SUCCESSION DIGESTS
62. MANONGSONG V. ESTIMO [FALLO]
[TOPIC FROM THE SYLLABUS]
LEGITIME AND RESERVA TRONCAL; LEGITIME; CONCEPT: As
opposed to a disposition inter vivos by lucrative or gratuitous title, a
valid sale for valuable consideration does not diminish the estate of
the seller. When the disposition is for valuable consideration, there is
no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution of values, that
is, the property sold is replaced by the equivalent monetary
consideration.
[FACTS]
Petitioner filed an action for partition of a parcel of land before the
RTC claiming that Manongsong is a co-owner or co-heir of the
property by inheritance, more specifically as the heir of her father,
Vicente Lopez.
According to petitioner, Agatona Guevarra was the original owner of
the said property and that upon her death, her children inherited the
property. Each of the children, including Vicente Lopez, the father of
petitioner, inherited from her one-fifth interest in the property.
Respondent have been in possession of the property for as long as
they can remember. Only petitioners are the only descendants not
occupying any protion of the property.
Petitioners and most of the respondents entered into a compromise
agreement and agreed that each group of heirs would receive an
equal share in the Property. Gamaya ra bitaw ani yutaa. 152 sq m
ragud nya daghan kaayo sila gatunga hahahaha barog nalang haha.
Respondents, the Jumaquio sisters, opposed petitioners' claim and
contended that Justina Navarro, the mother of Agatona Guevarra,
sold the property to the latter's daughter Enriqueta Lopez-Jumaquio.
Respondent presented a notarized KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG
LUPA, which controverted petitioners’ claim of ownership.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
RTC: ruled in favor of petitioners. It held that the Kasulatan was
void, even absent evidence attacking its validity. RTC denied
respondents MR. Thus, respondents appealed to the CA.
CA: reversed the RTC decision. It held that the petitioners were
bound by their admission that Navarro was the original owner of the
property. Petitioners filed a MR, but was denied. Thus, petitioners
appealed to the SC.
[ISSUE/S]
WON Manongsong is a co-owner of the property and therefore
entitled to demand for its partition.
[HELD]
NO. The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a
notary public, is a public document and prima facie evidence of its
authenticity and due execution.
Even if the Kasulatan was not notarized, it would be deemed an
ancient document and thus still presumed to be authentic. The
Kasulatan is: (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper
custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any
circumstance of suspicion. It appears, on its face, to be genuine.
There was no evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired
the Property during her marriage. There is no basis for applying the
presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code to the present case.
On the contrary, Tax Declaration No. 911 showed that, as far back
as in 1949, the Property was declared solely in Navarro's name. This
tends to support the argument that the Property was not conjugal.
We likewise find no basis for the trial court's declaration that the sale
embodied in the Kasulatan deprived the compulsory heirs of
Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a disposition inter vivos
by lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable consideration
does not diminish the estate of the seller. When the disposition is for
valuable consideration, there is no diminution of the estate but
merely a substitution of values, that is, the property sold is replaced
by the equivalent monetary consideration.
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Decision is AFFIRMED.
63. SPS. JOAQUIN V. CA
[FACTS]
Parents Joaquin are the parents of both the plaintiffs and the
defendants. Plaintiff-heirs are contesting certain deeds of sale
issued by the Parents Joaquin to the defendant-heirs.
They allege, among other things, that these deeds attempt to
deprive them of their legitime.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
RTC- dismissed the case, plaintiffs have no cause of action to
demand legitime as the parents had not yet died.
CA- affirmed RTC.
[ISSUE]
WON plaintiffs are being deprived of their legitime.
[RULING]
NO.
Petitioners’ right to their parents’ properties is merely inchoate and
vests only upon their parents’ death. While still living, the parents of
petitioners are free to dispose of their properties. In their
overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime, petitioners
forget that theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings
does not affect the value of their parents’ estate.
(Naa pud issue diri about lack of consideration for the price of the
lands, but as we know, inadequacy of price is not the same as lack
of consideration; prices need not be equivalent to the actual value of
the property for them to be valid.)
64. RAYMUNDO V. VDA. DE SUAREZ
Facts
Marcelo and Teofista Isagon Suarez were married and begot herein
respondents, Danilo, Eufrocina, Marcelo Jr., Evelyn, and Reggineo,
all surnamed Suarez. Their marriage was governed by conjugal
partnership, to which they acquired the parcels of land in different
barrios in Pasig, Rizal (subject properties).
After the death of Marcelo, Sr. in 1955, his wife, Teofista and herein
respondents, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate,
partitioning Marcelo Sr.'s estate. In the partition, the parties have
agreed that Teofista, as surviving spouse of decedent, gets one half
(1/2) interest in all the subject properties aforementioned. The
children, on the other hand, gets a share equivalent to one-seventh
(1/7) of the estate of their father, with a proviso therein, that their title
to the properties mentioned shall be in common and the share of
each heir being pro indiviso. However, despite that partition, title of
the subject properties remained in the couple’s name. All the
properties were held pro indiviso by Teofista and her children;
and respective titles thereto were not changed, with Teofista as
de facto administrator thereof.
In 1975, Rizal Realty Corp and Teofista, the latter owning 90% of the
former’s shares of stock, were sued by herein petitioner Valente
Raymundo for Rescission of Contract and Damages, for which the
CFI therein rendered a decision holding the Teofista and Rizal
Realty liable for damages in the amount of P700,000. Thus, to
satisfy the judgment against Teofista and Rizal Realty, the subject
properties were levied and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 to
Raymundo, being the highest bidder. Consequently, a certificate of
sale was issued to him and the Sheriff issued a final deed of sale in
his name.
The civil action that triggered the present action- Civil Case No.
51203
However, before expiration of the redemption period, or on June 21,
1984, herein respondents, children of Teofista, filed a revindicatory
action against petitioner Valente Raymundo et al, for the annulment
of the auction sale and recovery of ownership of the levied
properties. Respondent heirs alleged that they couldn’t be held
liable for the judgment against their mother, for they have not been
impleaded therein; and consequently, the subject properties, which
they own pro indiviso with their mother, can neither be levied nor be
sold on execution.
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
CFI: Denied revindicatory action.
CA: Affirmed CFI’s decision. Dismissed respondents’ MR.
