Marcelina EDROSO vs.

Pablo and Basilio SABLAN

G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913
FACTS:
Spouses Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan had a son named, Pedro who
inherited two parcels of land upon the death of his father. Subsequently, Pedro died,
unmarried and without issue, the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to
his mother. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for
registration of her ownership. The two uncles of Pedro, Pablo and Basilio Sablan
(legitimate brothers of Victoriano) opposed the registration claiming that either the
registration be denied or if granted to her, the right reserved by law to them be
recorded in the registration of each parcel. The Court of Land Registration denied
the registration holding that the land in question partake of the nature of property
required by law to be reserved and that in such a case application could only be
presented jointly in the names of the mother and the said two uncles. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the property in question is in the nature of a reservable
property.
2. Whether or not Marcelina Edroso has the absolute title of the property to
cause its registration.
RULING:
A very definite conclusions of law is that the hereditary title is one without a
valuable consideration (gratuitous tile), and it is so characterized in Article 968 of
the Civil Code, for he who acquires by inheritance gives nothing in return for what
he receives; and a very definite conclusion of law also is that the uncles are within
the third degree of blood relationship.
Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant property which the latter acquired without a
valuable consideration from another descendant, or form
a brother or sister, is under obligation to reserve what he
has acquired by operation of law for the relatives who are
within the third degree and belong to the line where the
property proceeded.
Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him the two parcels
of land which he had acquired without a valuable consideration that is, by
inheritance from another ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquire them by
operation of law, she is obligated to relatives within the third degree and belong to
the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez (parents of Victoriano), where
the lands proceeded. The trial courts ruling that they partake of the nature property
required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with the law.

The conclusion is that the person required by Article 811 to reserve the right has,
beyond any doubt at all, the rights to use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal
title and dominion, although under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has under an
express provision of the law the right to dispose of the property reserved, and to
dispose of is to alienate, although under a condition. He has the right to recover it,
because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and have title to it,
although a limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title and dominion, even
though under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After the right required by
law to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything that a genuine owner can
do.
On the other hadnt, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the right
is reserved cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually
or constructively or formally, in their possession; and moreover, because they have
no title of ownership or of the fee simple which they can transmit to another, on the
hypothesis that only when the person who must reserve the right should die before
them will they acquire it.

Constancio SIENES, et al. vs. Fidel ESPARCIA

G.R. No. L-12597, March 24, 1961
FACTS:
Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, Teresa
Ruales, he had four children named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while
with his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named Francisco.
According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the properties left by Saturnino
upon his death were left to his children as follows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to
Fernando, Lot 3375 to Agaton, Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina, and Lot 3368
(western portion) to Francisco. As a result of the cadastral proceedings, an OCT
covering Lot 3368 was issued in the name of Francisco.
Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the
property for him, declared it in her name for taxation purposes, and paid the taxes
due thereon. When Francisco died at the age of 20, single and without any
descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, executed the public instrument and sold
the property in question to appellants in consideration of the sum of P800.00.
Andrea Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee surviving her being
Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13, 1952. Said vendees demanded from
Paulina and her husband, the surrender of the OCT which was in their possession,
the latter refused, thus giving rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the
cadastral, which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the reservable property in question is part of and must be
reverted to the estate of Cipriana Yaeso.

RULING:
As held by the trial court, it is clear upon the facts already stated, that the land
in question was reservable property.
In connection with reservable property, the weight of opinion is that the reserve
creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to
reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third
degree belonging to the line from which the property came. This Court has held in
connection with this matter that the reservista has the legal title and dominion to
the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition; that he is like a life
usufructuary of the reservable property; that he may alienate the same but subject
to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the revocable and conditional
ownership of the reservists, the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or
resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista.
The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, subject to
the condition that the vendees would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the
alienation, only if the vendor died without being survived by any person entitled to
the reservable property. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana
Yaeso was still alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale
made by the former in favor of appellants became of no legal effect and the
reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusive ownership to
Cipriana.
On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and
Cipriana Yaeso in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject
to a similar resolutory condition. The reserve instituted by law in favor of the heirs
within the third degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property
came, constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate and dispose of,
albeit conditionally, the condition being that the alienation shall transfer ownership
to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person obliged to reserve.
In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when
Andrea Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died. Thus the former became the
absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's death. While it may be
true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this event, became effective
because of the occurrence of the resolutory condition, we are not now in a position
to reverse the appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion of the property
in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees did not appeal
therefrom.

Beatriz L. GONZALES vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, et al.

G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981
FACTS:

Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died and was
survived by his widow, Filomena Roces, and their seven children. The real properties
left by Benito were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo
and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were
represented by Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress was her
mother, Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit
adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from her
deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication,
Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of
the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.
Mrs. Legarda executed two hand-written identical documents wherein she disposed
of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the children of
her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all). She later died
and her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will in the Court of First
Instance of Manila which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez, a daughter of the testatrix,
filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties
which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said
properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena
Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito,
Alejandro and Jose, all surnamed Legarda. That motion was opposed by the
administrator, Benito F. Legarda.
Without awaiting the resolution on that motion, Mrs. Gonzalez filed an ordinary civil
action against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate for
the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable
properties which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath in her holographic will to her
grandchildren to the exclusion of her three daughters and her three sons.
The lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. Gonzalez.
Mrs. Gonzales appealed under Republic Act No. 5440 and contends that the lower
court erred in not regarding the properties in question as reservable properties
under article 891 of the Civil Code.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal?
2. Whether or not Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda could dispose of the
properties in question in her will in favor of her grandchildren to the
exclusion of her six children?
RULING:
The properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of
Mrs. Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservation became a certainty

when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of
the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda.
Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her sixteen
grandchildren the reservable properties which she had inherited from her daughter
Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her estate. The
reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as
long as the reservees survived the reservor. The said properties, by operation of
article 891, should go to Mrs. Legarda's six children as reservees within the second
degree from Filomena Legarda.
The reservable property bequeathed by the reservor to her daughter does not
form part of the reservor's estate nor of the daughter's estate but should be given
to all the seven reservees or nearest relatives of the prepositus within the third
degree.
It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit from the reservor but from
the prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis causa subject to the
condition that they must survive the reservor.