"ope"t*2 die o" disappea", the said p"ope"t* beco'es f"ee p"ope"t*, b* ope"ation of la , and is the"eb* conve"ted into the le)iti'e of the ascendant hei" ho can t"ans'it it at his death to his le)iti'ate successo"s o" testa'enta"* hei"s. This p"ope"t* has no lost its natu"e of "ese"vable p"ope"t*, pe"tainin) the"eto at the death of the "elatives, called reservatarios, ho belon)ed ithin the thi"d de)"ee to the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e.lawphil.net Follo in) the o"de" p"esc"ibed b* la in le)iti'ate succession, hen the"e a"e "elatives of the descendant ithin the thi"d de)"ee, the "i)ht of the nea"est "elative, called reservatario, ove" the p"ope"t* hich the reservista 1pe"son holdin) it sub(ect to "ese"vation2 should "etu"n to hi', e3cludes that of the one 'o"e "e'ote. The "i)ht of "ep"esentation cannot be alle)ed hen the one clai'in) sa'e as a reservatario of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* is not a'on) the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich such p"ope"t* ca'e, inas'uch as the "i)ht )"anted b* the &ivil &ode in a"ticle #%% is in the hi)hest de)"ee pe"sonal and fo" the e3clusive benefit of desi)nated pe"sons ho a"e the "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, of the pe"son f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e. The"efo"e, "elatives of the fou"th and the succeedin) de)"ees can neve" be conside"ed as reservatarios, since the la does not "eco)ni:e the' as such. In spite of hat has been said "elative to the "i)ht of "ep"esentation on the pa"t of one alle)in) his "i)ht as reservatario ho is not ithin the thi"d de)"ee of "elationship, neve"theless the"e is "i)ht of "ep"esentation on the pa"t of reservatarios ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee 'entioned b* la , as in the case of nephe s of the deceased pe"son f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e. These reservatarios have the "i)ht to "ep"esent thei" ascendants 1fathe"s and 'othe"s2 ho a"e the b"othe"s of the said deceased pe"son and "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in acco"dance ith a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode. In this case it is conceded ithout denial b* defendants, that the plaintiffs 9nca"nacion, Bab"iel and Ma)dalena a"e the le)iti'ate child"en of the fi"st 'a""ia)e of the deceased !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II? that Ra'on, Mi)uel, &efe"ino, !ntonio, and Rosa"io a"e both )"andchild"en of !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II, and child"en of his deceased son, =ose Flo"entino? that the sa'e have the "i)ht to "ep"esent thei" afo"e'entioned fathe", =ose Flo"entino? that 9'ilia, =esus, Cou"des, &a"idad, and Dolo"es a"e the le)iti'ate child"en of the deceased 9spi"ita Flo"entino, one of the dau)hte"s of the deceased !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II, and "ep"esent the "i)ht of thei" afo"e'entioned 'othe"? and that the othe" plaintiffs, =ose and !suncion, have also the "i)ht to "ep"esent thei" le)iti'ate fathe" Ped"o Flo"entino one of the sons of the afo"e'entioned !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II. It is a fact, ad'itted b* both pa"ties, that the othe" child"en of the fi"st 'a""ia)e of the deceased !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II died ithout issue so that this decision does not deal ith the'. The"e a"e then seven +"ese"vata"ios+ ho a"e entitled to the "ese"vable p"ope"t* left at the death of !polonio III? the posthu'os son of the afo"e'entioned !polonio Isabelo II, to it, his th"ee child"en of his fi"st 'a""ia)e L 9nca"nacion, Bab"iel, Ma)dalena? his

th"ee child"en, =ose, 9spi"ita and Ped"o ho a"e "ep"esented b* thei" o n t elve child"en "espectivel*? and Me"cedes Flo"entino, his dau)hte" b* a second 'a""ia)e. !ll of the plaintiffs a"e the "elatives of the deceased posthu'os son, !polonio Flo"entino III, ithin the thi"d de)"ee 1fou" of ho' bein) his half-b"othe"s and the "e'ainin) t elve bein) his nephe s as the* a"e the child"en of his th"ee half-b"othe"s2. !s the fi"st fou" a"e his "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in thei" o n "i)ht and the othe" t elve a"e such b* "ep"esentation, all of the' a"e indisputabl* entitled as reservatarios to the p"ope"t* hich ca'e f"o' the co''on ancesto", !polonio Isabelo, to !polonio Flo"entino III b* inhe"itance du"in) his life-ti'e, and in tu"n b* inhe"itance to his le)iti'ate 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, ido of the afo"e'entioned !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II. In spite of the p"ovisions of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode al"ead* cited, the t"ial (ud)e "efused to accept the theo"* of the plaintiffs and, acceptin) that of the defendants, absolved the latte" f"o' the co'plaint on the )"ound that said a"ticle is absolutel* inapplicable to the instant case, inas'uch as the defendant Me"cedes Flo"entino su"vived he" b"othe", !polonio III, f"o' ho' the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e and he" 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, the ido of he" fathe", !polonio Isabelo Flo"entino II? that the defendant Me"cedes, bein) the onl* dau)hte" of Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, is li-e ise he" fo"ced hei"ess? that hen she inhe"ited the p"ope"t* left at the death of he" 'othe", to)ethe" ith that hich ca'e f"o' he" deceased b"othe" !polonio III, the funda'ental ob(ect of a"ticle #%% of the &ode as the"eb* co'plied ith, inas'uch as the dan)e" that the p"ope"t* co'in) f"o' the sa'e line 'i)ht fall into the hands of st"an)e"s had been avoided? and that the hope o" e3pectation on the pa"t of the plaintiffs of the "i)ht to ac;ui"e the p"ope"t* of the deceased !polonio III neve" did co'e into e3istence because the"e is a fo"ced hei"ess ho is entitled to such p"ope"t*. The (ud)'ent appealed f"o' is also founded on the theo"* that a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode does not dest"o* the s*ste' of le)iti'ate succession and that the p"etension of the plaintiffs to appl* said a"ticle in the instant case ould be pe"'ittin) the "ese"vable "i)ht to "educe and i'pai" the fo"ced le)iti'ate hich e3clusivel* belon)s to the defendant Me"cedes Flo"entino, in violation of the p"ecept of a"ticle #%4 of the sa'e &ode hich p"ovides that the testato" cannot dep"ive his hei"s of thei" le)iti'e, e3cept in the cases e3p"essl* dete"'ined b* la . Neithe" can he i'pose upon it an* bu"den, condition, o" substitution of an* -ind hatsoeve", savin) the p"ovisions conce"nin) the usuf"uct of the su"vivin) spouse, citin) the decision of the Sup"e'e &ou"t of Spain of =anua"* 5, %$%%. The p"incipal ;uestion sub'itted to the cou"t fo" decision consists 'ainl* in dete"'inin) hethe" the* p"ope"t* left at the death of !polonio III, the posthu'os son of !polonio Isabelo II, as o" as not invested ith the cha"acte" of "ese"vable p"ope"t* hen it as "eceived b* his 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon. The p"ope"t* enu'e"ated b* the plaintiffs in pa"a)"aph 7 of thei" co'plaint ca'e, ithout an* doubt hatsoeve", f"o' the co''on ancesto" !polonio Isabelo II, and hen, on the death of !polonio III ithout issue the sa'e passed b* ope"ation of la into the hands of his le)iti'ate 'othe", Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, it beca'e "ese"vable p"ope"t*, in acco"dance ith the p"ovision of a"ticle #%% of the &ode, ith the ob(ect that the sa'e should not fall into the possession of pe"sons othe" than those co'p"ehended ithin the o"de" of pe"son othe" than those co'p"ehended ithin the o"de" of succession t"aced b* the la f"o' !polonio Isabelo II, the sou"ce of said p"ope"t*. If this p"ope"t* as in fact clothed ith the cha"acte" and condition of "ese"vable p"ope"t* hen Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon inhe"ited sa'e f"o' he" son !polonio III, she did not the"eb* ac;ui"e the do'inion o" "i)ht of o ne"ship but onl* the "i)ht of usuf"uct o" of fiducia"* ith the necessa"* obli)ation to p"ese"ve and to delive" o" "etu"n it as such "ese"vable p"ope"t* to he" deceased son.s "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee, a'on) ho' is he" dau)hte", Me"cedes Flo"entino. Rese"vable p"ope"t* neithe" co'es, no" falls unde", the absolute do'inion of the ascendant ho inhe"its and "eceives sa'e f"o' his descendant, the"efo"e it does not fo"' pa"t of his o n p"ope"t* no" beco'e the le)iti'ate of his fo"ced hei"s. It beco'es his o n p"ope"t* onl* in case that all the "elatives of his descendant shall have died 1"ese"vista2 in hich case said "ese"vable p"ope"t* losses such cha"acte". Aith full "i)ht Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon could have disposed in he" ill of all he" o n p"ope"t* in favo" of he" onl* livin) dau)hte", Me"cedes Flo"entino, as fo"ced hei"ess. 0ut hateve" p"ovision the"e is in he" ill conce"nin) the "ese"vable p"ope"t* "eceived f"o' he" son !polonio III, o" "athe", hateve" p"ovision ill "educe the "i)hts of the othe" reservatarios, the half b"othe"s and nephe s of he" dau)hte" Me"cedes, is unla ful, null and void, inas'uch as said p"ope"t* is not he" o n and she has onl* the "i)ht of usuf"uct o" of fiducia"*, ith the obli)ation to p"ese"ve and to delive" sa'e to the reservatarios, one of ho' is he" o n dau)hte", Me"cedes Flo"entino. It cannot "easonabl* be affi"'ed, founded upon an e3p"ess p"ovision of la , that b* ope"ation of la all of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, "eceived du"in) lifeti'e b* Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon f"o' he" son, !polonio III, constitutes o" fo"'s pa"ts of the le)iti'e pe"tainin) to Me"cedes Flo"entino. If said p"ope"t* did not co'e to be the le)iti'ate and e3clusive p"ope"t* of Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, he" onl* le)iti'ate and fo"ced hei"ess, the defendant Me"cedes, could not inhe"it all b* ope"ation of la and in acco"dance ith the o"de" of le)iti'ate succession, because the othe" "elatives of the deceased !polonio III, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, as ell as he"self a"e entitled to such "ese"vable p"ope"t*. Fo" this "eason, in no 'anne" can it be clai'ed that the le)iti'e of Me"cedes Flo"entino, co'in) f"o' the inhe"itance of he" 'othe" Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon, has been "educed and i'pai"ed? and the application of a"ticle #%% of the &ode to the instant case in no a* p"e(udices the "i)hts of the defendant Me"cedes Flo"entino, inas'uch as she is entitled to a pa"t onl* of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, the"e bein) no la ful o" (ust "eason hich se"ves as "eal foundation to dis"e)a"d the "i)ht to !polonio III.s othe" "elatives, ithin the thi"d de)"ee, to pa"ticipate in the "ese"vable p"ope"t* in ;uestion. !s these "elatives a"e at p"esent livin), clai'in) fo" it ith an indisputable "i)ht, e cannot find an* "easonable and la ful 'otive h* thei" "i)hts should not be upheld and h* the* should not be )"anted e;ual pa"ticipation ith the defendant in the liti)ated p"ope"t*.