 What the respondent heirs should have done was to
immediately file a third party claim. The moment levy was
made on the parcels of land, which they claim are theirs
by virtue of hereditary succession, they should have
seasonably filed such claim to protect their rights. As the
record discloses, however, the children chose to remain
silent, and even allowed the auction sale to be held, filing
almost a year later a half-hearted complaint to annul the
proceedings which they allowed to be dismissed by not
diligently prosecuting it.
Pursuant to Civil Case No. 51203, a writ of preliminary injunction
was subsequently issued by the RTC Pasig enjoining petitioners
Raymundo from transferring to third parties the levied properties
based on its preliminary finding that the auctioned properties are co-
owned by Teofista and herein respondents.
Thus, Raymundo et al filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
CA: Granted. Questioned RTC order [above] is annulled.
Respondent heirs therefore appealed the case to the SC titled:
“Suarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 94918”
SC: REVERSED CA’s decision.
 The proprietary interest of petitioners [herein respondents]
in the levied and auctioned property is different from and
adverse to that of their mother [Teofista]. Petitioners
[herein respondents] became co-owners of the property
not because of their mother [Teofista] but through their
own right as children of their deceased father [Marcelo
Sr.]. Therefore, petitioners [herein respondents] are not
barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the
auction sale to protect their own interest
 Disposition:
o WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated July 27, 1990 as well as its
Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby
REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No.
51203 is reinstated only to determine that
portion which belongs to petitioners and to
annul the sale with regard to said portion.
Upon reinstatement of Civil Case No. 51203, petitioner Valente,
repeatedly filed a Motion to Dismiss for the purported failure of
herein respondents to prosecute the case. Most of these Motions to
Dismiss were denied. After miles and miles of pleadings, in
resolving this latest crossfire between the parties:
RTC: DISMISSED the Case (to the detriment of Suarez heirs)
 RTC, in its decision, cited the case of "Yaptinchay, et al.
vs. Del Rosario”, which held that “the declaration of
heirship must be made in an administration proceeding,
and not in an independent civil action, xxx inasmuch as
the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a
status or right.”
o Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before
the CA.
CA: SET ASIDE the RTC decision.
Finally, here we are. The denial of petitioner Valente's Motion for
Reconsideration prompted the filing of this present petition for
certiorari.
Before the SC, Valente posits that the
 CA ruling "is unfair and it amounts to a trickery to prevent
an appeal against a final order by claiming that the
appealed order is merely interlocutory and later maintain
that the same order has become final after declaring it to
be interlocutory”
 CA ignored and violated the Supreme Court's ruling in
Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario which held that a
declaration of heirship must be made in a special
proceeding and not in a civil action.
On Matters of Procedure, the SC ruled:
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
 Petitioner Valente incorrectly filed a petition for certiorari to
appeal the CA decision. Petitioner should have filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
 We reject petitioner's paltry contention. Petitioner
apparently does not comprehend the distinction between
an interlocutory order which is final and executory, and a
final order which disposes of the controversy or case;
much less, understand the available remedies therefrom.
 In fine, petitioner Valente erroneously sought relief through
reversed remedies. He tried to appeal the interlocutory
orders of the RTC which are unappealable. Thus, the RTC
properly denied his Notice of Appeal, and the CA correctly
upheld the RTC. He should have filed a petition for
certiorari; under Rule 65. On the other hand, from the final
order of the CA, he comes before this Court on a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65, when the proper remedy is an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
Independently of this procedural infirmity, even on the merits of the
case, the petition does not fare otherwise:
Re: Succession- Petitioner Valente insists that, following our ruling
in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, herein respondents must first
be declared heirs of Marcelo Sr. before they can file an action to
annul the judicial sale of what is, undisputedly, conjugal property of
Teofista and Marcelo Sr.
ISSUE: W/N HEIRS MUST FIRST BE DECLARED BEFORE THEY
CAN FILE AN ACTION TO ANNUL A JUDICIAL SALE OF THEIR
LEGITIME
HELD: NO. Yaptinchay is not applicable.
In Heirs of Yaptinchay, the complaint for annulment and/or
declaration of nullity of certain TCTs was dismissed for failure of the
petitioners to demonstrate "any proof or even a semblance of it" that
they had been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple, the
spouses Yaptinchay. In stark contrast, the records of this case
reveal a document, an Extrajudicial Settlement of Marcelo Sr.'s
estate, which explicitly recognizes herein respondents as Marcelo
Sr.'s legitimate children and heirs. Plainly, there is no need to re-
declare herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., and prolong this
case interminably.
Petitioner Valente et al, became owners of the subject properties
only by virtue of an execution sale to recover Teofista's judgment
obligation. This judgment obligation is solely Teofista's, and payment
therefor cannot be made through an execution sale of properties not
absolutely owned by her. These properties were evidently conjugal
properties and were, in fact, even titled in the name of Marcelo, Sr.
married to Teofista. Thus, upon Marcelo Sr.'s death, by virtue of
compulsory succession, Marcelo Sr.'s share in the conjugal
partnership was transmitted by operation of law to his
compulsory heirs.
Compulsory succession is a distinct kind of succession, albeit not
categorized as such in Article 778 of the Civil Code. It reserves a
portion of the net estate of the decedent in favor of certain heirs, or
group of heirs, or combination of heirs, prevailing over all kinds of
succession. The portion that is so reserved is the legitime. Article
886 of the Civil Code defines legitime as "that part of the testator's
property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it
for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs." Herein
respondents are primary compulsory heirs, excluding secondary
compulsory heirs, and preferred over concurring compulsory heirs in
the distribution of the decedent's estate.
Even without delving into the Extrajudicial Settlement of Marcelo
Sr.'s estate in 1957, it must be stressed that herein respondents'
rights to the succession vested from the moment of their father's
death. Herein respondents' ownership of the subject properties is no
longer inchoate; it became absolute upon Marcelo's death, although
their respective shares therein remained pro indiviso. Ineluctably, at
the time the subject properties were sold on execution sale to
answer for Teofista's judgment obligation, the inclusion of herein
respondents' share therein was null and void.
Since Teofista owns only a portion of the subject properties, only
that portion could have been, and was actually, levied upon and sold
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
on auction by the provincial sheriff of Rizal. Thus, a separate
declaration of heirship by herein respondents is not necessary
to annul the judicial sale of their share in the subject properties.
