Succession: Reserva Troncal

Succession | Art. 891

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.

Object of the law: To prevent persons outside a family from securing, by some special accident of life, property that would otherwise have remained therein.


  • Jose Frias Chua had two marriages: first with Patricia S. Militar, and sired three kids - Ignacio, Lorenzo, and Manuel; When Patricia died, Jose married Consolacion de la Torre and had a child named Juanito.
  • In 1929, Jose died, leaving Consolacion, Juanito, Ignacio, and Lorenzo as heirs.
  • CFI: Ordered the division of property among heirs:
    • Consolacion and Juanito received Lot No. 399 
    • Consolacion received P8,000
    • Lorenzo received P3,000
    • Ignacio received P1,550.
  • In 1952, Juanito died intestate and without children; Consolacion inherited his share and obtained full ownership of Lot No. 399.
  • In 1966, Consolacion died intestate, leaving no direct descendants except siblings.
  • In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre," Ignacio and heirs of  Lorenzo filed a complaint to declare Juanito's share of Lot No. 399 reservable property subject to reserval troncal under Article 891 of the Civil Code.
WoN the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to Juanito Frias but which passed to Consolacion de la Torre upon the latter's death, a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reserval troncal. YES
  • Propositus: Juanito Chua (son)
  • Reservista: Consolacion de la Torre (wife)
  • Reservatarios: brothers of Juanito Chua (Ignacio and heirs of  Lorenzo)
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 before us, all of the foregoing requisites are present.

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 of the second marriage upon the death of his father Jose Frias Chua was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous.

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.


Persons Involved Reserva Troncal

  • Esteban Javellana, Jr. was a posthumous child of Esteban Javellana, Sr. with. Salustia Solivio. Esteban, Sr. died four months before Esteban, Jr. was born in 1918.
  • Salustia brought to her marriage paraphernal properties inherited from her mother, Gregoria Celo, Engracio Solivio's first wife. No conjugal property was acquired during her short-lived marriage to Esteban, Sr.
  • In 1959, Salustia died, leaving all her properties to her only child, Esteban, Jr.
  • During his lifetime, Esteban, Jr. expressed intentions to establish a foundation to honor is mother and aid underprivileged students.
  • In 1977,  Esteban, Jr. died before realizing this plan. He died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. 
  • His only surviving relatives are:
  1. Celedonia Solivio — the half-sister of his mother 
  2. Concordia Javellana-Villanueva — the sister of his deceased father 
  • In accordance with Esteban's wishes as agreed upon with Concordia, Celedonia, initiated legal proceedings to administer the estate and form the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation."
  • CFI: Declared Celedonia as the sole heir of Esteban, Jr. to facilitate the foundation's setup and sale of estate properties to settle debts.
    • Concordia file a motions for reconsideration because she too was an heir of the deceased. She later initiated a civil case for partition, recovery of possession, ownership, and damages.
  • CFI: Ruled in favor of Concordia, ordering Celedonia to account for the inventory of the estate.
  • CA: Affirmed the Decision.
WoN the decedent's properties were subject to reserva troncal in favor of Celedonia, his relative within the third degree on his mother's side from whom he had inherited them. 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 (reservatarios)—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. 

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 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.

Both plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant being relatives of the decedent within the third degree in the collateral line, each, therefore, shall succeed to the subject estate 'without distinction of line or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood,' and is entitled one-half (1/2) share and share alike of the estate. Having agreed to contribute her share of the decedent's estate to the Foundation, Concordia is obligated to honor her commitment as Celedonia has honored hers.


Not Reserva Troncal

  • Ricardo, Patrocinia, Patria, Faustino, Leonor, Ramona, Asuncion, Emiliana, Arsenio, and Felipe, all surnamed Lacerna, initiated an action for the recovery of three unregistered parcels of land in Maasin, Iloilo.
  • Plaintiffs claim the land belonged to their deceased cousin Juan Marbebe, and they are his only heirs.
  • Defendant Agatona Vda. de Corcino argues that Juan Marbebe might still be alive and she holds the lands under his power of attorney; and if deceased, she has the same right to succeed him as the plaintiffs.
  • Jacoba Marbebe intervenes, claiming to be the half-sister of Juan Marbebe and entitled to the disputed properties through succession.
  • CFI-Iloilo: Ruled in favor of Jacoba Marbebe.
    • The land initially belonged to Bonifacia Lacerna, passed to her son Juan Marbebe upon her death. In 1943, Juan died intestate without descendants or ascendants.
    • Plaintiffs are the children of Juan's cousins Catalino and Marcelo Lacerna, 
    • Jacoba is the daughter of Valentin Marbebe, Juan's half-brother from his father's side.
WoN Jacoba Marbebe, as half sister of Juan Marbebe, on his father's side, is his sole heir, as held by His Honor, the Trial Judge. YES
WoN plaintiffs herein, as first cousins of Juan Marbebe, on his mother side, have a better right to succeed him, to the exclusion of Jacoba Marbebe. NO