The clai' that because of Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon.s fo"ced hei"ess, he" dau)hte" Me"cedes, the p"ope"t* "eceived f"o' the deceased son !polonio III lost the cha"acte", p"eviousl* held, of "ese"vable p"ope"t*? and that the 'othe", the said Seve"ina, the"efo"e, had no fu"the" obli)ation to "ese"ve sa'e fo" the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the deceased !polonio III, is evidentl* e""oneous fo" the "eason that, as has been al"ead* stated, the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, left in a ill b* the afo"e'entioned Seve"ina to he" onl* dau)hte" Me"cedes, does not fo"' pa"t of the inhe"itance left b* he" death no" of the le)iti'ate of the hei"ess Me"cedes. =ust because she has a fo"ced hei"ess, ith a "i)ht to he" inhe"itance, does not "elieve Seve"ina of he" obli)ation to "ese"ve the p"ope"t* hich she "eceived f"o' he" deceased son, no" did sa'e lose the cha"acte" of "ese"vable p"ope"t*, held befo"e the reservatarios "eceived sa'e. It is t"ue that hen Me"cedes Flo"entino, the hei"ess of the "ese"vista Seve"ina, too- possession of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion, sa'e did not pass into the hands of st"an)e"s. 0ut it is li-e ise t"ue that the said Me"cedes is not the onl* reservataria. !nd the"e is no "eason founded upon la and upon the p"inciple of (ustice h* the othe" reservatarios, the othe" b"othe"s and nephe s, "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in acco"dance ith the p"ecept of a"ticle #%% of the &ivil &ode, should be dep"ived of po"tions of the p"ope"t* hich, as "ese"vable p"ope"t*, pe"tain to the'. F"o' the fo"e)oin) it has been sho n that the doct"ine announced b* the Sup"e'e &ou"t of Spain on =anua"* 5, %$%%, fo" the violation of a"ticles #%%, $6# and conse;uentl* of the &ivil &ode is not applicable in the instant case. Follo in) the p"ovisions of a"ticle #%4, the Sup"e'e &ou"t of Spain held that the le)iti'e of the fo"ced hei"s cannot be "educed o" i'pai"ed and said a"ticle is e3p"essl* "espected in this decision. @o eve", in spite of the effo"ts of the appellee to defend thei" supposed "i)hts, it has not been sho n, upon an* le)al foundation, that the "ese"vable p"ope"t* belon)ed to, and as unde" the absolute do'inion of, the "ese"vista, the"e bein) "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of the pe"son f"o' ho' sa'e ca'e? that said p"ope"t*, upon passin) into the hands of the fo"ced hei"ess of the deceased "ese"vista, fo"'ed pa"t of the le)iti'e of the fo"'e"? and that the said fo"ced hei"ess, in addition to bein) a reservataria, had an e3clusive "i)ht to "eceive all of said p"ope"t* and to dep"ive the othe" reservatarios, he" "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of ce"tain po"tions the"eof. &once"nin) the p"a*e" in the co'plaint "elative to the inde'nit* fo" da'a)es and the delive"* of the f"uits collected, it is not p"ope" to )"ant the fi"st fo" the"e is no evidence of an* da'a)e hich can )ive "ise to the obli)ation of "efundin) sa'e. !s to the second, the delive"* of the f"uits p"oduced b* the land fo"'in) the p"incipal pa"t of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*, the defendants a"e undoubtedl* in dut* bound to delive" to the plaintiffs si3-sevenths of the f"uits o" "ents of the po"tions of land clai'ed in the co'plaint, in the ;uantit* e3p"essed in pa"a)"aph %% of the sa'e, f"o' =anua"* %8, %$%#, the date the co'plaint as filed? and the "e'ainin) seventh pa"t should )o to the defendant Me"cedes. Fo" the fo"e)oin) "easons it follo s that ith the "eve"sal of the o"de" of decision appealed f"o' e should decla"e, as e he"eb* do, that the afo"e'entioned p"ope"t*, inhe"ited b* the deceased Seve"ina Fa: de Ceon f"o' he" son !polonio Flo"entino III, is "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that the plaintiffs, bein) "elatives of the deceased !polonio III ithin the thi"d de)"ee, a"e entitled to si3-sevenths of said "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that the defendant Me"cedes is entitled to the "e'ainin) seventh pa"t the"eof? that the latte", to)ethe" ith he" husband !n)el 9nca"nacion, shall delive" to the plaintiffs, (ointl*, si3-sevenths of the f"uits o" "ents, clai'ed f"o' said po"tion of the land and of the ;uantit* clai'ed, f"o' =anua"* %8, %$%#, until full* delive"ed? and that the inde'nit* fo" one thousand pesos 1P%,>>>2 p"a*ed fo" in the co'plaint is denied, ithout special findin)s as to the costs of both instances. So o"de"ed. Arellano, .(., (ohnson, Araullo, 6treet, $alcolm and Avance/a, ((., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-29901 !:;:-t 31, 1988 "GN!C"O R"!S C*U!, #OM"N!#OR C*U! $%& REME#"OS C*U!, petitione"s, vs. T*E COURT O "RST "NST!NCE O NEGROS OCC"#ENT!L, /R!NC* + $%& SUS!N! #E L! TORRE, 5% 3er <$p$<5t. $!&m5%5-tr$tr5= o> t3e "%te-t$te E-t$te o> Co%-o6$<5o% &e 6$ Torre, "espondents. !ominador 2. Abaria and Primitivo Blanca for private respondent. 4odrigo 7. !elfinado for petitioners. M!RT"N, J.: Petition fo" "evie of the decision of the "espondent &ou"t hich dis'issed the co'plaint of petitione"s in &ivil &ase No. 8#4$-!, entitled =+gnacio Frias hua, et al. vs. 6usana de la 1orre, !d'inist"at"i3 of the Intestate 9state of &onsolacion de la To""e+ It appea"s that in the fi"st 'a""ia)e of =ose F"ias &hua ith Pat"icia S. Milita" alias S* Juio he si"ed th"ee child"en, na'el*, I)nacio, Co"en:o and Manuel, all su"na'ed F"ias &hua. Ahen Pat"icia S. Milita" died, =ose F"ias &hua cont"acted a second 'a""ia)e ith &onsolacion de la To""e ith ho' he had a child b* the na'e of =uanita F"ias &hua. Manuel F"ias &hua died ithout leavin) an* issue. Then in %$/$, =ose F"ias &hua died intestate leavin) his ido &onsolacion de la To""e and his son =uanito F"ias &hua of the second 'a""ia)e and sons I)nacio F"ias &hua and Co"en:o F"ias &hua of his fi"st 'a""ia)e. In Intestate P"oceedin) No. 5#%6, the lo e" cou"t issued an o"de" dated =anua"* %7, %$4% 1 ad(udicatin), a'on) othe"s, the one-half 1%</,2 po"tion of Cot No. 4$$ and the su' of P#,>>>.>> in favo" of =ose F"ias &hua.s ido , &onsolacion de la To""e, the othe" half of Cot No. 4$$ in favo" of =uanito F"ias &hua, his son in the second 'a""ia)e? P4,>>>.>> in favo" of Co"en:e F"ias chua? and P%,77>.>> in favo" of I)nacio F"ias, &hua, his sons of the fi"st 'a""ia)e. 0* vi"tue of said ad(udication, T"ansfe" &e"tificate of Title No. TR-$#> 1%55#42 2 dated !p"il /#, %$4/ as issued b* the Re)iste" of Deeds in the na'es of &onsolacion de la To""e and =uanito F"ias &hua as o ne"s p"o-indiviso of Cot No. 4$$. On Feb"ua"* /8, %$7/, =uanito F"ias &hua of the second 'a""ia)e died intestate ithout an* issue. !fte" his death, his 'othe" &onsolacion de la To""e succeeded to his p"o-indivisio sha"e of Cot No. 4$$. In a ee-.s ti'e o" on Ma"ch 6, %$7/, &onsolacion de la To""e e3ecuted a decla"ation of hei"ship ad(udicatin) in he" favo" the p"o-indiviso sha"e of he" son =uanito as a "esult of hich T"ansfe" &e"tificate of Title No. 4%8$6 cove"in) the hole Cot No. 4$$ as issued in he" na'e. Then on Ma"ch 7, %$66, &onsolacion de la To""e died intestate leavin) no di"ect hei" eithe" in the descendin) o" ascendin) line e3cept he" b"othe" and siste"s. In the +Intestate 9state of &onsolacion de la To""e+, doc-eted as Sp. P"oc. No. 8#4$-!, the petitione"s he"ein, I)nacio F"ias &hua, of the fi"st 'a""ia)e and do'inado" and Re'edios &hua, the supposed le)iti'ate child"en of the deceased Co"en:o F"ias &hua, also of the fi"st 'a""ia)e filed the co'plaint a quo 3 1subse;entl* se)"e)ated as a distinct suit and doc-eted as &ivil &ase No. 8#4$-!2 on Ma* %%, %$66 befo"e the "espondent &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ne)"os Occidental, 0"anch V, p"a*in) that the one-half 1%</2 po"tion of Cot No. 4$$ hich fo"'e"l* belon)ed to =uanito F"ias but hich passed to &onsolacion de la To""e upon the latte".s death, be decla"edas a "ese"vable p"ope"t* fo" the "eason that the lot in ;uestionn as sub(ect to reserval troncal pu"suant to !"ticle $#% of the Ne &ivil &ode, P"ivate "espondent as ad'inist"at"i3 of the estate of individuall* the co'plaint of petitione"s 4 On =ul* /$, %$#6, the "espondent &ou"t "ende"ed a decision dis'issin) the co'plaint of petitione". @ence this instant. The pe"tinent p"ovision of reserva troncal unde" the Ne &ivil &ode p"ovides, !RT. #$%. The ascendant ho inhe"itts f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendat, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. Pe"suant to the fo"e)oin) p"ovision, in o"de" that a p"ope"t* 'a* be i'p"essed ith a "ese"vable cha"acte" the follo in) "e;uisites 'ust e3ist, to it, 1%2 that the p"ope"t* as ac;ui"ed b* a descendant f"o' an asscendant o" f"o' a b"othe" o" siste" b* )"atuitous title? 1/2 that said descendant died ithout an issue? 142 that the p"ope"t* is inhe"ited b* anothe" ascendant b* ope"ation of la ? and 152 that the"e a"e "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. , In the case befo"e Es, all of the fo"e)oin) "e;uisites a"e p"esent. Thus, as bo"ne out b* the "eco"ds, =uanoito F"ias &hua of the second 'a""ia)e died intestate in %$7/? he died ithou" leavin) an* issue? his p"o-indiviso of %</ sha"e of Cot No. 4$$ as ac;ui"ed b* his 'othe", &onsolacion de la To""e died, =uannnito F"ias &hua ho died intestate had "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee. These "elatives a"e I)nacio F"ias &hua and

Do'inado" &hua and Re'idios &hua, the suppose le)iti'ate child"en of the deceased Co"en:o F"ias &hua, ho a"e the petitione"s he"ein. The c"u3 of the p"oble' in instant petition is focused on the fi"st "e;uisit of reserva troncal > hethe" the p"ope"t* in ;uestion as ac;ui"ed b* =uanito F"ias &hua f"o' his fathe" =ose F"ias &hua, )"atuitousl* o" not. In "esolvin) this point, the "espondent &ou"t said, It appea"s f"o' 93h. +4+, hich is pa"t of 93h. +D+, that the p"ope"t* in ;uestion as not ac;ui"ed b* &onsolacion de la To""e and =uanito F"ias &hua gratuitously but fo" a conside"ation, na'el*, that the le)atees e"e to pa* the inte"est and cost and othe" fees "esultin) f"o' &ivil &ase No. 74>> of this &ou"t. !s such it is undeniable that the lot in ;uestion is not sub(ect tot a reserva troncal, unde" !"t. #$% of the Ne &ivil &ode, and as such the plaintiff.s co'plaint 'ust fail. Ae a"e not p"epa"ed to sustain the "espondent &ou"t.s conclusion that the lot in ;uestion is not sub(ect to a reserva troncal unde" !"t. #$% of the Ne &ivil &ode. It is, !s e3plained b* Man"esa hich this &ou"t ;uoted ith app"oval in abardo v. 8illanueva, 55 Phil. %#6, +The t"ans'ission is )"atuitous o" b* )"atuitous title hen the "ecipient does not )ive an*thin) in "etu"n.+ It 'atte"s not hethe" the p"ope"t* t"ans'itted be o" be not sub(ect to an* p"io" cha")es? hat is essential is that the t"ans'ission be 'ade )"atuitousl*, o" b* an act of 'e"e libe"alit* of the pe"son 'a-in) it, ithout i'posin) an* obli)ation on the pa"t of the "ecipient? and that the pe"son "eceivin) the p"ope"t* )ives o" does nothin) in "etu"n? o", as abl* put b* an e'inent Filipino co''entato", 6 +the essential thin) is that the pe"son ho t"ans'its it does so )"atuitousl*, f"o' pu"e )ene"osit*, ithout "e;ui"in) f"o' the t"ansfe"ee an* p"estation.+ It is evident f"o' the "eco"d that the t"ans'ission of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion to =uanito F"ias &hua of the second 'a""ia)e upon the death of his fathe" =ose F"ias &hua as b* 'eans of a he"edita"* succession and the"efo"e )"atuitous. It is t"ue that the"e is the o"de" 193h. +D+2 of the p"obate &ou"t in Intestate P"oceedin) No. 5#%6 hich estates in e3p"ess te"'s? /. L Se ad(udicada p"o el p"esente a favo" de &onsolacion de la To""e, viuda, 'a*o" de edad, * de su hi(u, =uanito F"ias &hua, 'eno" de edad, todos "esidente de San 9n"i;ue, Ne)"os Occidental, I.F.,co'o he"ede"os del finado =ose F"ias &hua &hoo, estas p"opiadades, %55#4 Ca pa"cela de te""enno concida po" Cote No. 4$$ del &atsat"o de la &a"lota, Ne)"os Occidental, de %$%.$75 'et"os cuaddd"ados * cubie"to po" el &e"tificado de Titulo No. %%87$, en pa"tes e;uales p"o-indiviso? por con la obligscion de pagar a las 6tandard 7il o. of ?ew )or* la deuda de P@AB,.CD, sus intereses, costas y demas gastos resultantes del asunto civil ?o. E@DDde este jusgado 0ut the obli)ation of pa*in) the Standa"d Oil &o. of Ne Ho"- the a'ount of P4,$8%./> is i'posed upon &onsolacion de la To""e and =uanito F"ias &hua not pe"sonall* b* the deceased =ose F"ias &hua in his last ill and testa'ent but b* an o"de" of the cou"t in the Testate P"oceedin) No.5#%6 dated =anua"* %7, %$4%. !s lon) as the t"ans'ission of the p"ope"t* to the hei"s is f"ee f"o' an* condition i'posed b* the deceased hi'self and the p"ope"t* is )iven out of pu"e )ene"osit*, it) is )"atuitous. it does not 'atte" if late" the cou"t o"de"s one of the hei"s, in this case =uanito F"ias &hua, to pa* the Standa"e oil co. of Ne Ho"- the a'ount of P4,$8%./>. This does not chan)e the )"atuitous natu"e of the t"ans'ission of the p"ope"t* to hi'. This bein) the case the lot in ;uestion is sub(ect to reserva troncal unde" !"t, #$% of the Ne &ivil &ode. It is contented that the dist"ibution of the sha"es of the estate of =ose F"ias &hua to the "espondent hei"s o" le)atees as a)"eed upon b* the hei"s in thei" p"o(ect of pa"tition based on the last ill and testa'ent of =ose F"ias &hua. 0ut petitione"s clai' that the supposed Cast Aill and Testa'ent of =ose F"ias &hua as never probated. The fact that the ill as not p"obated as ad'itted in pa"a)"aph 6 of the "espondents. ans e". 8 The"e is nothin) 'entioned in the decision of the t"ial cou"t in &ivil &ase No. 8#4$ ! hich is the sub(ect of the p"esent appeal no" in the o"de" of =anua"* %7, %$4% of the t"ial cou"t in the Testate 9state P"oceedin) No. 5#%6 no" in the p"ivate "espondent.s b"ief, that the Cast Aill and Testa'ent of =ose F"ias &hua has ever been probated. Aith the fo"e)oin), it is eas* to deduce that if the Cast Aill and Testa'ent has in fact been p"obated the"e ould have been no need fo" the testa'enta"* hei"s to p"epa"e a p"o(ect of pa"tition a'on) the'selves. The ve"* ill itself could be 'ade the basis fo" the ad(udication of the estate as in fact the* did in thei" p"o(ect of pa"tition ith =uanito F"ias &hua )ettin) one-half of Cot 4$$ b* inhe"itance as a sone of the deceased =ose F"ias &hua b* the latte".s second 'a""ia)e. !cco"din) to the "eco"d, =uanito F"ias &hua died on Feb"ua"* /8, %$7/ ithout an* issue. !fte" his death his 'othe" &onsolation de la To""e succeeded to his one-half p"o-indiviso sha"e of Cot 4$$. This as, ho eve", sub(ect to the condition that the p"ope"t* as "ese"vable in cha"acte" unde" !"t. #$% of the &ivil &ode in favo" of "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee of =ose F"ias &hua f"o' ho' the p"ope"t* ca'e. These "elatives a"e the petitione" he"ein. It is clai'ed that the co'plaint of petitione"s to "ecove" the one-half po"tion of Cot 4$$ hich o"i)inall* belon)ed to =uanito F"ias &hua has al"ead* p"esc"ibed hen it as filed on Ma* %%, %$66. Ae do not believe so. It 'ust be "e'e'be"ed that the petitione"s he"ein a"e clai'in) as "ese"vees did not a"ise until the ti'e the "ese"vo", &onsolacion de la To""e, died in Ma"ch %$66. Ahen the petitione"s the"efo"e filed thei" co'plaint to "ecove" the one-half 1%</2 po"tion of Cot 4$$, the* e"e ve"* 'uch in ti'e to do so.

IN VI9A OF T@9 FOR9BOINB, the decision appealed f"o' is he"eb* set aside. The petitione"s I)nacio F"ias &hua, Do'inado" &hua and Re'edios &hua a"e decla"ed o ne"s of %</ undivided po"tion of Cot 4$$? and the Re)iste" of Deeds of Ne)"os Occidental is he"eb* o"de"ed to cancel. T"ansfe" &e"tificate of Title No. 4%8$6 cove"in) Cot No. 4$$ issued in the na'e of &onsolacion de la To""e and to issue a ne &e"tificate of Title in the na'es of &onsolacion de la To""e, %</ undivided po"tion? I)nacio F"ias &hua, %<5 undivided po"tion? and Do'inado" &hua and Re'edios &hua, %<5 undivided po"tion, of said lot. Aithout p"onounce'ent as to costs. SO ORD9R9D. 1eehan*ee F hairmanG, $a*asiar, $u/Ho' Palma, Fernande' and 2uerrero, ((., concur.
oot%ote% 93h. D, pp. #-%5, Folde" of 93hibits. / 93h. &, p. 6, Ibid. 4 pp. 4-8, Reco"d on !ppeal. 5 pp. #, Reco"d on !ppeal. 7 Padilla, &ivil &ode !nnotated, Vol. III, p. 4>>1%$842. 6 Tolentino, &ivil &ode of the Philippines, Vol. III, p./$5, citin) 6 Man"esa 4$$. 8 p. %7, R.!.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 9N 0!N&