All told, under the circumstances, in addition to the already settled
status of herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., there is no
need to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203 and require herein
respondents to institute a separate special proceeding for a
declaration of their heirship.
Disposition: Petition, denied.
65. BARITUA V. CA
DOCTRINE: Article 887 of the Civil Code enumerates compulsory
heirs while Article 985 provides that parents and ascendants of a
deceased inherits in default of legitimate children and descendants.
Thus, parents of the deceased succeed only when the deceased
dies without a legitimate descendant.
FACTS:
The tricycle then being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along the
national highway at Barangay San Cayetano, in Baao, Camarines
Sur, figured in an accident with JB Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner
Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by petitioner Jose Baritua.
As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died, and
the tricycle was damaged. No criminal case arising from the incident
was ever instituted.
Subsequently, petitioners and the bus’ insurer (PFICI) negotiated an
extra-judicial settlement of the matter whereby Bienvenido Nacario's
widow, Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario, received P18,500.00. In
consideration of the amount she received, Alicia executed a
"Release of Claim" in favor of the petitioners and PFICI, releasing
and forever discharging them from all actions, claims, and demands
arising from the accident which resulted in her husband's death and
the damage to the tricycle. Alicia likewise executed an affidavit of
desistance in which she formally manifested her lack of interest in
instituting any case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners.
About a year and ten months from the date of the accident, private
respondents (parents of Bienvenido Nacario) filed a complaint for
damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur. They alleged that during the vigil for their
deceased son, the petitioners through their representatives promised
them that as extra-judicial settlement, they shall be indemnified for
the death of their son, for the funeral expenses, and for the damage
to the tricycle. The petitioners, however, reneged on their promise
and instead negotiated and settled their obligations with the long-
estranged wife of their late son.
LOWER COURT’S RULING:
RTC – dismissed the complaint, holding that the payment by the
petitioners to the widow and her child, who are the preferred heirs
and successors-in-interest of the deceased Bienvenido to the
exclusion of his parents, the private respondents, extinguished any
claim against the petitioners.
CA – reversed the judgment of the trial court. It ruled that the release
executed by Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario did not discharge the
liability of the petitioners because the case was instituted by the
private respondents in their own capacity and not as "heirs,
representatives, successors, and assigns" of Alicia; and Alicia could
not have validly waived the damages being prayed for by the private
respondents since she was not the one who suffered these damages
arising from the death of their son.
ISSUE: WON petitioners are still liable to pay the private
respondents despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement
between the petitioners and the victim's compulsory heirs.
RULING: NO. Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
enumerates the persons to whom payment to extinguish an
obligation should be made: “…to the person in whose favor the
obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any
person authorized to receive it.”
Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the
deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the
persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code states:
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their
legitimate parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants,
with respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal
fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by
those in Nos. 1 and 2. Neither do they exclude one another.
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the
deceased, his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the
exclusion of collateral relatives.
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only
when the deceased dies without a legitimate descendant. On the
other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As
it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and
that they begot a child, the private respondents are not successors-
in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. The
petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with
Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of
their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from
Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased
spouse.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the decision of
the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the RTC
is hereby REINSTATED.
66. GONZALES V. CFI
[TOPIC FROM THE SYLLABUS]
LEGITIME AND RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVA TRONCAL;
REQUISITES: As long as during the reservor's lifetime and upon his
death there are relatives within the third degree of the prepositus,
regardless of whether those reservees are common descendants of
the reservor and the ascendant from whom the property came, the
property retains its reservable character. The property should go to
the nearest reservees. The reservor cannot, by means of his will,
choose the reservee to whom the reservable property should be
awarded.
[FACTS]
The real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned
in three equal portions by his two daughters and the heirs of his
deceased son Benito Legarda y De La Paz who was survived by his
widow, Filomena Roces y Legarda and their seven children: four
daughters named, Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and Filomena and their
three sons, named Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
Meanwhile. one of the daughters, Filomena, died intestate and
without an issue and her mother Filomena Roces y Legarda who
became her sole heir, partitioned their one-third share in the estate
of Benito Legarda y Tuason with her six surviving children and then
conveyed the properties she inherited from her deceased daughter
by holographic will to her 16 grandchildren.
In opposition thereto, one of the daughters Beatriz Legarda
Gonzales filed a motion in the testate proceeding and an ordinary
civil action in the lower court contending that the disputed properties
are resersable properties. This motion was opposed by the
administrator, Benito Legarda.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
CFI: dismissed the action of Mrs. Gonzalez.
Petitioner appealed the decision contending that the lower court
erred in not regarding the properties in question as reservable
properties under article 891 of the Civil Code.
On the other hand, defendants contend that Mrs. Legarda acquired
the estate of her daughter Filomena Legarda in exchange for her
conjugal and hereditary shares in the estate of her husband Benito
Legarda y De la Paz and in not holding that Mrs. Gonzalez waived
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
her right to the reservable properties and that her claim is barred by
estoppel, laches and prescription.
[ISSUE/S]
WON the properties in question are subject to reserve troncal.
WON Mrs. Legarda, as reservoir, could convey the reservable
properties by will or mortis causa to the reserves within the 3 rd
degree (iyang mga apo) to the exclusion of the reserves in the
2nd degree (iyang mga anak).
[HELD]
1st issue: YES. The SC mentioned everything they know about
reserve truncal ughh kapoya bitaw pagkasulat. So here are the
highlights!
ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property
which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another
ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who
are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said
property came.
In reserva troncal, (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by
gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or
sister; (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is
acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant, and
(3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for the
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the
deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from
which the said property came.
Thus, if there are only 2 transmissions, there is no reserva.
The persons involved in reserva troncal are (1) the ascendant or
brother or sister from whom the property was received by the
descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title, (2) the descendant or
prepositus (propositus) who received the property, (3) the reservor
(reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property from the
prepositus by operation of law and (4) the reservee (reservatario)
who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs
to the line (linea o tronco) from which the property came and for
whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.
First cousins of the prepositus are in the fourth degree and are not
reservees. They cannot even represent their parents because
representation is confined to relatives within the third degree.
Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. Illegitimate
relationship and relationship by affinity are excluded.