This article applies only to properties inherited, under the conditions therein set forth, by an ascendant from a descendant, and this is not the case before us, for the lands in dispute were inherited by a descendant, Juan Marbebe, from an ascendant, his mother, Bonifacia Lacerna. Said legal provision is, therefore, not in point, and the transmission of the aforementioned lands, by inheritance, was properly determined by His Honor, the Trial Judge.


Nature of Reservista's Right
  • Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan.
  • In 1881, they had a son named Pedro.
  • In 1882, Victoriano died.
  • At his father's death, Pedro inherited the two parcels of land in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 
  • In 1902, Pedro died unmarried and without issue.
  • The two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina, who filed the application for registration of her ownership.
  • Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan, Pablo and Basilio Sablan, opposed the registration, claiming legal reservation.
  • Court of Land Registration: Denied the registration.
Issue:
WoN the land which are the subject matter of the application are required by law to be reserved. YES
  • Propositus: Pedro Sablan (son)
  • Reservista: Marcelina Edroso (wife)
  • Reservatarios: brothers of Victoriano Sablan
Having acquired them by operation of law, Marcelina Edroso is obligated to relatives within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the lands proceeded. 

No error has been incurred in holding that the two parcels of land which are the subject matter of the application are required by law to be reserved, because the interested party has not proved that either of them became her inheritance through the free disposal of her son.

During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by law to be reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after the right that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only an expectation, and therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit that expectation to their heirs.

Nature of Reservista's Right:
  1. The reservista’s right over the reserved property is one of ownership.
  2. The ownership is subject to a resolutory condition, i. e., the existence of reservatarios at the time of the reservistas death.
  3. The right of ownership is alienable, but subject to the same resolutory condition.
  4. The reservistas right of ownership is registrable. 

Nature of Reservatorio's Right

  • Saturnino Yaeso originally owned Lot 3368.
  • During his first marriage with Teresa Ruales, he had four children: Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana.
  • In his second marriage with Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named Francisco.
  • Upon Saturnino's death, cadastral records left specific lots to his children:
    • Lot 3366 to Cipriana
    • Lot 3367 to Fernando
    • Lot 3375 to Agaton
    • Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina
    • Lot 3368 (western portion) to Francisco
  • Being a minor, Francisco's mother administered the property, paid taxes, and declared it under her name for taxation purposes.
  • In 1932, Francisco died at the age of 20, single and without any descendant. 
  • His mother sold the property through an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale to the appellants, spouses Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay for P800.00.
  • In 1951, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, who declared the property in their name for tax purposes, executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes.
  • Spouses Sienes commenced an action to nullify the sale between Paulina and Cipriana and the Spouses Esparcia, asking for the reconveyance of Lot 3368 and damages.
  • Lower Court: Ruled the sale by Andrea Gutang to the appellants and the subsequent sale by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso to the Esparcia spouses as void. It declared the property as reservable and part of Cipriana Yaeso's estate, the lone surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso upon Andrea Gutang's death.
WoN the Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan was a reservable property. YES
  • Propositus: Francisco Yaeso (son)
  • Reservista: Andrea Gutang (second wife)
  • Reservatarios: half-sisters of Francisco Yaeso
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.
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.

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.

Nature of Reservatorio's Right:
  1. The reservatarios have a right of expectancy over the property.
  2. The right is subject to a suspensive condition, i.e., the expectancy ripens into ownership if the reservatarios survive the reservista
  3. The right is alienable, but subject to the same suspensive condition (Note: Sienes erroneously refers to the condition as “resolutory”).
  4. The right is registrable.