G.R. No. L-129,8

M$r<3 24, 1961

CONST!NC"O S"ENES, ET !L., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. "#EL ESP!RC"!, ET !L., defendants-appellees. Proceso 4. 4emollo for plaintiffs%appellants. "eonardo !. $ancao for defendants%appellees. #"0ON, J.7 !ppellants co''enced this action belo to secu"e (ud)'ent 1%2 decla"in) null and void the sale e3ecuted b* Paulina and &ip"iana Haeso in favo" of appellees, the spouses Fidel 9spa"cia and Paulina Sienes? 1/2 o"de"in) the 9spa"cia spouses to "econve* to appellants Cot 446# of the &adast"al Su"ve* of !*u;uitan 1no !'lan2, O"iental Ne)"os? and 142 o"de"in) all the appellees to pa*, (ointl* and seve"all*, to appellants the su' of P7>>.>> as da'a)es, plus the costs of suit. In thei" ans e" appellees disclai'ed an* -no led)e o" info"'ation "e)a"din) the sale alle)edl* 'ade on !p"il />, %$7% b* !nd"ea Butan) in favo" of appellants and alle)ed that, if such sale as 'ade, the sa'e as void on the )"ound that !nd"ea Butan) had no "i)ht to dispose of the p"ope"t* sub(ect 'atte" the"eof. The* fu"the" alle)ed that said p"ope"t* had neve" been in possession of appellants, the t"uth bein) that appellees, as o ne"s, had been in continuous possession the"eof since the death of F"ancisco Haeso. 0* a* of affi"'ative defense and counte"clai', the* fu"the" alle)ed that on =ul* 4>, %$7%, Paulina and &ip"iana Haeso, as the onl* su"vivin) hei"s of F"ancisco Haeso, e3ecuted a public inst"u'ent of sale in favo" of the spouses Fidel 9spa"cia and Paulina Sienes, the said sale havin) been "e)iste"ed to)ethe" ith an affidavit of ad(udication e3ecuted b* Paulina and &ip"iana on =ul* %#, %$7%, as sole su"vivin) hei"s of the afo"esaid deceased? that since then the 9spa"cias had been in possession of the p"ope"t* as o ne"s. !fte" t"ial upon the issues thus (oined, the lo e" cou"t "ende"ed (ud)'ent as follo s, IN VI9A OF !CC T@9 FOR9BOINB, (ud)'ent is he"eb* "ende"ed decla"in) 1%2 that the sale of Cot No. 446# 'ade b* !nd"ea Butan) to the plaintiff spouses &onstancio Sienes and Benoveva Sila* is void, and the "econve*ance p"a*ed fo" b* the' is denied? 1/2 that the sale 'ade b* Paulina and &ip"iana Haeso in favo" of defendants Fidel 9spa"cia and Paulina Sienes involvin) the sa'e lot is also void, and the* have no valid title the"eto? and 142 that the "ese"vable p"ope"t* in ;uestion is pa"t of and 'ust be "eve"ted to the estate of &ip"iana Haeso, the lone su"vivin) "elative and hei" of F"ancisco Haeso at the death of !nd"ea Butan) as of Dece'be" %4, %$7%. No p"onounce'ent as to the costs. F"o' the above decision the Sienes spouse inte"posed the p"esent appeal, thei" p"incipal contentions bein), fi"stl*, that the lo e" cou"t e""ed in holdin) that Cot 446# of the &adast"al Su"ve* of !*u;uitan as a "ese"vable p"ope"t*? secondl*, in annullin) the sale of said lot e3ecuted b* !nd"ea Butan) in thei" favo"? and lastl*, in holdin) that &ip"iana Haeso, as "ese"vee, as entitled to inhe"it said land. The"e is no dispute as to the follo in) facts, Cot 446# o"i)inall* belon)ed to Satu"nino Haeso. Aith his fi"st ife, Te"esa Ruales, he had fou" child"en na'ed !)aton, Fe"nando, Paulina and &ip"iana, hile ith his second ife, !nd"ea Butan), he had an onl* son na'ed F"ancisco. !cco"din) to the cadast"al "eco"ds of !*u;uitan, the p"ope"ties left b* Satu"nino upon his death L the date of hich does not clea"l* appea" of "eco"d L e"e left to his child"en as follo s, Cot 4466 to &ip"iana, Cot 4468 to Fe"nando, Cot 4487 to !)aton, Cot 4488 1southe"n po"tion2 to Paulina, and Cot 446# 1 este"n po"tion2 to F"ancisco. !s a "esult of the cadast"al p"oceedin)s, O"i)inal &e"tificate of Title No. %>/87 cove"in) Cot 446# as issued in the na'e of F"ancisco. 0ecause F"ancisco as a 'ino" at the ti'e, his 'othe" ad'iniste"ed the p"ope"t* fo" hi', decla"ed it in he" na'e fo" ta3ation pu"poses 193hs ! I !-%2, and paid the ta3es due the"eon 193hs. 0, &, &-% I &-/2. Ahen F"ancisco died on Ma* /$, %$4/ at the a)e of />, sin)le and ithout an* descendant, his 'othe", as his sole hei", e3ecuted the public inst"u'ent 93hibit F entitled 9MTR!=EDI&I!C S9TTC9M9NT !ND S!C9 he"eb*, a'on) othe" thin)s, fo" and in conside"ation of the su' of P#>>.>> she sold the p"ope"t* in ;uestion to appellants. Ahen the"eafte" said vendees de'anded f"o' Paulina Haeso and he" husband =ose 9spa"cia, the su""ende" of O"i)inal &e"tificate of Title No. %>/87 L hich as in thei" possession L the latte" "efused, thus )ivin) "ise to the filin) of the co""espondin) 'otion in the cadast"al "eco"d No. 7>8. The sa'e, ho eve", as denied 193hs. # I $2. The"eafte", o" 'o"e specificall*, on =ul* 4>, %$7%, &ip"iana and Paulina Haeso, the su"vivin) half-siste"s of F"ancisco, and ho as such had decla"ed the p"ope"t* in thei" na'e, on =anua"* %, %$7% e3ecuted a deed of sale in favo" of the spouses Fidel 9spa"cia and Paulina Sienes 193h. /2 ho, in tu"n, decla"ed it in thei" na'e fo" ta3 pu"poses and the"eafte" secu"ed the issuance in thei" na'e of T"ansfe" &e"tificate of Title No. T-/%5% 193hs. 7 I 7-!2. !s held b* the t"ial cou"t, it is clea" upon the facts al"ead* stated, that the land in ;uestion as "ese"vable p"ope"t*. F"ancisco Haeso inhe"ited it b* ope"ation of la f"o' his fathe" Satu"nino, and upon F"ancisco.s death, un'a""ied and ithout descendants, it as

inhe"ited, in tu"n, b* his 'othe", !nd"ea Butan). The latte" as, the"efo"e, unde" obli)ation to "ese"ve it fo" the benefit of "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e, if an* su"vived he". The "eco"d discloses in this connection that !nd"ea Butan) died on Dece'be" %4, %$7%, the lone "ese"vee su"vivin) he" bein) &ip"iana Haeso ho died onl* on =anua"* %4, %$7/ 193h. %>2. In connection ith "ese"vable p"ope"t*, the ei)ht of opinion is that the "ese"ve c"eates t o "esoluto"* conditions, na'el*, 1%2 the death of the ascendant obli)ed to "ese"ve and 1/2 the su"vival, at the ti'e of his death, of "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* ca'e 16 Man"esa /6#-/6$? 6 Sanche: Ro'an %$452. This &ou"t has held in connection ith this 'atte" that the "ese"vista has the le)al title and do'inion to the "ese"vable p"ope"t* but sub(ect to a "esoluto"* condition? that he is li-e a life usuf"uctua"* of the "ese"vable p"ope"t*? that he 'a* alienate the sa'e but sub(ect to "ese"vation, said alienation t"ans'ittin) onl* the "evocable and conditional o ne"ship of the "ese"vists, the "i)hts ac;ui"ed b* the t"ansfe"ee bein) "evo-ed o" "esolved b* the su"vival of "ese"vata"ios at the ti'e of the death of the "ese"vista 19d"oso vs. Sablan, /7 Phil. /$7? Cunsod vs. O"te)a, 56 Phil. 665? Flo"entino vs. Flo"entino, 5> Phil. 5#>? and Di"ecto" of Cands vs. !)uas, 67 Phil. /8$2. The sale 'ade b* !nd"ea Butan) in favo" of appellees as, the"efo"e, sub(ect to the condition that the vendees ould definitel* ac;ui"e o ne"ship, b* vi"tue of the alienation, onl* if the vendo" died ithout bein) su"vived b* an* pe"son entitled to the "ese"vable p"ope"t*. Inas'uch 'uch as hen !nd"ea Butan) died, &ip"iana Haeso as still alive, the conclusion beco'es inescapable that the p"evious sale 'ade b* the fo"'e" in favo" of appellants beca'e of no le)al effect and the "ese"vable p"ope"t* sub(ect 'atte" the"eof passed in e3clusive o ne"ship to &ip"iana. On the othe" hand, it is also clea" that the sale e3ecuted b* the siste"s Paulina and &ip"iana Haeso in favo" of the spouses Fidel 9spa"cia and Paulina Sienes as sub(ect to a si'ila" "esoluto"* condition. The "ese"ve instituted b* la in favo" of the hei"s ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line f"o' hich the "ese"vable p"ope"t* ca'e, constitutes a "eal "i)ht hich the "ese"vee 'a* alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionall*, the condition bein) that the alienation shall t"ansfe" o ne"ship to the vendee onl* if and hen the "ese"vee su"vives the pe"son obli)ed to "ese"ve. In the p"esent case, &ip"iana Haeso, one of the "ese"vees, as still alive hen !nd"ea Butan), the pe"son obli)ed to "ese"ve, died. Thus the fo"'e" beca'e the absolute o ne" of the "ese"vable p"ope"t* upon !nd"ea.s death. Ahile it 'a* be t"ue that the sale 'ade b* he" and he" siste" p"io" to this event, beca'e effective because of the occu""ence of the "esoluto"* condition, e a"e not no in a position to "eve"se the appealed decision, in so fa" as it o"de"s the "eve"sion of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion to the 9state of &ip"iana Haeso, because the vendees L the 9spa"cia spouses did L not appeal the"ef"o'. A@9R9FOR9, the appealed decision L as above 'odified L is affi"'ed, ith costs, and ithout p"e(udice to hateve" action in e;uit* the 9spa"cia spouses 'a* have a)ainst the 9state of &ip"iana Haeso fo" the "econve*ance of the p"ope"t* in ;uestion. Beng'on, Actg. .(., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, "abrador, oncepcion, 4eyes, (.B."., Barrera and Paredes, ((., concu".

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 68843-44 September 2, 1991 M!R"4U"T! O. SUM!(! $%& L!GUN! !GRO-"N#USTR"!L COCONUT COOPER!T"+E, "NC., petitione"s, vs. T*E *ON. "NTERME#"!TE !PPELL!TE COURT, $%& !M!#EO, S!NC*O, #ON!TO, LU"S, ER!STO, LU"S!, 'OSE $%& #OLORES, $66 -:r%$me& /!L!NT!)/O, "espondents. eriaco A. 6umaya for petitioners. 1omas P. A/onuevo for private respondents. ME#"!L#E!, J.:p This is a petition fo" "evie on certiorari of the decision of the Inte"'ediate !ppellate &ou"t 1no &ou"t of !ppeals2 in &.!. B.R. No. &V>%/$/-$4, hich affi"'ed the decision of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance 1no Re)ional T"ial &ou"t2 of Ca)una in the consolidated cases in &ivil &ase No. S&-$76 1 and &ivil &ase No. S&-$78. 2 The pa"ties ente"ed into a stipulation of facts in the cou"t a quo, hich is su''a"i:ed as follo s, Raul 0alanta-bo inhe"ited f"o' t o 1/2 diffe"ent ascendants the t o 1/2 sets of p"ope"ties sub(ect of this case, %2 ! one-thi"d 1%<42 inte"est, pro%indiviso in a pa"cel of land situated in Dita, Cilio 1Cili 2 Ca)una and desc"ibed in pa"a)"aph 8 of the co'plaint in &ivil &ase No. S&-$76 f"o' his fathe" =ose, S"., ho died on =anua"* /#, %$57? and /2 ! one-seventh 1%<82 inte"est pro%indiviso in ten 1%>2 pa"cels of "e)iste"ed lands desc"ibed in pa"a)"aph 6 of the co'plaint in &ivil &ase No. S&-$78 f"o' his 'ate"nal )"and'othe", Cuisa 0autista, ho died on Nove'be" 4, %$7>. On =une %4, %$7/, Raul died intestate, sin)le, ithout an* issue, and leavin) onl* his 'othe", &onsuelo =oa;uin Vda. de 0alanta-bo, as his sole su"vivin) hei" to the "eal p"ope"ties above-'entioned. On Nove'be" 4, %$7/, &onsuelo ad(udicated unto he"self the above desc"ibed p"ope"ties in an !ffidavit entitled +&audal @e"ede"a"io del finado Raul 0alanta-bo+ hich p"ovided, a'on) othe"s, I. Jue de 'i le)iti'o 'at"i'onio con 'i difunto esposo, =ose 0alanta-bo, he tenido va"ios hi(os, ent"e ellos si difunto hi(o, lla'ado Raul 0alanta-bo. II. Jue 'i "efe"ido hi(o Raul 0alanta-bo, fallencio el %4 de =unio de %$7/, en la &iudad de Pasa*, du"ante su 'inolia de edad sin de(a" testa'ento al)uno. III. Jue el finado Raul 0alanta-bo al 'o"i" no ha de(ado descendiente al)uno. IV. Jue so* la unica ascendiente supe"viviento de 'i "efe"ido hi(o Raul 0alanta-bo * po" lo tanto su unica he"ede"a fo"'osa, le)iti'a * unive"sal. V. Jue el finado Raul 0alanta-bo 'u"io sin de(a" deuda al)una. VI. Jue el finado al 'o"i" de(o p"opiedades consistentes en bienes in'uebles situados en la P"ovincia de Ca)una. VII. Jue dichas p"op"iedades fue"on a su ve: ad;ui"idas po" el finado Raul 0alanta-bo pe" he"encia de su difunto pad"e, =ose 0alanta-bo, * de su tia abuela Cuisa 0autista. 333 333 333 14ollo, p. /$2 On Dece'be" /%, %$7$, &onsuelo =oa;uin vda. de 0alanta-bo sold the p"ope"t* desc"ibed in &ivil &ase No. S&-$76 to Ma"i;uita @. Su'a*a. The sale as evidenced b* a deed attached as !nne3 +&+ to the co'plaint. The sa'e p"ope"t* as subse;uentl* sold b* Ma"i;uita Su'a*a to Villa @ono"io Develop'ent &o"po"ation, Inc., on Dece'be" 4>, %$64. On =anua"* /4, %$68, Villa @ono"io