The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is
extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. The reservor
is a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it
subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and
conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferee's rights are
revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of
the reservor but become indefeasible when the reservees
predecease the reservor.
The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is subject to a
resolutory condition, meaning that if at the time of the reservor's
death, there are reservees, the transferee of the property should
deliver it to the reservees. If there are no reservees at the time of the
reservor's death, the transferee's title would become absolute.
In the instant case, 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.
2nd issue: NO. We hold that 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.
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be
inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the
prepositus who in this case are the six children of Mrs. Legarda. She
could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property
should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share
therein.
Under the rule of stare decisis et non quieta movere, we are bound
to follow in this case the doctrine of the Florentino case. That
doctrine means that as long as during the reservor's lifetime and
upon his death there are relatives within the third degree of the
prepositus, regardless of whether those reservees are common
descendants of the reservor and the ascendant from whom the
property came, the property retains its reservable character. The
property should go to the nearest reservees. The reservor cannot, by
means of his will, choose the reservee to whom the reservable
property should be awarded.
[FALLO]
Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
67. FLORENTINO V. FLORENTINO
[FACTS]
Apolonio II had 9 children with his first wife. After his first wife died,
he remarried. He had 2 children with his second wife Severina:
Mercedes and Apolonio III (lets call him Thirdy).
Prior to his death, Apolonio II instituted a will naming all his children
and Severina, as his heirs.
Thirdy subsequently died, thus his mother, Severina succeeded all
his property. Upon Severina’s death, she bequeathed all her
property to Mercedes, including that which she inherited from Thirdy.
The plaintiffs are the children of Apolonio’s II children with his first
wife. They allege that Mercedes has been receiving the fruits of the
land herself, without delivering to plaintiffs their share. They pray the
property be declared as reservable property.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
CFI- dismissed case due to demurrer filed by defendants.
CA- dismissed.
[ISSUE]
WON the property is reservable property.
[RULING]
YES.
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property,
while there are living, within the third degree, relatives of the
latter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the
reservable property received.
When there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree,
the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property
which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should
return to him, excludes that of the one more remote. The right of
representation cannot be alleged when the one claming same as a
reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which such
property came.
But if, afterwards, all of the relatives, within the third degree, of the
descendant (from whom came the reservable property) die or
disappear, the said property becomes free property, by operation of
law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of the ascendant heir
who can transmit it at his death to his legitimate successors or
testamentary heirs. This property has now lost its nature of
reservable property.
Thus, in this case, all the children from the first marriage are
considered as reservatario. It is true that when Mercedes, took
possession of the property in question, same did not pass into the
hands of strangers. But it is likewise true that the said Mercedes is
not the only reservataria. Thus the other brothers and nephews
should not be deprived of portions of the property which, as
reservable property, pertain to them.
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS

FALLO: CA reversed. The other brothers and sisters of
Mercedes, and their heirs are entitled to a share of the reserved
property.
68. MENDOZA V. DE LOS SANTOS
Doctrine
Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the
return of a reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging
to the line from which the property originally came, and avoid its
being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant.
Facts
The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of land
located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Lot Nos. 1681-B and 1684 are
presently in the name of respondent Julia Delos Santos
(respondent). Lot No. 1646-B, on the other hand, is also in the name
of respondent but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-
half of the property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Before the RTC Bulacan, petitioners filed an action for “Recovery of
Possession by Reserva Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and
Reconveyance” against respondent Julia De Los Santos.
Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido) and
Dominga Mendoza (Dominga). Placido and Dominga had four
children: Antonio, Exequiel, married to Leonor, Apolonio and
Valentin. Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido
and Dominga’s properties that were subject of an oral partition and
subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. After Exequiel’s death, it
passed on to his spouse Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After
Leonor’s death, her share went to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died
intestate and without issue. They claimed that after Gregoria’s
death, respondent, JULIA DE LOS SANTOS, who is Leonor’s
sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole
surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria. Hence, petitioners claim
that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in their
behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the
Civil Code on reserva troncal.
Respondent Julia, however, denies any obligation to reserve the
properties as these did not originate from petitioners’ familial line and
were not originally owned by Placido and Dominga. According to
respondent, the properties were bought by Exequiel and Antonio
from a certain Alfonso Ramos in 1931. It appears, however, that it
was only Exequiel who was in possession of the properties.
(yes, ang SC nay nag provide ani nga diagram)
CA: REVERSED RTC Decision; Dismissed the complaint filed by
petitioners. CA also denied their motion for reconsideration.
 Even assuming that Placido and Dominga (grandparents)
previously owned the properties, it still cannot be subject
to reserva troncal as neither Exequiel predeceased
Placido and Dominga nor did Gregoria predecease
Exequiel.
ISSUE:  W/N RESERVA TRONCAL IS APPLICABLE HEREIN
HELD: NO. Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable. Julia,
who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant
within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code.
Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the
return of a reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging
to the line from which the property originally came, and avoid its
being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting
ascendant. 
The principle of reserva troncal is provided in Article 891 of the Civil
Code:
Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property
which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another
ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives
who are within the third degree and belong to the line from which
said property came. (Emphasis ours)
There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal:
1. Transmission is by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or
donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called
the prepositus.
2. Transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the
other ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista.
3. Transmission from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios
who must be relatives within the third degree from which the
property came.
The lineal character of the reservable property is reckoned from
the ascendant from whom the prepositus received the property
by gratuitous title.
The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
(1) The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was
received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title;
(2) The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the
property;
(3) The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the
property from the prepositus by operation of law; and
(4) The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from
the prepositus
and who
belongs to the
(linea o
tronco) from
which the
property
came and for
whom the
property
should be
reserved by
the reservoir.

In the case at
bar, it should
be pointed out
that the
ownership of
the properties
should be
reckoned only
from
Exequiel’s as
he is the
ascendant
from where the first transmission occurred, or from whom Gregoria
Lower Courts
inherited the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than
RTC: GRANTED the action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva
such ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal character of
Troncal;  Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance.
the property. It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
Exequiel predeceased Placido and Dominga or whether Gregoria
predeceased Exequiel. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned
the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the
properties in dispute originally came. Gregoria, on the other
hand, is the descendant who received the properties from
Exequiel by gratuitous title.
