Professional Documents
Culture Documents
, VS FIDEL ESPARCIA
ET AL,. DEF.
FACTS: The case involves Lot 3368 which originally
belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. According to the cadastral
records, upon Saturninos death, he left the aid land to
Francisco, his only son with his second wife, Andrea Gutang.
Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother
administered the property for him, declared it in her name for
taxation purposes and paid the taxes due thereon. When
Francisco died on May 29, 1932 at the age of 20, single and
without any descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, executed
an extrajudicial settlement and sale whereby, among other
things, she sold the property in question to the appellant,
Constancio Sienes. Thereafter, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the
surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who had declared the
questioned property in their name, executed a deed of sale in
favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes. The
Trial court declared both sale as void and ordered that the
property be reverted to the estate of Cipriana Yaeso, the lone
surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso at the death of
Andrea Gutang.
ISSUE: WON the sale of the property by the ascendant who is
obliged to reserve the property is valid although at the time of
his death, there are still surviving relatives within the third
degree belonging to the line from which the property came.
RULING: The land in question was reservable property.
Francisco Yaeso inherited it by operation of law from his
father Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death, unmarried and
without descendants, it was inherited, in turn, by his mother,
Andrea Gutang. The latter was, therefore, under obligation to
reserve it for the benefit of relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which said property came, if any
survived her. The record discloses that when Andrea Gutang
died, the lone reservee surviving her is Cipriana Yaeso.
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. The
reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to a resolutory condition; that he is like a
life usufructuary of the reservable property; that he may
alienate the same but subject to reservation, said alienation
transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of
the reservists, the rights acquired by the transferee being
revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time
of the death of the reservista.
The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was,
therefore, subject to the condition that the vendees would
definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation, only
if the vendor died without being survived by any person
entitled to the reservable property. When Andrea Gutang died,
Cipriana Yaeso was still alive; thus, the previous sale made by
of
the
Philippines
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
to invest and reinvest the funds, collect the income thereof and
pay or apply only the income or such part thereof as shall be
determined by the Trustees for such endeavors as may be
necessary to carry out the objectives of the Foundation.
7. To acquire, purchase, own, hold, operate, develop, lease,
mortgage, pledge, exchange, sell, transfer, or otherwise,
invest, trade, or deal, in any manner permitted by law, in real
and personal property of every kind and description or any
interest herein.
8. To do and perform all acts and things necessary, suitable or
proper for the accomplishments of any of the purposes herein
enumerated or which shall at any time appear conducive to the
protection or benefit of the corporation, including the exercise
of the powers, authorities and attributes concerned upon the
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines in
general, and upon domestic corporation of like nature in
particular. (pp. 9-10, Rollo)
As alleged without contradiction in the petition' for review:
The Foundation began to function in June, 1982, and three (3)
of its eight Esteban Javellana scholars graduated in 1986, one
(1) from UPV graduated Cum Laude and two (2) from WVSU
graduated with honors; one was a Cum Laude and the other
was a recipient of Lagos Lopez award for teaching for being
the most outstanding student teacher.
The Foundation has four (4) high school scholars in Guiso
Barangay High School, the site of which was donated by the
Foundation. The School has been selected as the Pilot
Barangay High School for Region VI.
The Foundation has a special scholar, Fr. Elbert Vasquez, who
would be ordained this year. He studied at St. Francis Xavier
Major Regional Seminary at Davao City. The Foundation
likewise is a member of the Redemptorist Association that
gives yearly donations to help poor students who want to
become Redemptorist priests or brothers. It gives yearly
awards for Creative writing known as the Esteban Javellana
Award.
Further, the Foundation had constructed the Esteban S.
Javellana Multi-purpose Center at the West Visayas State
University for teachers' and students' use, and has likewise
contributed to religious civic and cultural fund-raising drives,
amongst other's. (p. 10, Rollo)
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.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The
decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are hereby
SET ASIDE. Concordia J. Villanueva is declared an heir of the
late Esteban Javellana, Jr. entitled to one-half of his estate.
However, comformably with the agreement between her and
her co-heir, Celedonia Solivio, the entire estate of the
deceased should be conveyed to the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10701
MARIA
CANO, applicant-appellee,
vs.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, EUSTAQUIA GUERRERO, ET
AL., oppositors-appellants.
JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
Ramon
C.
Fernandez
Jose B. Dealca for appellee.
for
appellants.
No
v
176422,
Delos
March
20,
Santos
2013
MARIA MENDOZA, in her own capacity and as Attorney-infact of DEOGRACIAS, MARCELA, DIONISIA, ADORA
CION, all surnamed MENDOZA, REMEDIOS MONTILLA,
FELY BAUTISTA, JULIANA GUILALAS and ELVIRA
MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
vs.
JULIA POLl CARPIO DELOS SANTOS, substituted by her
heirs, CARMEN P. DELOS SANTOS, ROSA BUENA
VENTURA, ZENAIDA P. DELOS SANTOS VDA. DE
MATEO, LEONILA P. DELOS SANTOS, ELVIRA P. DELOS
SANTOS VDA. DE JOSE, TERESITA P. DELOS SANTOSCABUHAT, MERCEDITA P. DELOS SANTOS, LYDIA P.
DELOS SANTOS VDA. DE HILARIO, PERFECTO P.
DELOS SANTOS, JR., and CECILIA M. MENDOZA,
Respondents.
FACTS:
The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of
land located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan are presently in the name
of respondent Julia Delos Santos (respondent). Lot No. 1646B, on the other hand, is also in the name of respondent but coowned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the
property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido)
and Dominga Mendoza (Dominga). Petitioners alleged that the
properties were part of Placido and Domingas properties that
were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated
to Exequiel. After Exequiels death, it passed on to his spouse
Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonors death, her
share went to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died intestate and
without issue. They claimed that after Gregorias death,
respondent, who is Leonors 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.
DECISION
OF
LOWER
COURTS:
(1) RTC: granted their action for Recovery of Possession by
Reserva Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance.
(2) CA: reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed
the complaint filed by petitioners. CA also denied their motion
for
reconsideration.
ISSUES:
A. THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE NOT
RESERVABLE PROPERTIES, COMING AS THEY DO
FROM THE FAMILY LINE OF THE PETITIONERS
MENDOZAS.
B. THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS MENDOZAS DO
NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BY
VIRTUE OF THE LAW ON RESERVA TRONCAL.
APPLICABLE LAW:
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)
RULING:
No,
CA
is
correct.
I.
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.
whom the properties came. The person from whom the degree
should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositusthe 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 Gregorias 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.
OTHER
NOTES:
1. three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal. The first
transmission is by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or
donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant
called the prepositus. The second transmission is by operation
of law from the prepositus to the other ascendant or reservor,
also called the reservista. 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.
2. 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