Develop'ent &o"po"ation t"ansfe""ed and assi)ned its "i)hts ove" the p"ope"t* in favo" of !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc. The docu'ents evidencin) these t"ansfe"s e"e "e)iste"ed in the Re)ist"* of Deeds of Ca)una and the co""espondin) ce"tificates of titles e"e issued. The p"ope"ties a"e p"esentl* in the na'e of !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc., /<4 sha"e and the "e'ainin) %<4 sha"e is in the na'e of Sancho 0alanta-bo. !lso on Dece'be" 4>, %$64, &onsuelo =oa;uin vda. de 0alanta-bo sold the p"ope"ties desc"ibed in the co'plaint in &ivil &ase No. S&$78 to Villa @ono"io Develop'ent &o"po"ation, Inc. The latte" in tu"n t"ansfe""ed and assi)ned all its "i)hts to the p"ope"ties in favo" of Ca)una !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc. hich p"ope"ties a"e p"esentl* in its possession. The pa"ties ad'it that the ce"tificates of titles cove"in) the above desc"ibed p"ope"ties do not contain an* annotation of its "ese"vable cha"acte". On =une 4, %$6#, &onsuelo =oa;uin vda. de 0alanta-bo died. On Ma"ch 5, %$8>, !'adeo, Sancho, Donato, Cuis, and 9"asto, all su"na'ed 0alanta-bo, b"othe"s in full blood of Raul 0alanta-bo and Cuisa, =ose and Dolo"es, also all su"na'ed 0alanta-bo, su"vivin) child"en of deceased =ose 0alanta-bo, ="., anothe" b"othe" of the fi"st na'ed 0alanta-bos, filed the above 'entioned civil cases to "ecove" the p"ope"ties desc"ibed in the "espective co'plaints hich the* clai'ed e"e sub(ect to a reserva troncal in thei" favo". The cou"t a quo found that the t o 1/2 cases va"ied onl* in the identit* of the sub(ect 'atte" of res involved, the t"ansfe"ees, the dates of the conve*ances but involve the sa'e le)al ;uestion of reserva troncal. @ence, the consolidation of the t o 1/2 cases. !fte" t"ial, the cou"t a quo "ende"ed a (oint decision in favo" of the 0alanta-bos, the dispositive po"tion of hich "eads, A@9R9FOR9, in both &ivil &ases Nos. S&-$76 and S&-$78, (ud)'ent is he"eb* "ende"ed in favo" of the plaintiffs and a)ainst the defendants, as follo s, %. O"de"in) the defendant Ca)una !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc. to conve* to the plaintiffs L a2 In &ivil &ase No. S&-$76 L the one-thi"d 1%<42 inte"est and o ne"ship, pro%indiviso, in and ove" the pa"cel of land desc"ibed in pa"a)"aph th"ee 142 sub-pa"a)"aph %, of pa)es one 1%2 and t o 1/2 of this decision? b2 In &ivil &ase No. S&-$78 L the one-seventh 1%<82 inte"est and o ne"ship, pro%indiviso, in and ove" the ten 1%>2 pa"cels of land desc"ibed in pa"a)"aph th"ee 142, sub-pa"a)"aph /, of pa)es t o 1/2 and th"ee 142 of this decision? c2 The plaintiffs a"e to sha"e e;uall* in the "eal p"ope"ties he"ein o"de"ed to be conve*ed to the' b* the defendants ith plaintiffs Cuisa, =ose and Dolo"es, all su"na'ed 0alanta-bo, "eceivin) onethi"d 1%<42 of the one sha"e pe"tainin) to the othe" plaintiffs ho a"e thei" uncles, /. O"de"in) the Ca)una !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc. to account fo" and pa* to the plaintiffs the value of the p"oduce f"o' the p"ope"ties he"ein o"de"ed to be "etu"ned to the plaintiffs, said accountin) and pa*'ent of inco'e bein) fo" the pe"iod f"o' =anua"* 4, %$6# until date of "econve*ance of the p"ope"ties he"ein o"de"ed, 4. In each of &ivil &ases Nos. S&-$76 and S&-$78, defendants a"e to pa* plaintiffs L a. One Thousand 1P%,>>>.>>2 Pesos in liti)ation e3penses. b. T o Thousand 1P/,>>>.>>2 Pesos in atto"ne*.s fees. 5. Defendants a"e to pa* the costs in each of &ivil &ases Nos. S&-$76 and $78. 333 333 333 1p. 56, 4ollo2 This decision as appealed to the appellate cou"t hich affi"'ed the decision of the cou"t a quo in toto. The 'otion fo" "econside"ation as denied 1p. 67, 4ollo2 b* the appellate cou"t hich found no co)ent "eason to "eve"se the decision.

This petition befo"e Es as filed on Nove'be" %/, %$#5 ith the petitione"s assi)nin) the follo in) e""o"s alle)edl* co''itted b* the appellate cou"t, I. The t"ial cou"t e""ed in not findin) defendants an 1sic2 innocent pu"chase" fo" value and in )ood faith of the p"ope"ties cove"ed b* ce"tificates of title sub(ect of liti)ation. II. The t"ial cou"t e""ed in findin) it unnecessa"* to annotate the "ese"vable inte"est of the "ese"vee in the p"ope"ties cove"ed b* ce"tificates of title sub(ect of liti)ation. III. The t"ial cou"t e""ed in findin) that the cause of action of the plaintiffs 1p"ivate "espondents2 has not *et p"esc"ibed. IV. The t"ial cou"t e""ed in a a"din) 'o"al and actual da'a)es in favo" of the plaintiffs b* vi"tue of the institution of &ivil &ases Nos. $76 and $78. Petitione"s ould ant this &ou"t to "eve"se the findin)s of the cou"t a quo, hich the appellate cou"t affi"'ed, that the* e"e not innocent pu"chase"s fo" value. !cco"din) to petitione"s, befo"e the* a)"eed to bu* the p"ope"ties f"o' the "ese"vo" 1also called reservista2, &onsuelo =oa;uin vda. de 0alanta-bo, the* fi"st sou)ht the le)al advice of thei" fa'il* consultant ho found that the"e as no encu'b"ance no" an* lien annotated on the ce"tificate of title covetin) the p"ope"ties. The cou"t a quo found othe" ise. Epon the death of the p"opositus, Raul 0alanta-bo, the reservista, &onsuelo vda. de 0alanta-bo caused the "e)ist"ation of an affidavit of self-ad(udication of the estate of Raul, he"ein it as clea"l* stated that the p"ope"ties e"e inhe"ited b* Raul f"o' his fathe" =ose, S"., as "e)a"ds the sub(ect 'atte" of &ivil &ase No. S&-$76 and f"o' his 'ate"nal )"and'othe", Cuisa 0autista, as "e)a"ds the sub(ect 'atte" of &ivil &ase No. S&-$78. The cou"t a quo fu"the" "uled that said affidavit as, in its fo"', decla"ation and substance, a "eco"din) ith the Re)ist"* of Deeds of the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"ties. In Spanish lan)ua)e, the affidavit clea"l* stated that the affiant, &onsuelo, as a lone-ascendant and hei" to Raul 0alanta-bo, he" son, ho died leavin) p"ope"ties p"eviousl* inhe"ited f"o' othe" ascendants and hich p"ope"ties e"e invento"ied in the said affidavit. It as ad'itted that the ce"tificates of titles cove"in) the p"ope"ties in ;uestion sho that the* e"e f"ee f"o' an* liens and encu'b"ances at the ti'e of the sale. The fact "e'ains ho eve", that the affidavit of self-ad(udication e3ecuted b* &onsuelo statin) the sou"ce of the p"ope"ties the"eb* sho in) the "ese"vable natu"e the"eof as "e)iste"ed ith the Re)iste" of Deeds of Ca)una, and this is sufficient notice to the hole o"ld in acco"dance ith Section 7/ of the P"ope"t* Re)ist"ation Dec"ee 1fo"'e"l* Sec. 7% of R.!. 5$62 hich p"ovides, Sec. 7/. 7?614I 1+85 ?71+ 5 IP7? 452+614A1+7?. L 9ve"* conve*ance, 'o"t)a)e, lease, lien attach'ent, o"de", (ud)'ent, inst"u'ent o" ent"* affectin) "e)iste"ed land shall, if "e)iste"ed, filed o" ente"ed in the Office of the Re)iste" of Deeds fo" the p"ovince o" cit* he"e the land to hich it "elates lies, be const"uctive notice to all pe"sons f"o' the ti'e of such "e)iste"in), filin) o" ente"in). Thus, in 2atioan v. 2affud, B.R. No. C-/%$74, Ma"ch /#, %$6$, /8 S&R! 8>6, 8%/-8%4, cited in People v. 4eyes, B.R. Nos. 85//6-/8, =ul* /8, %$#$, %87 S&R! 7$8? 2arcia v. A and P?B v. A, et al., B.R. Nos. C-5#$8% and C-5>$%%, both dated =anua"* //, %$#>, $7 S&R! 4#> and "egarda and Prieto v. 6aleeby, 4% Phil. 7$>, 6>>, Ae held, Ahen a conve*ance has been p"ope"l* "eco"ded such "eco"d is const"uctive notice of its contents and all inte"ests, le)al and e;uitable, included the"ein . . . Inder the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has e3amined every instrument of record affecting the title. 6uch presumption is irrebuttable. @e is cha")ed ith notice of eve"* fact sho n b* the "eco"d and is p"esu'ed to -no eve"* fact hich an e3a'ination of the "eco"d ould have disclosed. This p"esu'ption cannot be ove"co'e b* p"oof of innocence o" )ood faith. Othe" ise, the ve"* pu"pose and ob(ect of the la "e;ui"in) a "eco"d ould be dest"o*ed. Such p"esu'ption cannot be defeated b* p"oof of ant of -no led)e of hat the "eco"d contains an* 'o"e than one 'a* be pe"'itted to sho that he as i)no"ant of the p"ovisions of the la . The "ule that all pe"sons 'ust ta-e notice of the facts hich the public "eco"d contains is a "ule of la . The "ule 'ust be absolute, an* va"iation ould lead to endless confusion and useless liti)ation. . . . In the case of Bass v. !e la 4ama, 84 Phil. 6#/, 6#7, the "ule as laid do n that the 'e"e ent"* of a docu'ent in the da* boo- ithout notin) it on the ce"tificate of title is not sufficient "e)ist"ation. @o eve", that "ulin) as supe"seded b* the holdin) in the late" si3 cases of "evin v. Bass, $% Phil. 5/>. !s e3plained in 2arcia v. A, et al., B.R. Nos. C-5#$8% and 5$>%%, =anua"* />, %$#>, $7 S&R! 4#>, 4##, hich is the p"evailin) doct"ine in this (u"isdiction. That "ulin) as supe"seded b* the holdin) in the late" si3 cases of "evin v. Bass, $% Phil. 5/>, he"e a distinction as 'ade bet een volunta"* and involunta"* "e)ist"ation, such as the "e)ist"ation of an attach'ent, lev* upon e3ecution, notice of lis pendens, and the li-e. In cases of involunta"* "e)ist"ation, an ent"* the"eof in the da* boo- is a sufficient notice to all pe"sons even if the o ne".s duplicate ce"tificate of title is not p"esented to the "e)iste" of deeds.

On the othe" hand, acco"din) to the said cases of "evin v. Bass, in case of volunta"* "e)ist"ation of docu'ents an innocent pu"chase" fo" value of "e)iste"ed land beco'es the "e)iste"ed o ne", and, in conte'plation of la the holde" of a ce"tificate of title, the 'o'ent he p"esents and files a dul* nota"i:ed and valid deed of sale and the sa'e is ente"ed in the da* boo- and at the sa'e ti'e he su""ende"s o" p"esents the o ne".s duplicate ce"tificate of title cove"in) the land sold and pa*s the "e)ist"ation fees, because hat "e'ains to be done lies not ithin his po e" to pe"fo"'. The "e)iste" of deeds is dut* bound to pe"fo"' it. 16ee Potenciano v. Dine"os, $8 Phil. %$62. In this case, the affidavit of self ad(udication e3ecuted b* &onsuelo vda. de 0alanta-bo hich contained a state'ent that the p"ope"t* as inhe"ited f"o' a descendant, Raul, hich has li-e ise inhe"ited b* the latte" f"o' anothe" ascendant, as "e)iste"ed ith the Re)ist"* of P"ope"t*. The failu"e of the Re)iste" of Deeds to annotate the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"t* in the ce"tificate of title cannot be att"ibuted to &onsuelo. Mo"eove", the"e is sufficient p"oof that the petitione"s had actual -no led)e of the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"ties befo"e the* bou)ht the sa'e f"o' &onsuelo. This 'atte" appea"ed in the deed of sale 193hibit +&+2 e3ecuted b* &onsuelo in favo" of Ma"i;uita Su'a*a, the fi"st vendee of the p"ope"t* liti)ated in &ivil &ase No. S&-$76, as follo s, 333 333 333 That, I 1&onsuelo, vendo"2 a' the absolute and e3clusive o ne" of the one-thi"d 1%<42 po"tion of the above desc"ibed pa"cel of land b* vi"tue of the Deed of 93t"a-(udicial Pa"tition e3ecuted b* the @ei"s of the deceased =ose 0alanta-bo dated Dece'be" %>, %$57 and said po"tion in acco"dance ith the pa"tition above-'entioned as ad(udicated to Raul 0alanta-bo, sin)le, to 1sic2 ho' I inhe"ited afte" his death and this p"ope"t* is enti"el* f"ee f"o' an* encu'b"ance of an* natu"e o" -ind hatsoeve", . . . 1p. 5/, 4ollo2 It as ad'itted thou)h that as "e)a"ds the p"ope"ties liti)ated in &ivil &ase S&-$78, no such ad'ission as 'ade b* &onsuelo to put Villa @ono"io Develop'ent on notice of the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"ties. The affidavit of self-ad(udication e3ecuted b* &onsuelo and "e)iste"ed ith the Re)ist"* ould still be sufficient notice to bind the'. Mo"eove", the &ou"t a quo found that the petitione"s and p"ivate "espondents e"e lon) ti'e ac;uaintances? that the Villa @ono"io Develop'ent &o"po"ation and its successo"s, the Ca)una !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative Inc., a"e fa'il* co"po"ations of the Su'a*as and that the petitione"s -ne all alon) that the p"ope"ties liti)ated in this case e"e inhe"ited b* Raul 0alanta-bo f"o' his fathe" and f"o' his 'ate"nal )"and'othe", and that &onsuelo Vda. de 0alanta-bo inhe"ited these p"ope"ties f"o' his son Raul. The obli)ation to "ese"ve "ests upon the "ese"vo", &onsuelo =oa;uin vda. de 0alanta-bo. !"ticle #$% of the Ne &ivil &ode on reserva troncal p"ovides, !"t. #$%. The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obliged to reserve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. 19'phasis supplied2 Ae do not a)"ee, ho eve", ith the disposition of the appellate cou"t that the"e is no need to "e)iste" the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"t*, if onl* fo" the p"otection of the "ese"vees, a)ainst innocent thi"d pe"sons. This as su))ested as ea"l* as the case of !irector of "ands v. Aguas, B.R. No. 5/848, !u)ust %%, %$46, 64 Phil. /8$. The 'ain issue sub'itted fo" "esolution the"ein as hethe" the "ese"vation established b* !"ticle #%% 1no !"t. #$% of the Ne &ivil &ode2 of the &ivil &ode, fo" the benefit of the "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee belon)in) to the line of the descendant f"o' ho' the ascendant "ese"vo" "eceived the p"ope"t*, should be unde"stood as 'ade in favo" of all the "elatives ithin said de)"ee and belon)in) to the line above-'entioned, ithout distinction le)iti'ate, natu"al and ille)iti'ate ones not havin) the le)al status of natu"al child"en. @o eve", in an obiter dictum this &ou"t stated the"ein, The "ese"vable cha"acte" of a p"ope"t* is but a "esoluto"* condition of the ascendant "ese"vo".s "i)ht of o ne"ship. If the condition is fulfilled, that is, if upon the ascendant "ese"vo".s death the"e a"e "elatives havin) the status p"ovided in !"ticle #%% 1!"t. #$%, Ne &ivil &ode2, the p"ope"t* passes, in acco"dance ith this special o"de" of succession, to said "elatives, o" to the nea"est of -in a'on) the', hich ;uestion not bein) pe"tinent to this case, need not no be dete"'ined. 0ut if this condition is not fulfilled, the p"ope"t* is "eleased and ill be ad(udicated in acco"dance ith the "e)ula" o"de" of succession. The fulfill'ent o" non-fulfill'ent of the "esoluto"* condition, the efficac* o" cessation of the "ese"vation, the ac;uisition of "i)hts o" loss of the vested ones, a"e pheno'ena hich have nothin) to do ith hethe" the "ese"vation has been noted o" not in the ce"tificate of title to the p"ope"t*. 1he purpose of the notation is nothing more than to afford to the persons entitled to the reservation, if any, due protection against any act of the reservor, which may ma*e it ineffective . . . 1p. /$/, +bid2 Ci-e ise, in !i'on and !i'on v. 2alang, B.R. No. /%455, =anua"* %5, %$/6, 5# Phil. 6>%, 6>4, this &ou"t "uled that the "ese"vable cha"acte" of a p"ope"t* 'a* be lost to innocent pu"chase"s fo" value. !dditionall*, it as "uled the"ein that the obli)ation i'posed on a ido ed spouse to annotate the "ese"vable cha"acte" of a p"ope"t* sub(ect of reserva viudal is applicable to reserva troncal. 16ee also 9d"o:o v. Sablan, B.R. No. 6#8#, Septe'be" %4, %$%4, /7 Phil. /$72.