Moreover, Article 891 simply requires that the property should have
been acquired by the descendant or prepositus from an ascendant
by gratuitous or lucrative title. A transmission is gratuitous or by
gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. At
risk of being repetitious, what was clearly established in this case is
that the properties in dispute were owned by Exequiel (ascendant).
After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the
properties as inheritance.
ISSUE: W/N RESPONDENT ULIA IS OBLIGED TO RESERVE THE
PROPERTY
HELD: NO.
Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property
should be an ascendant (also known as the reservor/reservista) of
the descendant/prepositus. Julia, however, is not Gregoria’s
ascendant; rather, she is Gregoria’s collateral relative.
Gregoria’s ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her
grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. On the other hand,
Gregoria’s descendants, if she had one, would be her children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Not being Gregoria’s
ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her
collateral relatives. In determining the collateral line of relationship,
ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent to the
relative from whom the computation is made. In the case of Julia’s
collateral relationship with Gregoria, ascent is to be made from
Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one line/degree), then to the
common ancestor, that is, Julia and Leonor’s parents (second
line/degree), and then descent to Julia, her aunt (third line/degree).
Thus, Julia is Gregoria’s collateral relative within the third degree
and not her ascendant.
ISSUE: W/N PETITIONERS MENDOZAS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW ON RESERVA
TRONCAL
HELD: NO. Petitioners, Mendoza et al, therefore, cannot be
considered reservees/ reservatarios as they are not relatives
within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties
came. The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the
descendant/prepositus―the one at the end of the line from which
the property came and upon whom the property last revolved by
descent. It is Gregoria in this case. Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth
degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins of the
prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or
reservatarios.
They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors
Antonio and Valentin as Article 891 grants a personal right of
reservation only to the relatives up to the third degree from whom
the reservable properties came. The only recognized exemption is in
the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the
right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are
the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the third
degree.
In fact, respondent Julia, as reservista, has the duty to reserve and
to annotate the reservable character of the property on the title. In
reserva troncal, the reservista who inherits from a prepositus,
whether by the latter’s wish or by operation of law, acquires the
inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute
ownership. All the attributes of ownership belong to him exclusively.
It is when the reservation takes place or is extinguished, that a
reservatario becomes, by operation of law, the owner of the
reservable property.
The conclusion, therefore, is that while it may appear that the
properties are reservable in character, petitioners cannot benefit
from reserva troncal. First, because Julia, who now holds the
properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the purview of
Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because petitioners are not
Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree. Hence, the CA’s
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
disposition that the complaint filed with the RTC should be
dismissed, only on this point, is correct.
Disposition: petition is DENIED.
69. CHUA V. CFI
DOCTRINE: In order that a property may be impressed with a
reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit: (1)
that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant
or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title; (2) that said
descendant died without an issue: (3) that the property is inherited
by another ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there are
relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said
property came.
FACTS:
Jose Frias Chua contracted two marriages. The first one with
Patricia S. Militar, with whom he sired three children, namely:
Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel, all surnamed Frias Chua and the
second one (contracted after the first wife died) with Consolacion de
la Torre with whom he had a child by the name of Juanito Frias
Chua. One of his children on his first marriage, Manuel, died without
leaving any issue. Then in 1929, Jose Frias Chua died intestate.
In the intestate proceeding, the lower court issued an order
adjudicating, among others, (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 and the sum
of P8,000.00 in favor of Jose Frias Chua's widow, Consolacion de la
Torre, the other half of the lot in favor of Juanito Frias Chua, his son
in the second marriage. By the virtue of said adjudication, a TCT
was issued in their names as owners-pro-indiviso.
Consequently, Juanito Frias Chua died intestate without any issue.
After his death, his mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro-
indiviso share of her son Juanito as a result of which, a TCT
covering the whole lot was issued in her name. Years after,
Consolacion died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the
descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters.
In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre", the petitioners
herein, Ignacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage and Dominador and
Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased
Lorenzo Frias Chua, filed the complaint a quo (subsequently
segregated as distinct suit) praying that (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399
which formerly belonged to Juanito Frias Chua but which passed to
Consolacion upon the latter's death, be declared as reservable
property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reserva
troncal pursuant to Article 981 of the New Civil code. Private
respondent as administratrix of the estate of the Consolacion de la
Torre and the heirs of the latter traversed individually the complaint
of petitioners.
LOWER COURT’S RULING:
RTC – dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE: WON the lot in question is subject to reserva troncal
RULING: YES. "ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have required by
gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is
obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by
operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third
degree and belong to the line Iron which said property came."
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that a property may be
impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must
exist, to wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from
an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title; (2) that
said descendant died without an issue: (3) that the property is
inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that
there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which said property came.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing requisites are present. Thus, as
borne out by the records, Juanito Frias Chua died intestate without
leaving any issue and his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share was acquired by
his mother by operation of law. When Consolacion de la Torre died,
Juanito Frias Chua who died intestate had relatives within the third
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
degree. These relatives are Ignacio Frias Chua and Dominador
Chua and Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the
deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua, who are the petitioners herein.
The crux of the problem in instant petition is focused on the first
requisite of reserva troncal — whether the property in question was
acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father gratuitously or not. In
resolving this point, the respondent Court said that the property in
question was not acquired by Consolacion and Juanito gratuitously
but for a consideration, namely, that the legatees were to pay the
interest and cost and other fees resulting from the Civil Case. The
Supreme Court does not agree.
"The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the
recipient does not give anything in return." It matters not whether the
property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges. What
is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously, or by an
act of mere liberality of the person making it, without imposing any
obligation on the part of the recipient and that the person
receiving the property gives or does nothing in return or as ably
put by an eminent Filipino commentator, "the essential thing is that
the person who transmits it does so gratuitously, from pure
generosity, without requiring from the transferee any prestation." It is
evident from the record that the transmission of the property in
question to Juanito Frias Chua upon the death of his father Jose
Frias Chua was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore
gratuitous.