Representation among reservatorios

  • Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II had two marriages and a total of eleven children, nine from his first marriage with Antonia Faz de Leon and two from his second wife Severina Faz de Leon.
  • In 1890, Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II died. He left a will bequeathing all his properties among all his children from both marriages.
  • Apolonio Florentino III, posthumous son of Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II, was left with properties. 
  • In 1891, Apolonio Florentino III died. Severina succeeded to all his property.
  • In 1908, Severina died. She left a will instituting as her universal heiress her only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino.
  • Apolonio's children from the first marriage and their heirs alleged that the property inherited by Severina from her posthumous son was a reservable property. They filed a complaint against Mercedes Florentino and her husband demanded their share of the reservable property and the fruits it produced, alleging damages and unjustifiable retention of the property.
  • The defendants filed a demurrer.
  • CFI-Ilocos Sur: Absolved the defendants from the complaint.
WoN the property left at the death of Apolonio III, the posthumos son of Apolonio Isabelo II, was invested with the character of reservable property when it was received by his mother, Severina Faz de Leon. YES
  • Propositus: Apolonio Florentino III (son)
  • Reservista: Severina Faz de Leon (second wife)
  • Reservatarios: full-blood sister and half-siblings of Apolonio Florentino III
Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, 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 claiming 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, inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in article 811 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of the person from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.

In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation on the part of one alleging his right as reservatario who is not within the third degree of relationship, nevertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. 

There are then seven "reservatarios" who are entitled to the reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III; xxx With full right Severina Faz de Leon could have disposed in her will of all her own property in favor of her only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino, as forced heiress. But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the reservable property received from her son Apolonio III, or rather, whatever provision will reduce the rights of the other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of her daughter Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said property is not her own and she has only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve and to deliver same to the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes Florentino. Just because she has a forced heiress, with a right to her inheritance, does not relieve Severina of her obligation to reserve the property which she received from her deceased son, nor did same lose the character of reservable property, held before the reservatarios received same.  Mercedes is not the only reservataria. And there is no reason founded upon law and upon the principle of justice why the other reservatarios, the other brothers and nephews, relatives within the third degree in accordance with the precept of article 811 of the Civil Code, should be deprived of portions of the property.


Not Reserva Troncal
  • Placido and Dominga Mendoza had four children: Antonio, Exequiel, married to Leonor, Apolonio and Valentina.
  • Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza, alleging the three parcels of land in Sta. Maria, Bulacan were part of an oral partition and eventually adjudicated to Exequiel.
    • When Exequiel’s died, it passed on to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. 
    • When Leonor died, her share went to Georgia.
    • When Gregoria died, Leonor's sister Julia claimed to be the sole heir of Leonor and Gregoria. 
  • Petitioners claims for the application of reserva troncal.
  • RTC: Ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering the reconveyance of the properties.
  • CA: Reversed the decision, stating petitioners failed to prove Placido and Dominga owned the properties or that reserva troncal is applicable.
WoN the subject properties are reservable properties. NO

There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal. 
  1. The first transmission is by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus. 
  2. The second transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista. 
  3. The third and last transmission is 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.

Based on the circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable.
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 reservor.
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 inherited the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal character of the property.

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. The properties in dispute were owned by Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the properties as inheritance.

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a common ancestor.  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.

Petitioners 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. The conclusion, therefore, is that while it may appear that the properties are reservable in character, petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal. 


Reserved property not part of the reservista's estate
  • 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.
WoN the lower court erred in granting the petition for the issuance of a new certificate. NO
  • Propositus: Lourdes Guerrero (daughter)
  • Reservista: Maria Cano (wife)
  • Reservatarios: half-sister of Lourdes Guerrero
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. 

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.

The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are:
  1. the death of the reservista; and 
  2. the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista.
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. 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. 

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.

Applicable only to Legitimate Relatives

  • In 1882, Juliana Nieva gave birth to Segunda Maria Nieva, while unmarried.
  • Juliana Neiva married Francisco Deocampo, and had a son, Alfeo Deocampo.
  • In 1889, Juliana Nieva died intestate. Alfeo inherited land parcels from her.
  • In 1890, Alfeo, without issue, died intestate. The land parcels were passed to his father.
  • Francisco married Manuela Alcala, and had a son, Jose Deocampo.
  • In 1914, Francisco Deocampo died. 
  • Manuela and Jose took possession of the land, claiming it was inherited by Jose from his father.
  • In 1915, Segunda Maria Nieva, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, filed an action to recover the land invoking reserva troncal.
  • Lower Court: Ruled that even if Segunda Maria Nieva was an acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, she was not entitled to the land as illegitimate relatives have no right to reserva troncal.
WoN an illegitimate relative within the third degree is entitled to the reserva troncal. NO
  • Propositus: Alfeo Deocampo (son)
  • Reservista: Francisco Deocampo (husband)
  • Reservatarios: ❌ illegitimate half-sister of Alfeo Deocampo 
This question, so far as our investigation shows, has not been decided before by any court or tribunal. However, eminent commentators on the Spanish Civil Code, who have devoted their lives to the study and solution of the intricate and difficult problems that may arise under the provisions of that Code, have dealt with the very question now before us, and are unanimous in the opinion that the provision of article 811 of the Civil Code apply only to legitimate relative. 

