Facts:
Father
(origin)
died
with
a
will.


Property
of
father
passed
to
only
son
(prepositus)
who
died
intestate,
single,
 and
without
legitimate
issue.
Property
of
son
inherited

from
his
father
passed
by
operation
of
law
to
mother
(reservista).
Mother
sought
to
have
prop
erty
inherited
 from
son
registered.
Uncles
of
son
or
prepositus
(brothers
 of father or origin),
reservatorios, opposed.
Edroso vs. Sablan 25 Phil. 255
F: Father
(origin)
died
with
a
will.
Property
of
father
passed
to
only
son
(prepositus)
who
died
intestate,
single,
 and
without
legitimate
issue.
Property
of
son
inherited

from
his
father
passed
by
operation
of
law
to
mother
(reservista).
Mother
sought
to
have
property
inherited

from
son
registered.
Uncles
of
son
or
prepositus
(brothers
 of father or origin), reservatorios, opposed.

R:
-The ascendant who inherits from a descendant acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring
absolute ownership. All attributes of the right of ownership belong to him. This absolute ownership is not altered
for as long as:
a. there be NO relatives within the 3rd degree in the line from which the property came
b. said relatives die before the ascendant
- Reservista's right over the property is that of ownership
- Reservista's right is subject to a resolutory condition which is that the reservatorios exist at the time of the
reservista's death. If there are, the reservista's right terminates and the property will pass to the reservatorios.
- Reservista's ownership is alienable but subject to the same resolutory condition. The buyer's ownership is
subject to the same resolutory condition.
- Reservista's right of ownership is registrable.

The applicant is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land which are the subject matter of the
application, recording in the reg istration the right required by Article 811 (now Art. 891) to be reserved to either
or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.

Problem- The lot in question originally belonged to A. With his fi rst wife, B, A had four children, D, E, F, and G,
while with his second wife, C, he had only one child, H. Upon his death in 1956, said lot was left to H. When H died
in 1952, single and without any descendant, his mother, C, sold the property to X. Subsequently, D, E, F and G
sold the same property to Y. Several years later, C died.
(a) Is the property reservable?
In order that the property shall be considered as reservable under Art. 891 of the Civil Code, it is necessary that
the following requisites must concur: (1) The property should have been inherited by operation of law by an
ascendant from his descendant upon the death of the latter; (2) the property should have been previously acquired
by gratuitous title by the descendant from another ascendant or from a brother or sister; and (3) the descendant
should have died without any legitimate issue in the direct descending line who could inherit from him. It is clear
that all of these requisites are present in the instant case. Consequently, when H died in 1952, and the property
passed by operation of law to his mother, C, it became reservable. In order words, C, who is the reservista, must
reserve the property for the benefi t of the relatives of H who are within the third degree and who belong to the
line from which the property came. This reservation, however, is subject to two resolutory conditions, namely: (1)
the death of the ascendant reservista, and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives of the descendant-
propositus who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which the reservable property came. (6
Manresa, 268-269; 2 Sanchez Roman 1934; Sienes vs. Esparcia, 1 SCRA 750.)

(b) How about the two sales which were executed — are they valid or not?
As far as the first sale is concerned, undoubtedly, it is valid, but the reservista can only alienate that which he has
and nothing more — a limited and revocable title to the reservable property. Hence, the alienation transmits only
the conditional and revocable title of the reservista, the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved
by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista (Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295; Lunsod
vs. Ortega, 46 Phil. 664; Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil. 279; Sieves vs. Espacio, supra.) Consequently, in the
instant case, inas much as the reservatarios, D, E, F, and G, were still alive at the time of the death of the
reservista, C, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by such reservista in favor of X
became of no legal effect, and as a consequence, the reservable property passed automatically and by operation of
law to the reservatarios. But then, the reservatarios had also alienated their right or expectancy over the
reservable property during the pendency of the reserva. Was this sale valid? This question was answered in the affi
rmative by the Supreme Court in Sienes vs. Esparcia, (supra). But, of course, it is subject to the same conditions
to which the previous sale is subject.
(c) Who is now entitled to the property?
Premises considered, it is clear that Y is now entitled to the subject property.

Florentino vs Florentino
F: Origin
left
by
will
all
his
properties
to
11
children.
One
child
(prepositus)
died
intestate,
single,
and
without

legitimate
issue,

and
was
succeeded
by
his
mother
(reservista).
Reservista
instituted
her
daughter
as
sole
hei
r, giving to
daughter
the
properties
she
inherited
from prepositus, her son. Surviving siblings and nephews and
nieces, as representatives of predeceased siblings of prepositus complained.

R: Properties given by reservista to her daughter are
reservable.
That
reservatarios
within
the
third
degree,

as
in
case
of
nephews
and
nieces
of
prepositus
from
whom
reservable
property
came,
have right
of
representation (to represent their ascendants, or fathers and mothers, who are brothers and sisters of prepositus).

Chua vs. CFI of Negros Occidental 78 SCBA 412

F: Jose Frias Chua died intestate in 1929, survived by his widow Consolacion de la Torre and three legitimate
children Lorenzo, Ignacio and Juanito. The records show that Lorenzo and Ignacio are children of Jose by a first
marriage, while Juanito is his child by his second marriage to Consolacion. In the intestate proceeding for the
settlement of Jose’s estate, one-half (1/2) of a valuable lot was adjudicated to Consolacion, while the other one-
half (1/2) was adjudicated to Juanito. In 1952, Juanito died intestate without any issue, survived by his mother
Consolacion. In 1966, the latter also died intestate. Subsequently, Ignacio and two children of Lorenzo, who
predeceased Consolacion, filed a complaint against the estate of Consolacion praying that the one-half (1/2)
portion of the lot under question which formerly belonged to Juanito but which passed to Consolacion upon the
latter’s death, be declared as a reservable property under Art. 891 of the Civil Code. Private respondents
(defendants), however, contend that the property is not reservable and that even assuming that it is, petitioners’
(plaintiffs’) right of action has already prescribed.

I: whether the property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father, Jose Frias Chua,
gratuitously or not.

R: As long as the transmission to the heir is free from any condition imposed by the deceased himself and the
property is given out of pure generosity, it is gratuitous. Even if the Court ordered the heirs to pay Standard Oil, it
is still gratuitous. If the expense or charge is just incidental, it is still considered gratuitous.

De Papa vs. Camacho, G.R. No. L-28032, 144 SCRA 281, September 24, 1986
Sumaya vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 68843-44, 201 SCRA 178, September 2, 1991
Nieva vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 13386, 41 Phil 915, October 27, 1920
Nono vs. Nequia, G.R. No. L-5829, 93 Phil 120, May 22, 1953