The obligation of paying the Standard Oil Co. of New York imposed
upon Consolacion and Juanito was not personally imposed by the
deceased Jose Frias Chua in his last will and testament but by an
order of the court. As long as the transmission of the property to the
heirs is free from any condition imposed by the deceased himself
and the property is given out of pure generosity, it is gratuitous. It
does not matter if later the court orders one of the heirs, in this case
Juanito Frias Chua, to pay the Standard Oil Co. of New York. This
does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of the
property to him. As far as the deceased Jose Frias Chua is
concerned the transmission of the property to his heirs is gratuitous.
This being the case the lot in question is subject to reserva troncal
under Art. 891 of the New Civil Code.
FALLO: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed
from is hereby SET ASIDE.
70. EDROSO V. SABIAN
[TOPIC FROM THE SYLLABUS]
LEGITIME AND RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVA TRONCAL;
REQUISITES: The ascendants who inherits from a descendant,
whether by the latter's wish or by operation of law, acquires the
inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute
ownership. All the attributes of the right of ownership belong to him
exclusively — use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery. This absolute
ownership, which is inherent in the hereditary title, is not altered in
the least, if there be no relatives within the third degree in the line
whence the property proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir
who is the possessor and absolute owner of the property. If there
should be relatives within the third decree who belong to the line
whence the property proceeded, then a limitation to that absolute
ownership would arise.
[FACTS]
Edroso applied for registration and issuance of title to 2 parcels of
land.
She was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death. They had a
son named Pedro, and who at his father's death inherited the two
said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and
without issue, and by his decease the two parcels of land passed
through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso.
2 legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan appeared in the case to
oppose the registration.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
Court of Land Registration God this case is old: denied the
registration. The court held that the parcels of land in question
partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
that in such a case application could only be presented jointly in the
names of the mother and the said two uncles of Pedro Sablan.
[ISSUE/S]
WON the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal.
Appellant contends that it is not proven that the two parcels of land
in question have been acquired by operation of law, and that only
property acquired without a valuable consideration, which is by
operation of law, is required by law to be reserved.
[HELD] Petitioner won in this case pero pildi siya sa issue.
YES. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property
which the latter acquired without a valuable consideration from
another ascendant, or from 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 whence the
property proceeded.
Having acquired them by operation of law, she is obligated to
reserve them intact for the claimants, who are uncles or relatives
within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and
Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the lands proceeded.
Petitioner also claimed that the respondents renounced their right to
the property to be reserved pero ana SC na whaaaaat? Wala man
sa facts gud.
Pero petitioner won diba? How? Well.. The question asked was
unsa ang rights in the property of the person who holds it subject to
the reservation under the Civil Code?
The ascendants who inherits from a descendant, whether by the
latter's wish or by operation of law, acquires the inheritance by virtue
of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes
of the right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use,
enjoyment, disposal and recovery. This absolute ownership, which is
inherent in the hereditary title, is not altered in the least, if there be
no relatives within the third degree in the line whence the property
proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir who is the possessor
and absolute owner of the property. If there should be relatives
within the third decree who belong to the line whence the property
proceeded, then a limitation to that absolute ownership would arise.
The conclusion is that the person required by article 811 to reserve
the right has, beyond any doubt at all, the rights of use and usufruct.
He has, moreover, for the reasons set forth, 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 hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose
favor the right is reserved cannot dispose of the property, first
because it is no way, either actually, constructively or formally, in
their possession; and, moreover, because they have no title of
ownership or of 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, thus creating a fee
simple, and only then will they take their place in the succession of
the descendant of whom they are relatives within the third degree,
that is to say, a second contingent place in said legitimate
succession in the fashion of aspirants to a possible future legacy.
In short, yes daw within the rights pa daw si petitioner to register
pero limited iyang rights. Subject to revocation by the heirs na
nakareserve sa property. Mao ra.
[FALLO]
Petition for Review is GRANTED.
71.SEINES V. ESPARCIA
[FACTS]
The property in question originally belonged to Saturnino. By will, he
left the property to his son from his second wife, Francisco.
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
Francisco died at 20 years old, single, and without any heirs, thus,
his mother inherited the property. She sold the same to the Spouses
Seines (plaintiff).
However, Paulina and Cipriana (daughters of Saturnino from his first
wife) refused to surrender the TCT to the Spouses Seines. They
then sold the property to Spouses Esparcia (defendants).
Thus, Spouses Seines wish to declare the sale to Spouses Esparcia
as void.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
CFI- Declared both sales as void and that the reservable property in
question is part of and must be reverted to the estate of Cipriana
Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso.
[ISSUE]
WON the sale to Sps Espparcia is void.
[RULING]
NO.
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.
In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still
alive when Fransisco’s mother, the person obliged to reserve, died.
Thus the Cipriana became the absolute owner of the reservable
property. While it may be true that the sale to Spouses Esparcia,
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 —
the Esparcia spouses did — not appeal therefrom.
FALLO: AFFIRMED lower court, without prejudice to whatever
action in equity the Esparcia spouses may have against the Estate
of Cipriana Yaeso for the reconveyance of the property in question.
72. DE PAPA V. CAMACHO
Doctrine
RESERVA TRONCAL; RIGHTS OF RESERVATIONS
DETERMINED BY PRINCIPLES OF INTESTACY.
FACTS
Plaintiffs Francisca, Manuel, and Nicolas, all surnamed De Papa are
defendant-Dalisay Camacho’s grandaunt and granduncles. The
parties have as a common ancestor, the late Balbino Tioco (who had
a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant.
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4)
parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of
plaintiffs).
1914: Toribia Tioco died intestate, survived by her husband,
Eustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and
Trinidad Dizon (mother of defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho)
and leaving the afore-mentioned four (4) parcels of land as the
inheritance of her said two children in equal pro-indiviso shares.
1928: Balbino Tioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate
children by his wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and
legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon.
 In the partition, 3 parcels of his land were adjudicated as
the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco, but as she had
predeceased her father, Balbino Tioco, the said three (3)
parcels of land devolved upon her two legitimate
children Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon in equal
pro-indiviso shares.
o Faustino died intestate, single and without
issue, leaving his one-half (1/2) pro-indiviso
share in the seven (7) parcels of land above-
mentioned to his father, Eustacio Dizon, as his
sole intestate heir, who received the said
property subject to a reserva troncal.
1939: Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate, and her rights and
interests in the parcels of land abovementioned were inherited by
her only legitimate child, defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.
1965: Eustacio Dizon also died intestate, survived his only legitimate
descendant, defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.