Since these pa"cels of land have been le)all* t"ansfe""ed to thi"d pe"sons, Vicente Balan) has lost o ne"ship the"eof and cannot no "e)iste" no" "eco"d in the Re)ist"* of Deeds thei" "ese"vable cha"acte"? neithe" can he effect the fee si'ple, hich does not belon) to hi', to the da'a)e of =uan Medina and Teodo"o =u"ado, ho ac;ui"ed the said land in )ood faith, f"ee of all incu'b"ances. !n atte'pt as 'ade to p"ove that hen =uan Medina as advised not to bu* the land he "e'a"-ed, +Ah* did he 1Vicente Balan)2 not inhe"it it f"o' his sonD+ !side f"o' the fact that it is not clea" hethe" this conse"vation too- place in %$%4 o" %$%5, that is, befo"e o" afte" the sale, it does not a"ise that he had an* -no led)e of the "ese"vation. This did not a"ise f"o' the fact alone that Vicente Balan) had inhe"ited the land f"o' his son, but also f"o' the fact that, b* ope"ation of la , the son had inhe"ited it f"o' his 'othe" Rufina Di:on, hich ci"cu'stance, so fa" as the "eco"d sho s, =uan Medina had not been a a"e of. Ae do not decide, ho eve", hethe" o" not =uan Medina and Teodo"o =u"ado a"e obli)ed to ac-no led)e the "ese"vation and to note the sa'e in thei" deeds, fo" the "eason that the"e as no p"a*e" to this effect in the co'plaint and no ;uestion "aised in "e)a"d the"eto. &onsistent ith the "ule in reserva viudal he"e the pe"son obli)ed to "ese"ve 1the ido ed spouse2 had the obli)ation to annotate in the Re)ist"* of P"ope"t* the "ese"vable cha"acte" of the p"ope"t*, in reserva troncal, the "ese"vo" 1the ascendant ho inhe"ited f"o' a descendant p"ope"t* hich the latte" inhe"ited f"o' anothe" descendant2 has the dut* to "ese"ve and the"efo"e, the dut* to annotate also. The (u"isp"udential "ule "e;ui"in) annotation in the Re)ist"* of P"ope"t* of the "i)ht "ese"ved in "eal p"ope"t* sub(ect of reserva viudal insofa" as it is applied to reserva troncal sta*s despite the abolition of reserva viudal in the Ne &ivil &ode. This "ule is consistent ith the "ule p"ovided in the second pa"a)"aph of Section 7% of P.D. %7/$, hich p"ovides that, +The act of "e)ist"ation shall be the ope"ative act to conve* o" affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned . . .+ 1e'phasis supplied2 The p"ope"ties involved in this case a"e al"ead* cove"ed b* a To""ens title and unless the "e)ist"ation of the li'itation is effected 1eithe" actual o" const"uctive2, no thi"d pe"sons shall be p"e(udiced the"eb*. The "espondent appellate cou"t did not e"" in findin) that the cause of action of the p"ivate "espondents did not p"esc"ibe *et. The cause of action of the "ese"vees did not co''ence upon the death of the p"opositus Raul 0alanta-bo on =une %4, %$7/ but upon the death of the "ese"vo" &onsuelo Vda. de 0alanta-bo on =une 4, %$6#. Relatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee in hose favo" the "i)ht 1o" p"ope"t*2 is "ese"ved have no title of o ne"ship o" of fee si'ple ove" the "ese"ved p"ope"t* du"in) the lifeti'e of the "ese"vo". Onl* hen the "ese"vo" should die befo"e the "ese"vees ill the latte" ac;ui"e the "ese"ved p"ope"t*, thus c"eatin) a fee si'ple, and onl* then ill the* ta-e thei" place in the succession of the descendant of ho' the* a"e "elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee 16ee Vela*o 0e"na"do v. Sio(o, B.R. No. 46>8#, Ma"ch %%, %$44, 7# Phil. #$2. The "ese"va is e3tin)uished upon the death of the "ese"vo", as it then beco'es a "i)ht of full o ne"ship on the pa"t of the "ese"vata"ios, ho can b"in) a "eivindicato"* suit the"efo". Nonetheless, this "i)ht if not e3e"cised ithin the ti'e fo" "ecove"* 'a* p"esc"ibe in ten 1%>2 *ea"s unde" the old &ode of &ivil P"ocedu"e 1see &a"illo v. De Pa:, B.R. No. C-//6>%, Octobe" /#, %$66, %# S&R! 568, 5842 o" in thi"t* *ea"s unde" !"ticle %%5% of the Ne &ivil &ode. The actions fo" "ecove"* of the "ese"ved p"ope"t* as b"ou)ht b* he"ein p"ivate "espondents on Ma"ch 5, %$8> o" less than t o 1/2 *ea"s f"o' the death of the "ese"vo". The"efo"e, p"ivate "espondents. cause of action has not p"esc"ibed *et. Finall*, the a a"d of one thousand pesos 1P%,>>>.>>2 fo" actual liti)ation e3penses and t o thousand pesos 1P/,>>>.>>2 fo" atto"ne*.s fees is p"ope" unde" !"ticle //>#1/2 of the Ne &ivil &ode. P"ivate "espondents e"e co'pelled to )o to cou"t to "ecove" hat "i)htfull* belon)s to the'. !&&ORDINBCH, the petition is D9NI9D. The ;uestioned decision of the Inte"'ediate !ppellate &ou"t is !FFIRM9D, e3cept fo" the 'odification on the necessit* to annotate the "eve"sable cha"acte" of a p"ope"t* sub(ect of reserva troncal. SO ORD9R9D. ?arvasa,
oot%ote% 9ntitled !'ado, Sancho, Donato, Cuis, 9"asto, Cuisa, =ose and Dolo"es, all su"na'ed 0alanta-bo, Plaintiffs ve"sus Ma"i;uita O. Su'a*a, Villa @ono"io Develop'ent &o"po"ation and Ca)una !)"o-Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative, Inc., Defendants. / 9ntitled !'ado, Sancho, Donato, Cuis, 9"asto, Cuisa, =ose and Dolo"es, all su"na'ed 0alanta-bo, Plaintiffs, ve"sus Villa @ono"io Develop'ent &o"po"ation and Ca)una Indust"ial &oconut &oope"ative Inc., Defendants.

ru' and 2ri/o%Aquino, ((., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 83484 ebr:$r. 12, 1990 CELE#ON"! SOL"+"O, petitione", vs. T*E *ONOR!/LE COURT O !PPE!LS $%& CONCOR#"! '!+ELL!N! +"LL!NUE+!, "espondents. 4e3 6ui'a astillon for petitioner.

6alas J 8illareal for private respondent. ME#"!L#E!, J.: This is a petition fo" "evie of the decision dated =anua"* /6, %$## of the &ou"t of !ppeals in &! BR &V No. >$>%> 1&onco"dia Villanueva v. &eledonia Solivio2 affi"'in) the decision of the t"ial cou"t in &ivil &ase No. %4/>8 fo" pa"tition, "econve*ance of o ne"ship and possession and da'a)es, the dispositive po"tion of hich "eads as follo s, A@9R9FOR9, (ud)'ent is he"eb* "ende"ed fo" the plaintiff and a)ainst defendant, a2 O"de"in) that the estate of the late 9steban =avellana, =". be divided into t o 1/2 sha"es, one-half fo" the plaintiff and one-half fo" defendant. F"o' both sha"es shall be e;uall* deducted the e3penses fo" the bu"ial, 'ausoleu' and "elated e3penditu"es. !)ainst the sha"e of defendants shall be cha")ed the e3penses fo" schola"ship, a a"ds, donations and the .Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana Me'o"ial Foundation?. b2 Di"ectin) the defendant to sub'it an invento"* of the enti"e estate p"ope"t*, includin) but not li'ited to, specific ite's al"ead* 'entioned in this decision and to "ende" an accountin) of the p"ope"t* of the estate, ithin thi"t* 14>2 da*s f"o' "eceipt of this (ud)'ent? one-half 1%</2 of this p"oduce shall belon) to plaintiff? c2 O"de"in) defendant to pa* plaintiff P7,>>>.>> as e3penses of liti)ation? P%>,>>>.>> fo" and as atto"ne*.s fees plus costs. SO ORD9R9D. 1pp. 5/-54, Rollo2 This case involves the estate of the late novelist, 9steban =avellana, ="., autho" of the fi"st post- a" Filipino novel +Aithout Seein) the Da n,+ ho died a bachelo", ithout descendants, ascendants, b"othe"s, siste"s, nephe s o" nieces. @is onl* su"vivin) "elatives a"e, 1%2 his 'ate"nal aunt, petitione" &eledonia Solivio, the spinste" half-siste" of his 'othe", Salustia Solivio? and 1/2 the p"ivate "espondent, &onco"dia =avellana-Villanueva, siste" of his deceased fathe", 9steban =avellana, S". @e as a posthu'ous child. @is fathe" died ba"el* ten 1%>2 'onths afte" his 'a""ia)e in Dece'be", %$%6 to Salustia Solivio and fou" 'onths befo"e 9steban, =". as bo"n. Salustia and he" siste", &eledonia 1dau)hte" of 9n)"acio Solivio and his second ife =osefa Fe"nande:2, a teache" in the Iloilo P"ovincial @i)h School, b"ou)ht up 9steban, =". Salustia b"ou)ht to he" 'a""ia)e pa"aphe"nal p"ope"ties 1va"ious pa"cels of land in &alino), Iloilo cove"ed b* /5 titles2 hich she had inhe"ited f"o' he" 'othe", B"e)o"ia &elo, 9n)"acio Solivio.s fi"st ife 1p. 4/7, Reco"d2, but no con(u)al p"ope"t* as ac;ui"ed du"in) he" sho"t-lived 'a""ia)e to 9steban, S". On Octobe" %%, %$7$, Salustia died, leavin) all he" p"ope"ties to he" onl* child, 9steban, ="., includin) a house and lot in Ca Pa:, Iloilo &it*, he"e she, he" son, and he" siste" lived. In due ti'e, the titles of all these p"ope"ties e"e t"ansfe""ed in the na'e of 9steban, =". Du"in) his lifeti'e, 9steban, =". had, 'o"e than once, e3p"essed to his aunt &eledonia and so'e close f"iends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to hono" his 'othe" and to help poo" but dese"vin) students obtain a colle)e education. Enfo"tunatel*, he died of a hea"t attac- on Feb"ua"* /6,%$88 ithout havin) set up the foundation. T o ee-s afte" his fune"al, &onco"dia and &eledonia tal-ed about hat to do ith 9steban.s p"ope"ties. &eledonia told &onco"dia about 9steban.s desi"e to place his estate in a foundation to be na'ed afte" his 'othe", f"o' ho' his p"ope"ties ca'e, fo" the pu"pose of helpin) indi)ent students in thei" schoolin). &onco"dia a)"eed to ca""* out the plan of the deceased. This fact as ad'itted

b* he" in he" +Motion to Reopen and<o" Reconside" the O"de" dated !p"il 4, %$8#+ P"oceedin) No. /75>, he"e she stated,

hich she filed on =ul* /8, %$8# in Special

5. That petitione" -ne all alon) the na""ated facts in the i''ediatel* p"ecedin) pa"a)"aph Fthat he"ein 'ovant is also the "elative of the deceased ithin the thi"d de)"ee, she bein) the *oun)e" siste" of the late 9steban =avellana, fathe" of the decedent he"einG, because prior to the filing of the petition they Fpetitioner eledonia 6olivio and movant oncordia (avellanaG have agreed to ma*e the estate of the decedent a foundation, besides the* have closel* -no n each othe" due to thei" filiation to the decedent and the* have been visitin) each othe".s house hich a"e not fa" a a* fo" 1sic2 each othe". 1p. /45, Reco"d? 9'phasis supplied.2 Pu"suant to thei" a)"ee'ent that &eledonia ould ta-e ca"e of the p"oceedin)s leadin) to the fo"'ation of the foundation, &eledonia in )ood faith and upon the advice of he" counsel, filed on Ma"ch #, %$88 Spl. P"oceedin) No. /75> fo" he" appoint'ent as special ad'inist"at"i3 of the estate of 9steban =avellana, =". 193h. /2. Cate", she filed an a'ended petition 193h. 72 p"a*in) that lette"s of ad'inist"ation be issued to he"? that she be decla"ed sole hei" of the deceased? and that afte" pa*'ent of all clai's and "endition of invento"* and accountin), the estate be ad(udicated to he" 1p. %%7, Rollo2. !fte" due publication and hea"in) of he" petition, as ell as he" a'ended petition, she as decla"ed sole hei" of the estate of 9steban =avellana, =". She e3plained that this as done fo" th"ee "easons, 1%2 because the p"ope"ties of the estate had co'e f"o' he" siste", Salustia Solivio? 1/2 that she is the decedent.s nea"est "elative on his 'othe".s side? and 142 ith he" as sole hei", the disposition of the p"ope"ties of the estate to fund the foundation ould be facilitated. On !p"il 4, %$8#, the cou"t 10"anch II, &FI, no 0"anch /4, RT&2 decla"ed he" the sole hei" of 9steban, =". The"eafte", she sold p"ope"ties of the estate to pa* the ta3es and othe" obli)ations of the deceased and p"oceeded to set up the =6A"I61+A 67"+8+7 8!A. !5 (A85""A?A F7I?!A1+7?= hich she caused to be "e)iste"ed in the Secu"ities and 93chan)e &o''ission on =ul* %8,%$#% unde" Re). No. >%>>>/8 1p. $#, Rollo2. Fou" 'onths late", o" on !u)ust 8, %$8#, &onco"dia =avellana Villanueva filed a 'otion fo" "econside"ation of the cou"t.s o"de" decla"in) &eledonia as +sole hei"+ of 9steban, ="., because she too as an hei" of the deceased. On Octobe" /8, %$8#, he" 'otion as denied b* the cou"t fo" ta"diness 1pp. #>-#%, Reco"d2. Instead of appealin) the denial, &onco"dia filed on =anua"* 8, %$#> 1o" one *ea" and t o 'onths late"2, &ivil &ase No. %4/>8 in the Re)ional T"ial &ou"t of Iloilo, 0"anch /6, entitled = oncordia (avellana% 8illanueva v. eledonia 6olivio= fo" pa"tition, "ecove"* of possession, o ne"ship and da'a)es. On Septe'be" 4, %$#5, the said t"ial cou"t "ende"ed (ud)'ent in &ivil &ase No. %4/>8, in favo" of &onco"dia =avellana-Villanueva. On &onco"dia.s 'otion, the t"ial cou"t o"de"ed the e3ecution of its (ud)'ent pendin) appeal and "e;ui"ed &eledonia to sub'it an invento"* and accountin) of the estate. In he" 'otions fo" "econside"ation of those o"de"s, &eledonia ave""ed that the p"ope"ties of the deceased had al"ead* been t"ansfe""ed to, and e"e in the possession of, the .Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana Foundation.+ The t"ial cou"t denied he" 'otions fo" "econside"ation. In the 'eanti'e, &eledonia pe"fected an appeal to the &ou"t of !ppeals 1&! BR &V No. >$>%>2. On =anua"* /6, %$##, the &ou"t of !ppeals, 9leventh Division, "ende"ed (ud)'ent affi"'in) the decision of the t"ial cou"t in toto. @ence, this petition fo" "evie he"ein she "aised the follo in) le)al issues, %. hethe" 0"anch /6 of the RT& of Iloilo had (u"isdiction to ente"tain &ivil &ase No. %4/>8 fo" pa"tition and "ecove"* of &onco"dia Villanueva.s sha"e of the estate of 9steban =avellana, =". even hile the p"obate p"oceedin)s 1Spl. P"oc. No. /75>2 e"e still pendin) in 0"anch /4 of the sa'e cou"t? /. hethe" &onco"dia Villanueva as p"evented f"o' inte"venin) in Spl. P"oc. No. /75> th"ou)h e3t"insic f"aud?

