Case Digest: Cano vs. Director, G.R. No. L-10701, January 16, 1959
Succession | Art. 891, Reserved property not part of the reservista's estate
Article 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.
Ponente:
Reyes, J.B.L., J.:
Reyes, J.B.L., J.:
Facts:
Maria Cano and Evaristo Guerrero had a daughter, Lourdes Guerrero.
When Evaristo Guerrero died, Lourdes Guerrero inherited Lot. 1799.
When Lourdes Guerrero died, Maria Cano inherited the lot.
In 1951, the CFI-of Sorsogon decreed the registration of the lot in favor of Maria Cano, subject to reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero, the only living daughter of Evaristo Guerrero, by his former marriage.
In 1955, Maria Cano passed away.
Eustaquia Guerrero moved to cancel the original Certificate of Title and issue a new one in her favor.
Lower Court: Granted Guerrero's petition for a new certificate, citing the recorded reserva in favor of Guerrero, which vested ownership upon Cano's death.
Jose and Teotimo Fernandez, heirs of Maria Cano, opposed this motion, arguing that the Registration Court lacked jurisdiction and that the reserva troncal should be resolved in a judicial administration proceeding.
Issue:
WoN the lower court erred in granting the petition for the issuance of a new certificate. NO
Held:
Appellants argue that the reversion in favor of the reservatorio requires the declaration of the existence of the following facts:
(1) The property was received by a descendant by gratuitous title from an ascendant or from a brother or sister;
(2) Said descendant dies without issue;
(3) The property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
(4) The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging the line from which said property came.
We find the appeal untenable. The requisites enumerated by appellants have already been declared to exist by the decree of registration wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were expressly recognized:
From the above-quoted agreed stipulation of facts, it is evident that Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the Appellant Maria Cano by inheritance from her deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn, inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero and, hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code; and that each and everyone of the private oppositors are within the third degree of consaguinity of the decedent Evaristo Guerrero, and who belonging to the same line from which the property came.
It appears however, from the agreed stipulation of facts that with the exception of Eustaquia Guerrero, who is the only living daughter of the decedent Evaristo Guerrero, by his former marriage, all the other oppositors are grandchildren of the said Evaristo Guerrero by his former marriages. Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest of kin, excludes all the other private oppositors, whose decree of relationship to the decedent is remoter.
This decree having become final, all persons (appellees included) are bared thereby from contesting the existence of the constituent elements of the reserva. The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are:
- the death of the reservista; and
- the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista.
The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the assumption that the reservatario will succeed in, or inherit, the reservable property from the reservista. This is not true. 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. The authorities are all agreed that there being reservatarios that survive the reservista, the latter must be deemed to have enjoined no more than a life interest in the reservable property.
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus (the appellee in this case) 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. Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records without necessity of estate proceedings, since the basic requisites therefor appear of record. It is equally well settled that the reservable property can not be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa,(like appellants herein) so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property came, is in existence when the reservista dies.
Of course, where the registration decree merely specifies the reservable character of the property, without determining the identity of the reservatario (as in the case of Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil., 279) or where several reservatarios dispute the property among themselves, further proceedings would be unavoidable. But this is not the case. The rights of the reservataria Eustaquia Guerrero have been expressly recognized, and it is nowhere claimed that there are other reservatarios of equal or nearer degree. It is thus apparent that the heirs of the reservista are merely endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the reservable property to the detriment of the party lawfully entitled thereto.
We find no error in the order appealed from and therefore, the same is affirmed with costs against appellants in both instances. So ordered.
Comments
Post a Comment