 Therefore, Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho now owns one-
half (1/2) of all the seven (7) parcels of land as her
inheritance from her mother, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko.
 Pursuant to the death of her father, Dalisay Camacho now
claims the other half of the said seven (7) parcels of land
abovementioned by virtue of the reserva troncal
imposed thereon upon the death of her father,
Faustino Dizon and under the laws on intestate
succession.
o However, plaintiffs oppose her said claim
because they claim three-fourths (3/4) of the
one-half proindiviso interest in said parcel of
land, which interest was inherited by Eustacio
Dizon from Faustino Dizon, or three-eights (3/8)
of the said parcels of land, by virtue of their
being also third degree relatives of Faustino
Dizon.
Lower Courts
RTC: declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and
Nicolas Tioco, as well as the defendant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho,
entitled, as reservatarios, to one-half of the seven parcels of land in
dispute, in equal proportions.
Defendant appealed directly to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N all relatives of
the praepositus within the
third degree in the
appropriate line succeed
without distinction to the
reservable property upon
the death of the
reservista.
HELD: No.
The persons involved in
reserva troncal are:
(1) The ascendant or
brother or sister from whom
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or
gratuitous title;
(2) The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the
property;
(3) The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the
property from the prepositus by operation of law; and
(4) The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from
the prepositus and who belongs to the (linea o tronco) from which
the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by
the reservoir.
This question before the SC has already been answered in Padura
vs. Baldovino, where the reservatario was survived by eleven
nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of
whole blood and seven of half blood, and the claim was also made
that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary property in equal
shares. This Court, speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes,
declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling, and ruled that
the nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a
share double that of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in
accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil Code.
In a case of reserva troncal where the only reservatarios (reserves)
surviving the reservista, and belonging to the line of origin, are
nephews of the descendant (prepositus), but some are nephews of
the half blood and the others are nephews of the whole blood,
should the reserved properties be apportioned among them equally,
or should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as
large as that of the nephews of the half blood?
The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the
return of the reservable property to the third degree relatives
belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting
ascendant (reservista).
The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property
has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of origin. But from
this time on, there is no further occasion for its application. In the
relations between one reservatario and another of the same degree
there is no call for applying Art. 891 any longer; wherefore, the
respective share of each in the reversionary property should be
governed by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. In this spirit
the jurisprudence of this Court and that of Spain has resolved that
upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the reservable property
should pass, not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to those
nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those
reservatarios of more remote degree.
In the case at bar, reversion of the reservable property being
governed by the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-
appellees must be held without any right thereto because, as
aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus),
they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the
defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the
same degree as the latter.   Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the above described properties.
As held in the case of Abellana v. Ferraris, under the Article 1009,
the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins,
etc.) being called to the succession. Hence, a decedent’s uncles
and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews
and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified
to succeed, similar to the case at hand.
This conclusion is fortified by the observation, also made in Padura,
supra, that as to the reservable property, the reservatarios do not
inherit from the reservista, but from the descendant praepositus:
". . . It is likewise clear that the reservable property is no part of the estate
of the reservista, who may not dispose of it by will, as long as there are
reservatarios existing. The latter, therefore, do not inherit from the
reservista, but from the descendant prepositus, of whom the
reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa, subject to the condition that they
must survive the reservista.”
W/N INTESTACY PROCEEDING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE
THE RESERVATARIO’S RIGHTS
HELD: NO.
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Intestacy proceedings to determine the right of a reservatario are
not necessary where the final decree of the land court ordering
issuance of title in the name of the reservista over property
subject to reserva troncal identifies the reservatario and there
are no other claimants to the latter's rights.
The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is
the reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the
reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the
descendant (prepositus), said property merely reverting to the line of
origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during
the reservista's lifetime
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the
reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes,
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable
property. As already stated, that property is no part of the estate of
the reservista, and does not even answer for the debts of the latter.
Had the reversionary property passed directly from the praepositus,
there is no doubt that the plaintiffs-appellees would have been
excluded by the defendant-appellant under the rules of intestate
succession. There is no reason why a different result should obtain
simply because "the transmission of the property was delayed by the
interregnum of the reserva;" i.e., the property took a "detour" through
an ascendant — thereby giving rise to the reservation — before its
transmission to the reservatario.
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings already cited,
the defendant-appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the
entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-
appellees.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower
Court is reversed and set aside and the complaint is dismissed,
with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.
73. SUMAYA V. IAC
DOCTRINE: Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal where the
person obliged to reserve (the widowed spouse) had the obligation
to annotate in the Registry of Property the reservable character of
the property, in reserva troncal, the reservor (the ascendant who
inherited from a descendant property which the latter inherited
from another ascendant) has the duty to reserve and therefore,
the duty to annotate also.
FACTS:
Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different ascendants the two (2)
sets of properties subject of this case: 1) A 1/3 interest, pro-indiviso
in a parcel of land situated in Dita, Liliw Laguna from his father Jose,
Sr., who died; and 2) A 1/7 interest pro-indiviso in ten (10) parcels of
registered lands from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista.
Subsequently, Raul died intestate, single, without any issue, and
leaving only his mother, Consuelo Joaquin Vda. de Balantakbo, as
his sole surviving heir to the real properties above-mentioned.
Years later, Consuelo sold the property Raul inherited from his
father, to Mariquita H. Sumaya. The same property was
subsequently sold by Sumaya to Villa Honorio Development
Corporation, Inc. Consequently, VHDC transferred and assigned its
rights over the property in favor of Agro-Industrial Coconut
Cooperative, Inc. The properties are presently in the name of Agro-
Industrial Coconut Cooperative, Inc., 2/3 share and the remaining
1/3 share is in the name of Sancho Balantakbo.
Later, Consuelo sold the properties Raul inherited from his
grandmother to VHDC. The latter in turn transferred and assigned all
its rights to the properties in favor of Laguna Agro-Industrial Coconut
Cooperative, Inc. which properties are presently in its possession.
The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above
described properties do not contain any annotation of its reservable
character. Consequently, Consuelo died.