4. hethe" the decedent.s p"ope"ties e"e sub(ect to reserva troncal in favo" of &eledonia, his "elative ithin the thi"d de)"ee on his 'othe".s side f"o' ho' he had inhe"ited the'? and 5. hethe" &onco"dia 'a* "ecove" he" sha"e of the estate afte" she had a)"eed to place the sa'e in the Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana Foundation, and not ithstandin) the fact that confo"'abl* ith said a)"ee'ent, the Foundation has been fo"'ed and p"ope"ties of the estate have al"ead* been t"ansfe""ed to it. I. 1he question of jurisdiction> !fte" a ca"eful "evie of the "eco"ds, e find 'e"it in the petitione".s contention that the Re)ional T"ial &ou"t, 0"anch /6, lac-ed (u"isdiction to ente"tain &onco"dia Villanueva.s action fo" pa"tition and "ecove"* of he" sha"e of the estate of 9steban =avellana, =". hile the p"obate p"oceedin)s 1Spl, P"oc. No. /75>2 fo" the settle'ent of said estate a"e still pendin) in 0"anch /4 of the sa'e cou"t, the"e bein) as *et no o"de"s fo" the sub'ission and app"oval of the ad'inist"ati3.s invento"* and accountin), dist"ibutin) the "esidue of the estate to the hei", and te"'inatin) the p"oceedin)s 1p. 4%, Reco"d2.

It is the o"de" of dist"ibution di"ectin) the delive"* of the "esidue of the estate to the pe"sons entitled the"eto that b"in)s to a close the intestate p"oceedin)s, puts an end to the ad'inist"ation and thus fa" "elieves the ad'inist"ato" f"o' his duties 1Santiesteban v. Santiesteban, 6# Phil. 468, Philippine &o''e"cial and Indust"ial 0an- v. 9scolin, et al., C-/8#6>, Ma"ch /$, %$85, 76 S&R! /662. The assailed o"de" of =ud)e !dil in Spl. P"oc. No. /75> decla"in) &eledonia as the sole hei" of the estate of 9steban =avellana, =". did not toll the end of the p"oceedin)s. !s a 'atte" of fact, the last pa"a)"aph of the o"de" di"ected the ad'inist"at"i3 to +hu""* up the settle'ent of the estate.+ The pe"tinent po"tions of the o"de" a"e ;uoted belo , /. !s "e)a"ds the second incident FMotion fo" Decla"ation of Miss &eledonia Solivio as Sole @ei", dated Ma"ch 8, %$8#G, it appea"s f"o' the "eco"d that despite the notices posted and the publication of these p"oceedin)s as "e;ui"ed b* la , no othe" hei"s ca'e out to inte"pose an* opposition to the instant p"oceedin). It fu"the" appea"s that he"ein !d'inist"at"i3 is the onl* clai'ant-hei" to the estate of the late 9steban =avellana ho died on Feb"ua"* /6, %$88. Du"in) the hea"in) of the 'otion fo" decla"ation as hei" on Ma"ch %8, %$8#, it as established that the late 9steban =avellana died sin)le, ithout an* -no n issue, and ithout an* su"vivin) pa"ents. @is nea"est "elative is the he"ein !d'inist"at"i3, an elde" FsicG siste" of his late 'othe" ho "ea"ed hi' and ith ho' he had al a*s been livin) ith FsicG du"in) his lifeti'e. 333333333 /. Miss &eledonia Solivio, !d'inist"at"i3 of this estate, is he"eb* decla"ed as the sole and le)al hei" of the late 9steban S. =avellana, ho died intestate on Feb"ua"* /6, %$88 at Ca Pa:, Iloilo &it*. The !d'inist"at"i3 is he"eb* inst"ucted to hu""* up ith the settle'ent of this estate so that it can be te"'inated. 1pp, %5-%6, Reco"d2 In vie of the pendenc* of the p"obate p"oceedin)s in 0"anch %% of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance 1no RT&, 0"anch /42, &onco"dia.s 'otion to set aside the o"de" decla"in) &eledonia as sole hei" of 9steban, and to have he"self 1&onco"dia2 decla"ed as co-hei" and "ecove" he" sha"e of the p"ope"ties of the deceased, as p"ope"l* filed b* he" in Spl. P"oc. No. /75>. @e" "e'ed* hen the cou"t denied he" 'otion, as to elevate the denial to the &ou"t of !ppeals fo" "evie on ce"tio"a"i. @o eve", instead of availin) of that "e'ed*, she filed 'o"e than one *ea" late", a sepa"ate action fo" the sa'e pu"pose in 0"anch /6 of the cou"t. Ae hold that the sepa"ate action as i'p"ope"l* filed fo" it is the p"obate cou"t that has e3clusive (u"isdiction to 'a-e a (ust and le)al dist"ibution of the estate. In the inte"est of o"de"l* p"ocedu"e and to avoid confusin) and conflictin) dispositions of a decedent.s estate, a cou"t should not inte"fe"e ith p"obate p"oceedin)s pendin) in a co-e;ual cou"t. Thus, did e "ule in 2uilas v. (udge of the ourt of First +nstance of Pampanga, "%CKKAE, (anuary @,, ,ABC, 54 S&R! %%%, %%8, he"e a dau)hte" filed a sepa"ate action to annul a p"o(ect of pa"tition e3ecuted bet een he" and he" fathe" in the p"oceedin)s fo" the settle'ent of the estate of he" 'othe", The p"obate cou"t loses (u"isdiction of an estate unde" ad'inist"ation onl* afte" the pa*'ent of all the debts and the "e'ainin) estate delive"ed to the hei"s entitled to "eceive the sa'e. The finalit* of the app"oval of the p"o(ect of The p"obate cou"t, in the e3e"cise of its (u"isdiction to 'a-e dist"ibution, has po e" to dete"'ine the p"opo"tion o" pa"ts to hich each dist"ibuted is entitled. ... The po e" to dete"'ine the le)alit* o" ille)alit* of the testa'enta"* p"ovision is inhe"ent in the (u"isdiction of the cou"t 'a-in) a (ust and le)al dist"ibution of the inhe"itance. ... To hold that a sepa"ate and independent action is necessa"* to that effect, ould be cont"a"* to the )ene"al tendenc* of the (u"isp"udence of avoidin) 'ultiplicit* of suits? and is fu"the", e3pensive, dilato"*, and i'p"actical. 1Ma"celino v. !ntonio, 8> Phil. 4##2 ! (udicial decla"ation that a ce"tain pe"son is the onl* hei" of the decedent is e3clusivel* ithin the "an)e of the ad'inist"at"i3 p"oceedin)s and can not p"ope"l* be 'ade an independent action. 1Cita' v. 9spi"itu, %>> Phil. 4652 ! sepa"ate action fo" the decla"ation of hei"s is not p"ope". 1Pi'entel v. Palanca, 7 Phil. 5462 pa"tition b* itself alone does not te"'inate the p"obate p"oceedin) 1Ti'bol v. &ano, % S&R! %/8%, %/86, C-%7557, !p"il /$, %$6%? Si)uion) v. Tecson, #$ Phil. pp. /#, 4>2. !s lon) as the o"de" of the dist"ibution of the estate has not been co'plied ith, the p"obate p"oceedin)s cannot be dee'ed closed and te"'inated Si)uion) v. Tecson, supra2? because a (udicial pa"tition is not final and conclusive and does not p"event the hei"s f"o' b"in)in) an action to obtain his sha"e, p"ovided the p"esc"iptive pe"iod the"efo"e has not elapsed 1Ma"i v. 0onilia, #4 Phil. %482. 1he better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent action, hich ould be t"ied b* anothe" cou"t o" =ud)e hich 'a* thus "eve"se a decision o" o"de" of the p"obate o" intestate cou"t al"ead* final and e3ecuted and "e-shuffle p"ope"ties lon) a)o dist"ibuted and disposed of. 1Ra'os v. O"tu:a", #$ Phil. 84>, 85%-85/? Ti'bol v. &ano, supraH =in)co v. Dalu:, C-7%>8, !p"il /5, %$74, $/ Phil. %>#/? Ro'an &atholic v. !)ustines, C-%58%>, Ma"ch /$, %$6>, %>8 Phil. 577, 56>-56%? 9'phasis supplied2

In "itam et al., v. 4ivera, %>> Phil. 465, he"e despite the pendenc* of the special p"oceedin)s fo" the settle'ent of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Cita' the plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil action in hich the* clai'ed that the* e"e the child"en b* a p"evious 'a""ia)e of the deceased to a &hinese o'an, hence, entitled to inhe"it his one-half sha"e of the con(u)al p"ope"ties ac;ui"ed du"in) his 'a""ia)e to Ma"cosa Rive"a, the t"ial cou"t in the civil case decla"ed that the plaintiffs-appellants e"e not child"en of the deceased, that the p"ope"ties in ;uestion e"e pa"aphe"nal p"ope"ties of his ife, Ma"cosa Rive"a, and that the latte" as his onl* hei". On appeal to this &ou"t, e "uled that +such decla"ations 1that Ma"cosa Rive"a as the onl* hei" of the decedent2 is i'p"ope", in &ivil &ase No. />8%, it being within the e3clusive competence of the court in 6pecial Proceedings ?o. ,E@B, in hich it is not as *et, in issue, and, ill not be, o"dina"il*, in issue until the p"esentation of the p"o(ect of pa"tition. 1p. 48#2. @o eve", in the Builas case, supra, since the estate p"oceedin)s had been closed and te"'inated fo" ove" th"ee *ea"s, the action fo" annul'ent of the p"o(ect of pa"tition as allo ed to continue. &onside"in) that in the instant case, the estate p"oceedin)s a"e still pendin), but nonetheless, &onco"dia had lost he" "i)ht to have he"self decla"ed as co-hei" in said p"oceedin)s, Ae have opted li-e ise to p"oceed to discuss the 'e"its of he" clai' in the inte"est of (ustice. The o"de"s of the Re)ional T"ial &ou"t, 0"anch /6, in &ivil &ase No. %4/>8 settin) aside the p"obate p"oceedin)s in 0"anch /4 1fo"'e"l* 0"anch %%2 on the )"ound of e3t"insic f"aud, and decla"in) &onco"dia Villanueva to be a co-hei" of &eledonia to the estate of 9steban, ="., o"de"in) the pa"tition of the estate, and "e;ui"in) the ad'inist"at"i3, &eledonia, to sub'it an invento"* and accountin) of the estate, e"e i'p"ope" and officious, to sa* the least, fo" these 'atte"s he ithin the e3clusive co'petence of the p"obate cou"t. II. 1he question of e3trinsic fraud> Aas &onco"dia p"evented f"o' inte"venin) in the intestate p"oceedin)s b* e3trinsic fraud e'plo*ed b* &eledoniaD It is note o"th* that e3t"insic f"aud as not alleged in &onco"dia.s o"i)inal co'plaint in &ivil &ase No. %4/>8. It as onl* in he" a'ended co'plaint of Ma"ch 6, %$#>, that e3t"insic f"aud as alle)ed fo" the fi"st ti'e. 93t"insic f"aud, as a )"ound fo" annul'ent of (ud)'ent, is an* act o" conduct of the p"evailin) pa"t* hich p"evented a fai" sub'ission of the cont"ove"s* 1F"ancisco v. David, 4# O.B. 8%52. ! f"aud . hich p"events a pa"t* f"o' havin) a t"ial o" p"esentin) all of his case to the cou"t, o" one hich ope"ates upon 'atte"s pe"tainin), not to the (ud)'ent itself, but to the 'anne" b* hich such (ud)'ent as p"ocu"ed so 'uch so that the"e as no fai" sub'ission of the cont"ove"s*. Fo" instance, if th"ou)h f"audulent 'achination b* one Fhis adve"sa"*G, a liti)ant as induced to ithd"a his defense o" as p"evented f"o' p"esentin) an available defense o" cause of action in the case he"ein the (ud)'ent as obtained, such that the a))"ieved pa"t* as dep"ived of his da* in cou"t th"ou)h no fault of his o n, the e;uitable "elief a)ainst such (ud)'ent 'a* be availed of. 1Hatco v. Su'a)ui, 556/4-R, =ul* 4%, %$8%2. 1cited in Philippine Ca Dictiona"*, %$8/ 9d. b* Mo"eno? Va"ela v. Villanueva, et al., $6 Phil. /5#2 ! (ud)'ent 'a* be annulled on the )"ound of e3t"insic o" collate"al f"aud, as distin)uished f"o' int"insic f"aud, hich connotes an* f"audulent sche'e e3ecuted b* a p"evailin) liti)ant .outside the t"ial of a case a)ainst the defeated pa"t*, o" his a)ents, atto"ne*s o" itnesses, he"eb* said defeated pa"t* is p"evented f"o' p"esentin) full* and fai"l* his side of the case. ... The ove""idin) conside"ation is that the f"audulent sche'e of the p"evailin) liti)ant p"evented a pa"t* f"o' havin) his da* in cou"t o" f"o' p"esentin) his case. The f"aud, the"efo"e, is one that affects and )oes into the (u"isdiction of the cou"t. 1Cibudan v. Bil, C-/%%64, Ma* %8, %$8/, 57 S&R! %8, /8-/$? Ste"lin) Invest'ent &o"p. v. Rui:, C-4>6$5, Octobe" 4%, %$6$, 4> S&R! 4%#, 4/42 The cha")e of e3t"insic f"aud is, ho eve", un a""anted fo" the follo in) "easons, %. &onco"dia as not una a"e of the special p"oceedin) intended to be filed b* &eledonia. She ad'itted in he" co'plaint that she and &eledonia had a)"eed that the latte" ould +initiate the necessa"* p"oceedin)+ and pa* the ta3es and obli)ations of the estate. Thus pa"a)"aph 6 of he" co'plaint alle)ed, 6. ... fo" the pu"pose of facilitatin) the settle'ent of the estate of the late 9steban =avellana, =". at the lo est possible cost and the least effo"t, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the defendant shall initiate the necessary proceeding, cause the pa*'ent of ta3es and othe" obli)ations, and to do eve"*thin) else "e;ui"ed b* la , and the"eafte", secu"e the pa"tition of the estate bet een he" and the plaintiff, Falthou)h &eledonia denied that the* a)"eed to pa"tition the estate, fo" thei" a)"ee'ent as to place the estate in a foundation.G 1p. /, Reco"d? e'phasis supplied2 9videntl*, &onco"dia as not prevented f"o' inte"venin) in the p"oceedin)s. She sta*ed a a* by choice. 0esides, she -ne that the estate ca'e e3clusivel* f"o' 9steban.s 'othe", Salustia Solivio, and she had a)"eed ith &eledonia to place it in a foundation as the deceased had planned to do. /. The p"obate p"oceedin)s a"e p"oceedin)s in rem. Notice of the ti'e and place of hea"in) of the petition is "e;ui"ed to be published 1Sec. 4, Rule 86 in "elation to Sec. 4, Rule 8$, Rules of &ou"t2. Notice of the hea"in) of &eledonia.s o"i)inal petition as published in the +Visa*an T"ibune+ on !p"il /7, Ma* / and $, %$88 193h 5, p. %$8, Reco"d2. Si'ila"l*, notice of the hea"in) of he" a'ended petition of Ma* /6, %$88 fo" the settle'ent of the estate as, b* o"de"

of the cou"t, published in +0a)on) Nasana)+ 1Ne Ci)ht2 issues of Ma* /8, =une 4 and %>, %$88 1pp. %#/-4>7, Reco"d2. The publication of the notice of the p"oceedin)s as const"uctive notice to the hole o"ld. &onco"dia as not dep"ived of he" "i)ht to inte"vene in the p"oceedin)s fo" she had actual, as ell as const"uctive notice of the sa'e. !s pointed out b* the p"obate cou"t in its o"de" of Octobe" /8, %$8#, ... . The 'ove of &onco"dia =avellana, ho eve", as filed about five 'onths afte" &eledonia Solivio the sole hei". ... . as decla"ed as