It may be stated as an indisputable truth, that in said Code, the legitimate relationship forms the general rule and the natural relationship the exception; which is the reason why, as may be easily seen, the law in many articles speaks only of children or parents, of ascendants or descendants, and in them reference is of course made of those who are legitimate; and when it desires to make a provision applicable only to natural relationship, it does not say father or mother, but natural father or natural mother; it does not say child, but natural child; it does not speak of ascendants, brothers or parents in the abstract, but of natural ascendants, natural brothers or natural parents.

A natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who has acknowledged it; nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from the natural or legitimated child. To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother, Alfeo Deocampo, by operation of law, would be a fragrant violate of the express provision of the foregoing article (943).


Intestacy Proceedings

  • Plaintiffs Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco, and Nicolas Tioco, along with defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho, are legitimate relatives.
  • They share a common ancestor, Balbino Tioco, who had a sister named Romana Tioco.
  • Romana Tioco gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco.
  • Toribia is a legitimate sister of the plaintiffs.
  • In 1915, Toribia died intestate. 
    • She was survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. 
    • Trinidad is the mother of the defendant.
    • The four parcels of land were inherited by the two children equally.
  • In 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate.
    • He was survived by his legitimate children by his wife Marciana Felix and legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. 
    • Three parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia, which were passed to her two legitimate children.
  • In 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate and single, leaving his share to his father Eustacio Dizon, subject to reserva troncal.
  • In 1939, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate.
    • Her only legitimate child, defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho, inherited her share, subject to usufructuary right of her surviving husband, Primo Tongko.
  • In 1965, Eustacio Dizon died, leaving his inheritance from Faustino Dizon to Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.
  • The parties agree to submit for judicial determination whether Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entire seven parcels of land or if the plaintiffs, as third-degree relatives of Faustino Dizon, are also reservatarios entitled to a portion.
  • Lower Court: Ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to three-fourths (3/4) of one-half (1/2) pro-indiviso shares or three-eights (3/8) of the seven (7) parcels of landand the corresponding rental shares collected by Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho, minus expenses and real estate taxes. 
WoN 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. NO
  • Propositus: Faustino Dizon (son of Toribia Tioco)
  • Reservista: Eustacio Dizon (husband of Toribia Tioco)
  • Reservatarios: Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho (niece of Faustino Dizon)
    • Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco, and Nicolas Tioco, (uncles of Faustino Dizon)

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.

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 (Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil. 489-490; T.S. 8 Nov. 1894; Dir. Gen. de los Registros, Resol. 20 March 1905). And within the third degree of relationship from the descendant (prepositus), the right of representation operates in favor of nephews (Florentino vs. Florentino, supra).

Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative.

In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise. 

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. 

The defendant-appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.


Preference among the reservatarios
  • Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime.
    • With his first wife Gervacia Landig, he had one child: Manuel Padura.
    • With his second, Benita Garing, he had two children: Fortunato Padura and Candelaria Padura.
  • In 1908, Agustin Padura died. 
    • He left a will distributing his properties to his three children and to his surviving spouse Benita Garing. 
    • Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land.
  • In the same year, Fortunato died unmarried and intestate. 
    • The parcels of land were inherited by his mother. Benita Garing was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title for the properties, subject to the condition that these were reservable.
  • In 1934, Candelaria Padura died.
    • She left four legitimate children: Cristeta, Melania, Anicia and Pablo, all surnamed Baldovino.
  • In 1940, Manuel Padura died. 
    • He left seven children: Dionesia, Elisa, Flora, Comelio, Francisco, Juana, and Severino, all sumamed Padura.
  • In 1952, Benita Garing died.
  • A court resolution declared the legitimate children of Manuel Padura and Candelaria Padura as the rightful reservees entitled to the reservable properties.
  • The heirs of Candelaria filed a petition for partition, requesting one-half for themselves and the other half for the appellees. 
  • The heirs of Manuel opposed the petition, asserting that all eleven reservees should inherit in an equal share.
WoN reservatarios nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a share twice as large as that of the others. YES
  • Propositus: Fortunato Padura (son)
  • Reservista: Benita Garing (second wife)
  • Reservatarios: full-blood nieces and nephews and half-blood nieces and nephews of Fortunato Padura
After mature reflection, we have concluded that the position of the appellants is correct. 