On March 4, 1970, Amadeo, Sancho, Donato, Luis, and Erasto, all
surnamed Balantakbo, brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and
Luisa, Jose and Dolores, also all surnamed Balantakbo, surviving
children of deceased Jose Balantakbo, Jr., another brother of the
first named Balantakbos, filed the above mentioned civil cases to
recover the properties described in the respective complaints which
they claimed were subject to a reserva troncal in their favor.
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS
LOWER COURT’S RULING:
RTC – rendered decision in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the
return of the properties.
CA – affirmed RTC decision in toto and denied the MR.
ISSUE: WON the lots in question are subject to reserva troncal
RULING: YES. "ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have required by
gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is
obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by
operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third
degree and belong to the line Iron which said property came."
Although it was admitted that the certificates of titles covering the
properties in question show that they were free from any liens and
encumbrances at the time of the sale, the fact remains however, that
the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the
source of the properties showing the reservable nature thereof, was
registered with the Register of Deeds of Laguna. This is sufficient
notice to the whole world in accordance with Section 52 of the
Property Registration Decree which provides:
“Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien attachment, order,
judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if
registered, Aled or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be
constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering,
filing or entering."
The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the reservable
character of the property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed
to Consuelo. Moreover, there was sufficient proof that the petitioners
had actual knowledge of the reservable character of the properties
before they bought the same from Consuelo.
The Court do not agree, however, with the disposition of the
appellate court that there is no need to register the reservable
character of the property, if only for the protection of the reservees,
against innocent third persons. The obligation to reserve rests
upon the reservor, Consuelo Joaquin vda. de Balantakbo as
provided in Article 891 of the New Civil Code on reserva troncal.
Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal where the person obliged
to reserve (the widowed spouse) had the obligation to annotate in
the Registry of Property the reservable character of the property, in
reserva troncal, the reservor (the ascendant who inherited from
a descendant property which the latter inherited from another
ascendant) has the duty to reserve and therefore, the duty to
annotate also.
The jurisprudential rule requiring annotation in the Registry of
Property of the right reserved in real property subject of reserva
viudal insofar as it is applied to reserva troncal stays despite the
abolition of reserva viudal in the New Civil Code. This rule is
consistent with the rule provided in the second paragraph of Section
51 of P.D. 1529 which provides that: "The act of registration shall be
the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons
are concerned . . . .”
FALLO: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The questioned
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is AFFIRMED, except
for the modification on the necessity to annotate the reversible
character of a property subject of reserva troncal.
74. SOLIVIO V. CA
[TOPIC FROM THE SYLLABUS]
LEGITIME AND RESERVA TRONCAL; RESERVA TRONCAL;
REQUISITES: The persons involved in reserva troncal are: (1) The
person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista) — the
ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his
descendants; (2) The persons for whom the property is reserved are
the reservees (reservatorios) — relatives within the third degree
counted from the descendant (propositus), and belonging to the line
from which the property came. (3) The propositus — the descendant
who received by gratuitous title and died without issue, making his
other ascendant inherit by operation of law.
[FACTS]
JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA
Javellana, Jr. died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants,
brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. His only surviving relatives are:
(1) his maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia Solivio, the spinster half-
sister of his mother, Salustia Solivio; and (2) the private respondent,
Concordia Javellana- Villanueva, sister of his deceased father,
Esteban Javellana, Sr.
His mother Salustia Solivio and her sister, Celedonia brought up
Javellana Jr. Salustia brought to her marriage paraphernal
properties which she had inherited from her mother, but no conjugal
property was acquired during her marriage to Javellana, Sr.
In 1959, Salustia died leaving all her properties to Javellana Jr.
Esteban, Jr. had, more than once, expressed to his aunt Celedonia
and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to
honor his mother and to help poor but deserving students obtain a
college education. Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack on
February 26, 1977 without having set up the foundation.
2 weeks after his funeral, Celedonia told Concordia about Esteban's
desire to place his estate in a foundation to be named after his
mother, from whom his properties came, for the purpose of helping
indigent students in their schooling. Concordia agreed to carry out
the plan of the deceased.
Pursuant to their agreement, Celedonia in good faith and upon the
advice of her counsel, filed for her appointment as special
administratix of the estate of Javellana Jr. Later, she filed an
amended petition that she be declared sole heir of the deceased.
After due publication and hearing of her petition, she was declared
sole heir of the estate of Javellana Jr. She explained that this was
done for three reasons: (1) because the properties of the estate had
come from her sister, Salustia Solivio; (2) that she is the decedent's
nearest relative on his mother's side; and (3) with her as sole heir,
the disposition of the properties of the estate to fund the foundation
would be facilitated.
Thereafter, she sold properties of the estate to pay the taxes and
other obligations of the deceased and proceeded to set up the
"SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE JAVELLANA FOUNDATION" which
she caused to be registered in the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
4 months later, Concordia filed a MR of the court’s order declaring
Celedonia as sole heir because she too was an heir of the
deceased. Betrayal 100. Motion was denied by the court. Thus,
Concordia filed a case for partition, recovery of possession,
ownership and damages.
[LOWER COURT’S RULING]
RTC: rendered a decision in favor of Concordia. In her motions
for reconsideration, Celedonia averred that the properties of the
deceased had already been transferred to, and were in the
possession of, the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation."
Trial court denied her MRs.
CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
[ISSUE/S]
WON the properties in question are subject to reserve troncal in
favor of Celedonia, his relative within the 3 rd degree on his
mother’s side from whom he had inherited them.
Note: daog si Celedonia ani pero pildi siya sa issue na related sa
topic. There are issues on jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud but the
deciding issue is on the agreement between the parties katung
ibutang nila ang estate sa foundation. Ana si SC na mao na
mucontrol.
[HELD]
NO. The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista) — the
ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his
descendants.
2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reservees
(reservatorios) — relatives within the third degree counted from the
NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY
SUCCESSION DIGESTS

descendant (propositus), and belonging to the line from which the

property came.
3. The propositus — the descendant who received by gratuitous title and
died without issue, making his other ascendant inherit by operation of
law.

Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not

reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the
descendant of his mother, Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited
the properties in question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance
subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio, who is
his relative within the third degree on his mother's side. The reserva
troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a
descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or
sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from
his ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891.

[FALLO]
Petition for Review is GRANTED.

JOE | CARLY | CZA | BELLA NAUGHTY GIRLS AND CARLY