&onside"in) that this p"oceedin) is one in "e' and had been dul* published as "e;ui"ed b* la , despite hich the p"esent 'ovant onl* ca'e to cou"t no , then she is )uilt* of laches fo" sleepin) on he" alle)ed "i)ht. 1p. //, Reco"d2 The cou"t noted that &onco"dia.s 'otion did not co'pl* ith the "e;uisites of a petition fo" "elief f"o' (ud)'ent no" a 'otion fo" ne t"ial. The "ule is stated in 5$ &o"pus =u"is Secundu' #>4> as follo s, Ahe"e petition as sufficient to invo-e statuto"* (u"isdiction of p"obate cou"t and proceeding was in rem no subse;uent e""o"s o" i""e)ula"ities a"e available on collate"al attac-. 10ed ell v. Dean %4/ So. />2 &eledonia.s alle)ation in he" petition that she as the sole hei" of 9steban ithin the thi"d de)"ee on his mother#s side as not false. Mo"eove", it as 'ade in )ood faith and in the honest belief that because the p"ope"ties of 9steban had co'e f"o' his 'othe", not his fathe", she, as 9steban.s nea"est su"vivin) "elative on his 'othe".s side, is the "i)htful hei" to the'. It ould have been self-defeatin) and inconsistent ith he" clai' of sole heirship if she stated in he" petition that &onco"dia as he" co-hei". @e" o'ission to so state did not constitute e3t"insic f"aud. Failu"e to disclose to the adve"sa"*, o" to the cou"t, 'atte"s hich ould defeat one.s o n clai' o" defense is not such e3t"insic f"aud as ill (ustif* o" "e;ui"e vacation of the (ud)'ent. 15$ &.=.S. 5#$, citin) Houn) v. Houn), / S9 /d 6//? Fi"st National 0an- I T"ust &o. of Nin) &it* v. 0o 'an, %7 SA /d #5/? P"ice v. S'ith, %>$ SA /d %%55, %%5$2 It should be "e'e'be"ed that a petition fo" ad'inist"ation of a decedent.s estate 'a* be filed b* an* +inte"ested pe"son+ 1Sec. /, Rule 8$, Rules of &ou"t2. The filin) of &eledonia.s petition did not p"eclude &onco"dia f"o' filin) he" o n. III. 7n the question of reserva troncal> Ae find no 'e"it in the petitione".s a")u'ent that the estate of the deceased as sub(ect to reserva troncal and that it pe"tains to he" as his onl* "elative ithin the thi"d de)"ee on his 'othe".s side. The reserva troncal p"ovision of the &ivil &ode is found in !"ticle #$% hich "eads as follo s, !RT. #$%. The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. The pe"sons involved in reserva troncal a"e, %. The pe"son obli)ed to "ese"ve is the "ese"vo" FreservistaGLthe ascendant ho inhe"its b* ope"ation of la p"ope"t* f"o' his descendants. /. The pe"sons fo" ho' the p"ope"t* is "ese"ved a"e the "ese"vees FreservatariosGL"elatives ithin the thi"d de)"ee counted f"o' the descendant FpropositusG, and belon)in) to the line f"o' hich the p"ope"t* ca'e. 4. The propositusLthe descendant ho "eceived b* )"atuitous title and died ithout issue, 'a-in) his othe" ascendant inhe"it b* ope"ation of la . 1p. 6$/, &ivil Ca b* Padilla, Vol. II, %$76 9d.2 &lea"l*, the p"ope"t* of the deceased, 9steban =avellana, ="., is not "ese"vable p"ope"t*, fo" 9steban, =". as not an ascendant, but the descendant of his 'othe", Salustia Solivio, f"o' ho' he inhe"ited the p"ope"ties in ;uestion. The"efo"e, he did not hold his inhe"itance sub(ect to a "ese"vation in favo" of his aunt, &eledonia Solivio, ho is his "elative ithin the thi"d de)"ee on his 'othe".s side. The reserva troncal applies to p"ope"ties inhe"ited b* an ascendant f"o' a descendant ho inhe"ited it f"o' anothe" ascendant o" $ b"othe" o" siste". It does not appl* to p"ope"t* inhe"ited b* a descendant f"o' his ascendant, the "eve"se of the situation cove"ed b* !"ticle #$%.

Since the deceased, 9steban =avellana, ="., died ithout descendants, ascendants, ille)iti'ate child"en, su"vivin) spouse, b"othe"s, siste"s, nephe s o" nieces, hat should appl* in the dist"ibution of his estate a"e !"ticles %>>4 and %>>$ of the &ivil &ode hich p"ovide, !RT. %>>4. If the"e a"e no descendants, ascendants, ille)iti'ate child"en, o" a su"vivin) spouse, the collate"al "elatives shall succeed to the enti"e estate of the deceased in acco"dance ith the follo in) a"ticles. !RT. %>>$. Should the"e be neithe" b"othe"s no" siste"s, no" child"en of b"othe"s o" siste"s, the othe" collate"al "elatives shall succeed to the estate. The latte" shall succeed ithout distinction of lines o" p"efe"ence a'on) the' b* "eason of "elationship b* the hole blood. The"efo"e, the &ou"t of !ppeals co""ectl* held that, 0oth plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant bein) "elatives of the decedent ithin the thi"d de)"ee in the collate"al line, each, the"efo"e, shall succeed to the sub(ect estate . ithout distinction of line o" p"efe"ence a'on) the' b* "eason of "elationship b* the hole blood,. and is entitled one-half 1%</2 sha"e and sha"e ali-e of the estate. 1p. 78, Rollo2 IV. 1he question of oncordia#s one%half share> @o eve", inas'uch as &onco"dia had a)"eed to delive" the estate of the deceased to the foundation in hono" of his 'othe", Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana 1f"o' ho' the estate ca'e2, an a)"ee'ent hich she "atified and confi"'ed in he" +Motion to Reopen and<o" Reconside" O"de" dated !p"il 4, %$8#+ hich she filed in Spl. P"oceedin) No. /75>, 5. That ... prior to the filing of the petition they Fpetitioner eledonia 6olivio and movant oncordia (avellanaG have agreed to ma*e the estate of the decedent a foundation, besides the* have closel* -no n each othe" due to thei" filiation to the decedent and the* have been visitin) each othe".s house hich a"e not fa" a a* fo" 1sic2 each othe". 1p. /45, Reco"d? 9'phasis supplied2 she is bound b* that a)"ee'ent. It is t"ue that b* that a)"ee'ent, she did not aive he" inhe"itance in favo" of &eledonia, but she did a)"ee to place all of 9steban.s estate in the +Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana Foundation+ hich 9steban, ="., du"in) his lifeti'e, planned to set up to hono" his 'othe" and to finance the education of indi)ent but dese"vin) students as ell. @e" ad'ission 'a* not be ta-en li)htl* as the lo e" cou"t did. 0ein) a (udicial ad'ission, it is conclusive and no evidence need be p"esented to p"ove the a)"ee'ent 1&unanan v. !'pa"o, #> Phil. //8? B"anada v. Philippine National 0an-, C-/>857, Sept. /, %$66, %# S&R! %? Sta. !na v. Mali at, C-/4>/4, !u). 4%, %$6#, /5 S&R! %>%#? People v. 9ncipido, B.R.8>>$%, Dec. /$, %$#6, %56 S&R! 58#? and Rodillas v. Sandi)anba*an, B.R. 7#67/, Ma* />, %$##, %6% S&R! 4582. The ad'ission as neve" ithd"a n o" i'pu)ned b* &onco"dia ho, si)nificantl*, did not even testif* in the case, althou)h she could have done so b* deposition if she e"e supposedl* indisposed to attend the t"ial. Onl* he" husband, Na"ciso, and son-in-la , =uanito Do'in, activel* pa"ticipated in the t"ial. @e" husband confi"'ed the a)"ee'ent bet een his ife and &eledonia, but he endeavo"ed to dilute it b* alle)in) that his ife did not intend to )ive all, but onl* one-half, of he" sha"e to the foundation 1p. 4/4, Reco"d2. The "eco"ds sho that the +Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avellana Foundation+ as established and dul* "e)iste"ed in the Secu"ities and 93chan)e &o''ission unde" Re). No. >%>>>/8 fo" the follo in) p"incipal pu"poses, %. To p"ovide fo" the establish'ent and<o" settin) up of schola"ships fo" such dese"vin) students as the 0oa"d of T"ustees of the Foundation 'a* decide of at least one schola" each to stud* at Aest Visa*as State &olle)e, and the Enive"sit* of the Philippines in the Visa*as both located in Iloilo &it*. /. To p"ovide a schola"ship fo" at least one schola" fo" St. &le'ents Rede'pto"ist &o''unit* fo" a dese"vin) student ho has the "eli)ious vocation to beco'e a p"iest. 4. To foste", develop, and encou"a)e activities that ill p"o'ote the advance'ent and en"ich'ent of the va"ious fields of educational endeavo"s, especiall* in lite"a"* a"ts. Schola"ships p"ovided fo" b* this foundation 'a* be na'ed afte" its benevolent benefacto"s as a to-en of )"atitude fo" thei" cont"ibutions. 5. To di"ect o" unde"ta-e su"ve*s and studies in the co''unit* to dete"'ine co''unit* needs and be able to alleviate pa"tiall* o" totall* said needs.

7. To 'aintain and p"ovide the necessa"* activities fo" the p"ope" ca"e of the Solivio-=avellana 'ausoleu' at &h"ist the Nin) Me'o"ial Pa"-, =a"o, Iloilo &it*, and the =avellana Me'o"ial at the Aest Visa*as State &olle)e, as a to-en of app"eciation fo" the cont"ibution of the estate of the late 9steban S. =avellana hich has 'ade this foundation possible. !lso, in pe"petuation of his Ro'an &atholic beliefs and those of his 'othe", B"e)o"ian 'asses o" thei" e;uivalents ill be offe"ed eve"* Feb"ua"* and Octobe", and Re;uie' 'asses eve"* Feb"ua"* /7th and Octobe" llth, thei" death annive"sa"ies, as pa"t of this p"ovision. 6. To "eceive )ifts, le)acies, donations, cont"ibutions, endo 'ents and financial aids o" loans f"o' hateve" sou"ce, to invest and "einvest the funds, collect the inco'e the"eof and pa* o" appl* onl* the inco'e o" such pa"t the"eof as shall be dete"'ined b* the T"ustees fo" such endeavo"s as 'a* be necessa"* to ca""* out the ob(ectives of the Foundation. 8. To ac;ui"e, pu"chase, o n, hold, ope"ate, develop, lease, 'o"t)a)e, pled)e, e3chan)e, sell, t"ansfe", o" othe" ise, invest, t"ade, o" deal, in an* 'anne" pe"'itted b* la , in "eal and pe"sonal p"ope"t* of eve"* -ind and desc"iption o" an* inte"est he"ein. #. To do and pe"fo"' all acts and thin)s necessa"*, suitable o" p"ope" fo" the acco'plish'ents of an* of the pu"poses he"ein enu'e"ated o" hich shall at an* ti'e appea" conducive to the p"otection o" benefit of the co"po"ation, includin) the e3e"cise of the po e"s, autho"ities and att"ibutes conce"ned upon the co"po"ation o")ani:ed unde" the la s of the Philippines in )ene"al, and upon do'estic co"po"ation of li-e natu"e in pa"ticula". 1pp. $-%>, Rollo2 !s alle)ed ithout cont"adiction in the petition. fo" "evie , The Foundation be)an to function in =une, %$#/, and th"ee 142 of its ei)ht 9steban =avellana schola"s )"aduated in %$#6, one 1%2 f"o' EPV )"aduated &u' Caude and t o 1/2 f"o' AVSE )"aduated ith hono"s? one as a &u' Caude and the othe" as a "ecipient of Ca)os Cope: a a"d fo" teachin) fo" bein) the 'ost outstandin) student teache". The Foundation has fou" 152 hi)h school schola"s in Buiso 0a"an)a* @i)h School, the site of hich as donated b* the Foundation. The School has been selected as the Pilot 0a"an)a* @i)h School fo" Re)ion VI. The Foundation has a special schola", F". 9lbe"t Vas;ue:, ho ould be o"dained this *ea". @e studied at St. F"ancis Mavie" Ma(o" Re)ional Se'ina"* at Davao &it*. The Foundation li-e ise is a 'e'be" of the Rede'pto"ist !ssociation that )ives *ea"l* donations to help poo" students ho ant to beco'e Rede'pto"ist p"iests o" b"othe"s. It )ives *ea"l* a a"ds fo" &"eative "itin) -no n as the 9steban =avellana ! a"d. Fu"the", the Foundation had const"ucted the 9steban S. =avellana Multi-pu"pose &ente" at the Aest Visa*as State Enive"sit* fo" teache"s. and students. use, and has li-e ise cont"ibuted to "eli)ious civic and cultu"al fund-"aisin) d"ives, a'on)st othe".s. 1p. %>, Rollo2 @avin) a)"eed to cont"ibute he" sha"e of the decedent.s estate to the Foundation, &onco"dia is obli)ated to hono" he" co''it'ent as &eledonia has hono"ed he"s. A@9R9FOR9, the petition fo" "evie is )"anted. The decision of the t"ial cou"t and the &ou"t of !ppeals a"e he"eb* S9T !SID9. &onco"dia =. Villanueva is decla"ed an hei" of the late 9steban =avellana, =". entitled to one-half of his estate. @o eve", co'fo"'abl* ith the a)"ee'ent bet een he" and he" co-hei", &eledonia Solivio, the enti"e estate of the deceased should be conve*ed to the +Salustia Solivio Vda. de =avallana Foundation,+ of hich both the petitione" and the p"ivate "espondent shall be t"ustees, and each shall be entitled to no'inate an e;ual nu'be" of t"ustees to constitute the 0oa"d of T"ustees of the Foundation hich shall ad'iniste" the sa'e fo" the pu"poses set fo"th in its cha"te". The petitione", as ad'inist"at"i3 of the estate, shall sub'it to the p"obate cou"t an invento"* and accountin) of the estate of the deceased p"epa"ato"* to te"'inatin) the p"oceedin)s the"ein. SO ORD9R9D. ?arvasa, ru', 2ancayco and 2ri/o%Aquino, ((., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 9N 0!N&