The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once 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. 

Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative. In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession.

All told, our considered opinion is that reason and policy favor keeping to a minimum the alterations introduced by the reserva in the basic rules of succession mortis causa.

The reservatarios who are nephews of the whole blood are declared entitled to a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half-blood. 

Note:
  • Conformably to the Padura ruling, which subjects the choice of reservatarios to the rules of intestate succession, those reservatarios nearer in degree of relationship to the Prepositus will exclude those more remotely related. 

Whether the reservista may, by will, prefer some reservatarios over others
  • Benito Legarda y De la Paz was the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason.
  • In 1933, Benito Legarda y De la Paz died.
    • He was survived by his widow Filomena Races and their seven children: four daughters (Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, and Filomena) and three sons (Benito, Alejandro, and Jose).
  • In 1939, the real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were divided into three equal portions among his daughters Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz, represented by Benito F. Legarda.
  • In 1943, Filomena Legarda y Races died intestate and without issue.
    • Her sole heiress was her mother.
    • Filomena Races Vda. de Legarda, executed an affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties left by her daughter, consisting of savings deposits, shares in various companies, and several real estate properties.
  • In 1953, Filomena Races disposed the properties she inherited from her daughter to the children of her sons Benito, Alejandro, and Jose, mentioning specific allocations in a handwritten document.
  • Between July 1958 and February 1959, Filomena and her six surviving children partitioned the properties representing one-third share in Benito Legarda y Tuason's estate,  in representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.
  • In 1967, Filomena Races Vda. de Legarda died.
WoN the properties inherited by Filomena from her daughter are reservable properties. YES
  • Propositus: Filomena Legarda y Races (daughter)
  • Reservista: Filomena Races (wife)
  • Reservatarios: full-blood nieces and nephews and half-blood nieces and nephews of Fortunato Padura
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.

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 (Cabardo vs. Villanueva, 44 Phil. 186, 191). The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees survived the reservor.

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.

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 reservation could have been extinguished only by the absence of reservees at the time of Mrs. Legarda's death. Since at the time of her death, there were (and still are) reservees belonging to the second and third degrees, the disputed properties did not lose their reservable character. The disposition of the said properties should be made in accordance with article 891 or the rule on reserva troncal and not in accordance with the reservor's holographic will. 


Reserva Viudal; Obligation to annotate the reservable character
  • Raul Balantakbo inherited two sets of properties from two different ascendant's:
    • One-third (1/3) interest in a land in Dita, Laguna from his father, Jose Balantakbo, Sr. who died in 1945. (Civil Case No. SC-956)
    • One-seventh interest (1/3) in ten parcels of registered lands from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who died in 1950. (Civil Case No. SC-957)
  • In 1952, Raul died intestate and during his minority, leaving his mother Consuelo Joaquin Vda. de Balantakbo as his sole heir.
  • Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the above described properties.
  • In 1959, Consuelo sold the properties described in Civil Case No. SC-956 to Mariquita H. Sumaya.  In 1963, Consuelo sold the properties described in Civil Case No. SC-957 to Villa Honorio Development Corporation, which were later transferred to Laguna Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative, Inc.
  • In 1968, Consuelo passed away.
  • In 1970, relatives of Raul and descendants of Jose Balantakbo filed civil cases to reclaim the properties, claiming a reserva troncal in their favor. The court consolidated the cases due to their similar legal question of reserva troncal.
WoN the trial court is correct in finding it unnecessary to annotate the reservable interest of the reservee in the properties covered by certificates of title subject of litigation. NO
  • Propositus: Raul Balantakbo (son)
  • Reservista: Consuelo Joaquin Vda. de Balantakbo (wife)
  • Reservatarios: relatives of Raul and decendants of Jose Balantakbo
We 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 reservable character of a property is but a resolutory condition of the ascendant reservor's right of ownership. The fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the resolutory condition, the efficacy or cessation of the reservation, the acquisition of rights or loss of the vested ones, are phenomena which have nothing to do with whether the reservation has been noted or not in the certificate of title to the property. The purpose of the notation is nothing more than to afford to the persons entitled to the reservation, if any, due protection against any act of the reservor, which may make it ineffective . . . 