G.R. No. L-22601

O<tober 28, 1966

PR"M! G. C!RR"LLO $%& LOREN0O L"CUP, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. R!NC"SC! S!L!) #E P!0 $%& ERNESTO /!UT"ST!, defendants and appellees. Filemon ajator for plaintiffs and appellants. 1omas Besa for defendants and appellees. /ENG0ON, '.P., J.: This is an appeal f"o' an o"de" of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ta"lac dis'issin) a suit to "ecove" o ne"ship and possession of /<4 of %</ of Cot No. //% of the &adast"al Su"ve* of Ta"lac. Seve"ino Sala- and Pet"a Ba"cia e"e the o ne"s of Cot No. //% of the &adast"al Su"ve* of Ta"lac, cove"ed b* O"i)inal &e"tificate of Title No. 5%754, ith an a"ea of %,445 s;ua"e 'ete"s. Pet"a Ba"cia died on Septe'be" /%, %$5%. On !u)ust %6, %$54, Seve"ino Salasold to @ono"ia Sala- fo" P#%/.>> his O po"tion of said lot. ! *ea" late", on Dece'be" 7, %$55, Seve"ino Sala- died. So'eti'e in =anua"* %$57, @ono"ia Sala- and othe" 'e'be"s of he" fa'il* died L 'assac"ed b* the =apanese. !s a "esult, t o settle'ent p"oceedin)s e"e instituted in the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ta"lac, 1%2 Special P"oceedin) No. 4, to settle the estates of Seve"ino Sala- and Pet"a Ba"cia and 1/2 Special P"oceedin) No. /4, to settle the estates of the Sala- fa'il* 1pa"ents Si'eon Sala- and Isabel &a""illo? and child"en !dolfo, @ono"ia, &onsuelo and Ci)a*a2. On Septe'be" 5, %$56, a P"o(ect of Pa"tition as sub'itted in Special P"oceedin) No. 4, hich the cou"t app"oved on Nove'be" %$, %$56. Said p"o(ect ad(udicated inter alia Cot No. //%, hich as )iven the"eunde" to F"ancisca Sala- de Pa: 1%<5 of it in he" capacit* as hei", and the othe" 4<5 b* pu"chase and<o" e3chan)e ith he" co-hei"s, Rita Saha)un, !u"ea Saha)un and 9"nesto 0autista2. F"o' %$56 up to the p"esent F"ancisca Sala- has possessed all of Cot No. //%. On the othe" hand, in Special P"oceedin) No. /4, on Feb"ua"* /6, %$5#, the cou"t a quo held that the hei"s entitled to the estates of the Sala- fa'il* e"e !)ustina de Bu:'an Vda. de &a"illo 14<5 sha"e2 and 9"nesto 0autista 1%<5 sha"e2, appl*in) the su"vivo"ship p"esu'ption FRule %/4, Sec. 6$1ii2, no Rule %4%, Sec. 71((2 of the Rules of &ou"tG, thus, 1%2 Si'eon Sala- died fi"st L his p"ope"ties ent to the child"en !dolfo, @ono"ia, &onsuelo and Ci)a*a 1%<5 each2? 1/2 @ono"ia, &onsuelo and Ci)a*a died ne3t L @ono"ia.s and &onsuelo.s p"ope"ties ent to thei" 'othe", Isabel? those of Ci)a*a ent to he" son, 9"nesto 0autista?% 142 Isabel died ne3t L he" p"ope"ties ent to he" son !dolfo? and 152 !dolfo died last L his p"ope"ties ent to his 'ate"nal )"and'othe", !)ustina. !)ustina the"eb* succeeded to the p"ope"ties that ca'e b* intes-state succession f"o' @ono"ia Sala- and Isabel &a""illo, including L of "ot ?o. CC,. On Nove'be" $, %$5#, !)ustina de Bu:'an Vda. de &a""illo filed an action in the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ta"lac 1doc-eted the"ein as &ase No. 47%2 a)ainst the hei"s in Special P"oceedin) No. 4 to "ecove" O of Cot No. //% hich as afo"e'entioned has been possessed b* F"ancisca Sala- de Pa:. On !p"il /5, %$7>, !)ustina died. On =une #, %$7> the &ou"t of !ppeals affi"'ed the decision of the &ou"t of Fi"st Instance of Ta"lac in Special P"oceedin) No. /4, and fu"the" dec"eed that the p"ope"ties inhe"ited b* !)ustina de Bu:'an Vda. de &a""illo e"e sub(ect to reserva troncal. On Nove'be" 6, %$7>, 9"nesto 0autista filed a petition in Special P"oceedin) No. /4 fo" the e3ecution of the (ud)'ent the"ein. Said petition as hea"d on Nove'be" %>, %$7$, afte" a cop* as se"ved on the la *e" of P"i'a &a""illo, the latte" bein) a pa"t* the"eto as ad'inist"ati3 of the estate of he" deceased 'othe" !)ustina. !ctin) on said petition, the lo e" cou"t issued its o"de" of Nove'be" %5, %$7>, hich "eads in pa"t, . . . the &ou"t, in vie of the death of the "ese"vista, DoKa !)ustina de Bu:'an Vda. de &a""illo, decla"es all the inte"est of the said reservista DoKa !)ustina de Bu:'an Vda. de &a""illo as ell as that of he" hei"s in the th"ee-fou"ths sha"e ad(ud)ed to the reservista, definitel* te"'inated, and that the "ese"vee, the 'ino" 9"nesto 0autista, is entitled to the i''ediate delive"* to hi' of the said th"ee-fou"ths sha"e decla"ed "ese"ved to hi' in the decision of the &ou"t of !ppeals of =une #, %$7>. . . . 1Reco"d on !ppeals, pp. /%4-/%52

On Dece'be" />, %$6>, the lo e" cou"t dis'issed &ivil &ase No. 47%. The o"de" of dis'issal "eads in pa"t, 0* vi"tue of the e3istence of thi"d-de)"ee "elatives of !dolfo Sala-, the po"tion of Cot No. //%, inhe"ited b* !)ustina de Bu:'an as neve" "eleased f"o' the "ese"va, so as to conve"t the o ne"ship of !)ustina de Bu:'an into an absolute one. Epon he" death on !p"il /5, %$7>, the"efo"e, the p"ope"t* did not pass b* inhe"itance to he" le)al hei"s, but "athe" "eve"ted to the fa'il* t"un- of the Isabel-!dolfo line. Such bein) the case, the estate of !)ustina de Bu:'an, the P"esent plaintiff in this case, has no cause of action a)ainst the defendants. In "esu'e, the ad(udication in Special P"oceedin) No. /4, Intestate 9state of the late Si'eon Sala- and Isabel &a""illo, hich included Cot No. //%, has beco'e res judicata hich cannot be distu"bed in this case. 1Reco"d on !ppeal, p. />$2 On !p"il //, %$64, P"i'a &a""illo and Co"en:o Cicup filed the p"esent suit fo" "ecove"* of /<4 of %</ of No. //% a)ainst F"ancisca Salade Pa: and 9"nesto 0autista./ On =une />, %$64, defendants F"ancisco Sala- de Pa: and 9"nesto 0autita filed a 'otion to dis'iss upon the )"ounds that the cause of action is ba""ed b* p"io" (ud)e'ent and b* the statute of li'itations. On Nove'be" %$, %$64, the cou"t a quo dis'issed the co'plaint on the )"ound of res judicata, findin) the suit ba""ed b* the o"de" of delive"* dated Nove'be" %5, %$7> in Special P"oceedin) No. /4. Plaintiffs P"i'a &a""illo and Co"en:o Cicup the"eupon appealed to Es upon ;uestions of la . Seve"al )"ounds e"e advanced to suppo"t the 'otion to dis'iss, that the cause of action is ba""ed b* p"io" (ud)'ent and b* the statute of li'itations. !lthou)h the action as dis'issed b* the lo e" cou"t e3p"essl* upon the )"ound of res judicata, it did not totall* dis"e)a"d the defense of p"esc"iption. Thus, said cou"t pointed out that, P"i'a &a""illo bein) then the ad'inist"at"i3 of the estate of he" 'othe", she is also dee'ed to have been notified of the petition fo" e3ecution of (ud)'ent in Special P"oceedin) No. /4, and of the o"de" of Nove'be" %5, %$7>. !s of then, the"efo"e, P"i'a &a""illo 1even thou)h as ad'inist"at"i32 pe"sonall* -ne that 9"nesto 0autista clai'ed to be the sole "ese"vee of all the p"ope"ties inhe"ited b* Da. !)ustina f"o' the Sala- Fa'il*, a'on) hich as Cot No. //% in ;uestion, but she did not file an* opposition the"eto. It as he" oppo"tunit* to asse"t he" "i)ht as "ese"vee b* opposin) the petition o", failin) in this, to contest o" to as- to be "elieved f"o' the o"de" of Nove'be" %5, %$7>. Instead, she allowed about thirteen F,@G years before she commenced the present action. 1Decision, Reco"d on !ppeal, pp. /%5-/%7? e'phasis supplied2 !t an* "ate, this &ou"t can "esolve this appeal on the issue of p"esc"iption. !s "uled in the cases of 2arcia 8alde' vs. 6oterana 1ua'on, 5> Phil. $54 and 4elativo v. astro, 86 Phil. 764, hen the t"ial (ud)e decides a case in favo" of a pa"t* on a ce"tain )"ound, the appellate cou"t 'a* uphold the decision belo upon so'e othe" point hich as i)no"ed o" e""oneousl* decided in favo" of the appellant b* the t"ial cou"t. 4eserva troncal in this (u"isdiction is t"eated in !"ticle #$% of the ne &ivil &ode and !"ticle #%% of the old &ivil &ode, hich states, The ascendant ho inhe"its f"o' his descendant an* p"ope"t* hich the latte" 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, o" a b"othe" o" siste", is obli)ed to "ese"ve such p"ope"t* as he 'a* have ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la fo" the benefit of "elatives ho a"e ithin the thi"d de)"ee and ho belon) to the line f"o' hich said p"ope"t* ca'e. The reserva troncal arose L as had been finall* decided b* the &ou"t of !ppeals in Special P"oceedin) No. /4 L hen !)ustina ac;ui"ed b* ope"ation of la all the p"ope"ties of he" descendant !dolfo 1)"andson2, ho ac;ui"ed the' b* )"atuitous title f"o' anothe" ascendant, Isabel 1!dolfo.s 'othe"2. !cco"din) to Man"esa, the "ese"va is e3tin)uished upon the death of the reservista, as it then beco'es a "i)ht of full o ne"ship on the pa"t of the reservatarios, ho can b"in) a "eivindicato"* suit the"efo". Nonetheless, this "i)ht, if not e3e"cised ithin the ti'e fo" "ecove"in) "eal p"ope"ties, can be lost b* p"esc"iption,
Pe"o e3tin)uida la "ese"va po" la 'ue"te del "ese"vista, ca'bian po" co'pleto las "elaciones * condiciones (u"idicas de las pe"sonas * de las cosas, co'o *a se ha indicado. Ca obli)acion de "ese"va" se convie"te en la de ent"e)a" los bienes a ;uien co""espondan, obli)acion ;ue pasa a la he"encia del "ese"vista fallecido * deben co'pli" sus he"ede"os. H el de"echo a la "ese"va se convie"te en el de"echo al do'inio pleno de esos bienes. Si a la 'ue"te del "ese"vista se co'ple la condicion "esoluto"ia de e3isti" pa"ientes dent"o del te"ce" )"ado ;ue pe"tene:can a la linea de donde los bienes p"oceden, a estos pa"ientes pasa desde a;uel 'o'ento po" 'iniste"io de la le* el do'inio absoluto de a;uellos bienes, *, po" consi)uiente, el de"echo pa"a "ecla'a"los, pudiendo dispone" lib"e'ente de a;uellos o de este, * t"ans'iti"los a sus he"ede"os, puesto ;ue la le* no lo p"ohibe. H si no sob"evive al "ese"vista nin)uno de dichos pa"ientes, ;ueda e3tin)uida la obli)acion de "ese"va", po" no habe"se co'plido a;uella condicion "esoluto"ia i'puesta po" la le*, * en su vi"tud vuelven los bienes al pleno do'inio del ascendiente, * pe"tenecen a su he"encia confo"'e al a"t. 67%. H co'o nada o"dena la le* en sentido cont"a"io, tene'os po" indudable ;ue no tiene el ca"acte" de pe"sonalisi'o nin)uno de esos de"echos, ;ue nacen con la e3tincion de la "ese"va, pe"tenecen a la he"encia * se t"ans'iten a los he"ede"os, aun;ue el causante no los hubie"e e(e"citado po" si 'is'o, salvo cases de "enuncia, incapacidad o p"esc"ipcion.

333

333

333

&2 53tincion de la reserva.LCas 'is'as condiciones e3i)idas pa"a el naci'iento de la "ese"va son necesa"ias pa"a su e3istencia. !l falta" una de ellas, la "ese"va 'ue"te. T"es son, po" tanto, las p"incipales causas de e3tincion, %.a. $uerte del ascendiente.LSea el ;ue ;uie"a el destino definitivo de los bienes, en vi"tud de la natu"ale:a condicional de los de"echos ;ue c"ea el a"t. #%%, es lo cie"to ;ue la "ese"va, co'o tal, una ve: necida a co'paKa al ascendiente obli)ado a ella hasta su 'ue"te. Mue"to el ascendiente, cesa toda obli)acion de "ese"va"? falta el su(eto pasivo de la "ese"va. 333 333 333

!de'as de las t"es causas e3p"esadas, pueden seKala"se ot"as ;ue e3pond"e'os a continuacion. 333 333 333

H 7.a "a prescripcion, si se disf"utan co'o lib"es los bienes po" los he"ede"os del ascendiente du"ante el tie'po * con las condiciones 'a"cadas po" la le*. 1Man"esa, omentarios Al odigo ivil 5spa/ol, Vol. 6, %$%% 9d., pp. /##-/#$, 4%6-4%#2.

Scaevola also states the vie that p"esc"iption can appl* a)ainst the reservatarios to cut off thei" "i)ht to the "ese"vable p"ope"t*,
f2 Prescipcion.L9ste 'odo e3tintivo de los de"echos tiene solo applicacion a los pa"ientes del te"ce" )"ado del descendiente, po";ue no habiendo "ese"va si no acepta el ascendiente, no ha* ;ue habla" de p"esc"ipcion e3tintiva "especto de el. Tocante a los pa"ientes con de"echo a la "ese"va, es aplicable la doct"ina, po";ue pueden no e(e"ce" su de"echo po" i)no"a" la 'ue"te del descendiente opo" ot"a causa. Dada esta posibilidad, entende'os ;ue, t"atandose de un de"echo "eal sob"e bienes in'uebles, p"esc"ibi"a a los t"einta aKos 1a"t. %.6$42 1%2, contados desde la aceptacion de la he"encia po" el ascendiente, 'o'ento dete"'inante del de"echo al e(e"cicio de la "ese"va 1a"t. %.$6$2 ? t"anscu""idos, pues, t"einta aKos desde la aceptacion sin ;ue los pa"ientes favo"ecidos po" la le* ha*an solicitado la constitucion de la "ese"va, se e3ten)ui"a esta, * el ascendiente o sus de"echo-habientes ad;ui"i"an el pleno do'inio de los bienes "ese"vables po" su natu"ale:a, pe"o ;ue no fue"on ob(eto de "ese"va. 1Scaevola, odigo ivil omentado, Vol. %5, %$55 9d., p. 46>2.

Plaintiffs-appellants he"ein, as "ese"vata"ios, had the "i)ht to clai' the p"ope"t* /<4 of %</ of Cot No. //% L f"o' F"ancisca Sala- de Pa:, ho has been possessin) it in the concept of an o ne", f"o' !p"il /5, %$7> hen !)ustina died. !nd the &ou"t of !ppeals. decision affi"'in) the e3istence of reserva troncal, p"o'ul)ated on =une #, %$7>, "ende"ed it all the 'o"e doubtless that such "i)ht had acc"ued in thei" favo" f"o' the ti'e !)ustina died. It is clea", the"efo"e, that the "i)ht o" cause of action acc"ued in favo" of the plaintiffs"ese"vata"ios he"ein on !p"il /5, %$7>. Section 5> of the &ode of &ivil P"ocedu"e fi3es %> *ea"s as the pe"iod of p"esc"iption fo" actions to "ecove" "eal p"ope"t*, counted f"o' the ti'e the cause of action acc"ued. This is the applicable la because !"ticle %%%6 of the Ne &ivil &ode p"ovides that +P"esc"iption al"ead* "unnin) befo"e the effectivit* of this &ode F!u)ust 4>, %$7>G shall be )ove"ned b* la s p"eviousl* in fo"ce.+ Plaintiffs-appellants. suit he"ein, havin) been filed onl* on !p"il //, %$64, o" 'o"e than ten 1%>2 *ea"s f"o' !p"il /5, %$7>, has p"esc"ibed. !nd havin) "eached such conclusion, Ae dee' it unnecessa"* to pass upon the ;uestion of hethe" the suit is also ba""ed on the )"ound of res judicata. A@9R9FOR9, the o"de" of dis'issal appealed f"o' is he"eb* affi"'ed on the )"ound of p"esc"iption, ith costs a)ainst appellants. So o"de"ed. oncepcion, .(., 4eyes, (.B."., !i'on, 4egala, $a*alintal, Maldivar, 6anche' and Barrera, (., is on leave.
oot%ote%

astro, ((., concu".

Thus, 9"nesto 0autista

as an hei" in both Special P"oceedin) No. 4 and Special P"oceedin) No. /4.

Plaintiff P"i'a &a""illo clai's to be a "ese"vata"io 1as siste" of Isabel &a""illo and aunt of p"opositus !dolfo2, hile plaintiff Co"en:o Cicup is the su"vivin) husband of Cu: &a"illo 1li-e ise a siste" of Isabel &a""illo and aunt of p"epositus !dolfo2. P"i'a and Co"en:o clai' to be hei"s of Cu:.