The reservable character of a property may be lost to innocent purchasers for value. Additionally, it was ruled therein that the obligation imposed on a widowed spouse to annotate the reservable character of a property subject of reserva viudal is applicable to reserva troncal. (See also Edrozo v. Sablan, G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913, 25 Phil. 295).
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 descendant) 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. Nonetheless, this right if not exercised within the time for recovery may prescribe in ten (10) years under the old Code of Civil Procedure (see Carillo v. De Paz, G.R. No. L-22601, October 28, 1966, 18 SCRA 467, 473) or in thirty years under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code. The actions for recovery of the reserved property was brought by herein private respondents on March 4, 1970 or less than two (2) years from the death of the reservor. Therefore, private respondents' cause of action has not prescribed yet.


NOTES:
Rights and Obligations:
  • No explicit provision:
    • Unlike the old reserva viudal, the reserva troncal does not have any implementing articles. 
    • This absence was solved under the old Code simply by extending to the troncal the implementing provisions of the viudal.
    • The rights of the reservatarios (and the corresponding obligations of the reservista) were:
    1. To inventory the reserved properties;
    2. To annotate the reservable character (if registered immovables) in the Registry of Property within 90 days from acceptance by the reservista;
    3. To appraise the movables;
    4. To secure by means of mortgage:
      • the indemnity for any deterioration of or damage to the property occasioned by the reservista’s fault or negligence, and 
      • the payment of the value of such reserved movables as may have been alienated by the reservista onerously or gratuitously.
  • The abolition of the reserva viudal has caused some uncertainty whether these requirements still apply. 
  • The case of Sumaya v. IAC, 201 SCRA 178 (1991), states that the requirement of annotation remains, despite the abolition of the reserva viudal.
  • Sumaya, however, is silent on two points: 
    1. within what period must the annotation be made; and 
    2. whether the other requirements of the old viudal also remain.

  • Severino Salak and Petra Garcia jointly owned Lot No. 221 in Tarlac.
    • In 1941, Petra died.
    • In 1943, Severino sold his ½ portion to Honoria Salak.
    • In 1944, Severino died.
    • In 1945, Honoria and her family were massacred.
  • Two settlement proceedings were initiated before CFI-Tarlac:
    • Special Proceeding No. 3 for Severino Salak and Petra Garcia's estates.
    • Special Proceeding No. 23 for the Salak family (parents Simeon Salak and Isabel Carrillo; and children Adolfo, Honoria, Consuelo and Ligaya).
  • In 1946, Project of Partition in Special Proceeding No. 3 adjudicated Lot No. 221 to Francisca Salak de Paz. She has possessed all of Lot No. 221 since then.
  • While Special Proceeding No. 23 determined heirs' shares based on the survivorship presumption. Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo inherited ½ of Lot No. 221 through survivorship.
  • In 1948, Agustina filed a case against Francisca to recover her share of Lot No. 221.
  • In 1950, Agustina died.
  • Court of Appeals: Affirmed that the properties inherited by Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo were subject to reserva troncal. The court declared Agustina's interest in the property terminated due to her death, ordering its immediate delivery to Ernesto Bautista.
  • In 1960, the lower court dismissed the cased against Francisca due to the existence of third-degree relatives of Adolfo Salak, thus maintaining the property under reserva.
  • In 1963, Prima Carrillo and Lorenzo Licup filed a suit to recover 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 against Francisca Salak de Paz and Ernesto Bautista.
    • Plaintiff Prima Carrillo claims to be a reservatario (as sister of Isabel Carrillo and aunt of propositus Adolfo), while plaintiff Lorenzo Licup is the surviving husband of Luz Carillo (likewise a sister of Isabel Carrillo and aunt of prepositus Adolfo). Prima and Lorenzo claim to be heirs of Luz.
 WoN the cause of action is barred by prior judgment and by the statute of limitations. YES
  • Propositus: Adolfo Salak (son)
  • Reservista: Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo
  • Reservatarios: aunts of Adolfo
According to Manresa, the reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservista, as it then becomes a right of full ownership on the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor. Nonetheless, this right, if not exercised within the time for recovering real properties, can be lost by prescription:
 
Plaintiffs-appellants herein, as reservatarios, had the right to claim the property 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 — from Francisca Salak de Paz, who has been possessing it in the concept of an owner, from April 24, 1950 when Agustina died. And the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the existence of reserva troncal, promulgated on June 8, 1950, rendered it all the more doubtless that such right had accrued in their favor from the time Agustina died. It is clear, therefore, that the right or cause of action accrued in favor of the plaintiffs-reservatarios herein on April 24, 1950.

Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure fixes 10 years as the period of prescription for actions to recover real property, counted from the time the cause of action accrued. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more