BEATRIZ L. GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. CFI OF MANILA, et al.

, Respondents
G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981

Facts: Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died. He
was survived by his widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children: (Beatriz,
Rosario, Teresa and Filomena, Benito, Alejandro and Jose). The real properties
left by Benito were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo
and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were
represented by Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress was her mother,
Filomena Races. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena. As a result,
Filomena Races succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner
of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.

Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Identical documents wherein she

disposed of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the
children of her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all).
Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties consisting
of the one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children
inherited in representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.

Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. The
decree of probate was affirmed by the CA.

In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix,

filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties
which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that
said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena
Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito,
Alejandro and Jose. That motion was opposed by the administrator, Benito F.
Legarda.

Without awaiting the resolution on that motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil
action against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate
for the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable
properties. Lower court dismissed the action of Beatriz.

Issue: whether the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal under
art.

Held: In reserve 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

1
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.

3 transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance

or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant;
(2) a posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime)
from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of another
ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the
reservation, and (3) a third transmissions of the same property (in consequence
of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or the
relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the
line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased descendant .

The persons involved in reserve 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 (prepositus) 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 reserves
(reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs
to the (line o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property
should be reserved by the reservor.

Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. illegitimate relationship and

relationship by affinity are excluded. Gratuitous title or titulo lucrativo refers to a
transmission wherein the recipient gives nothing in return such as donacion and
succession.

The reserva 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 properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of

Mrs. Legarda. 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.

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.

2
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.

To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary disposition of the

reservable properties in favor of the reservees in the third degree and,
consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a glaring
violation of article 891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed.
Gonzales vs. CFI
BEATRIZ GONZALES V. CFI MANILA, 104 SCRA 481 (1981)

DOCTRINE: Gonzales gives an extended discussion on the nature and effects of reserva troncal.
Among other things, it stresses that the reservable property does not form part of the estate of the reservor,
if upon his or her death he or she is survived by qualified reservees. As such, the reservor cannot will or
bequeath the reservable property in his or her will, nor can the reservor choose who or discriminate among
the reservees should get the property. The reservees inherit the reservable property not from the reservor,
but from the prepositus. Thus, Gonzales affirms the ruling in Padura v Baldovino and follows the theory of
delayed intestacy in the matter of distributing the reservable property among the reservees. It should be
noted that the Court relied heavily on the ruling in Florentino and quotes substantially from the text of the
said decision. However, there is a failure to note the oversight committed by the Court when it failed to
distinguish between full-blood brothers from half-blood brothers. The opportunity to rectify an error was
lost.

Benito Legarda Tuason

Consuelo
Rita
+Benito Legarda de la Paz Filomena Roces

Beatriz
Rosario
Teresa
+Filomena
Benito Carmen Legarda y Fernandez
Alejandro Ramon Legarda y Hernandez
Jose Filomena Legarda y Lobregat
Jaime Legarda y Lobregat
Celso Legarda y Lobregat
Alejandro Legarda y Lobregat
Ma. Teresa Legarda y Lobregat
Ma. Antonia Legarda y Lobregat
Jose Legarda y Lobregat
Rosario Legarda y Lobregat

3
 Benito Legarda y Lobregat
Eduardo Legarda y Lobregat
Trinidad Legarda

FACTS: Benito Legarda y dela Paz (Benito II), son of Benito Legarda y Tuazon (Benito I), died and
was survived by his widow, Filomena and their 7 children. The real properties left by his deceased
father, Benito I, were partitioned in 3 equal parts by Benito IIs sisters and his heirs pro-indiviso. One
of his daughters, Filomena, died without issue and her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena vda de
Legarda
1. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties she inherited from her
daughter as a result of which she succeeded her deceased owner as co-owner of the properties
held pro-indiviso by her other 6 children. Later, Mrs. Legarda executed 2 handwritten
documents disposing of the properties which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her 16
grandchildren (the children of her sons). Eventually, Mrs. Legarda and her 6 surviving children
partitioned the co-owned property
2. Mrs. Legarda died and in the testate proceeding of her estate, Beatriz Gonzales, one of her
daughters, filed a motion to exclude in the inventory of the properties inherited from Filomena,
the deceased daughter, on the ground that said properties were reservable and should be
inherited by Filomenas 3 sisters and 3 brothers, not by the 16 grandchildren of Mrs. Legarda,
or Filomenas nephews and nieces. She also filed an action securing a declaration that the
properties are reservable which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath in her holographic will to her
grandchildren to the exclusion of her 6 chidlren
3. It is contended here than the properties in question are not reservable properties because only
relatives within the third paternal line have survived and that when Mrs. Legarda willed the
properties to her grandchildren, who are third degree relatives of Filomena and who belong to
the paternal line, the reason for the reserva troncal has been satisfied: to prevent persons
outside a family from securing, by some special accident of life, property that should otherwise
have remained therein.

ISSUE: WON the properties could be conveyed by will to the 16 grandchildren (reservees within the
third degree) to the exclusion of the 6 children (reservees within the second degree)

HELD: No. Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her 16 grandchildren the
reservable properties she inherited from her daughter because the reservable properties did not form
part of her estate. The reservoir cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as
long as the reservees survived the reservoir.

Art 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest within the
third degree from prepositus who in this case are the 6 children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select
the reservees to whom to the reservable properties should be given and deprive the other reservees of
their shares therein. To allow the reservoir to make a testamentary disposition of the reservable
properties in favor the reservees in the third degree and, consequently, to ignore the reservees in the
second degree would be a glaring violation of Art 891, this cannot be allowed.

Mrs. Legarda could not dispose of the properties in question in her will even if the disposition is in
favor of relatives within the third degree from Filomena. The said properties, by operation of Art 891,
should go to Mrs. Legardas 6 children as reservees within the second degree from Filomena.

4
 Reservees do not inherit from the reservor but from the prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs
mortis causa subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor.

The reservation could be extinguished only by the absence of reservees at the time of Mrs. Legardas
death. Since at the time of her death, there were reservees belonging to the second and third degrees,
the disputed properties did not lose their reservable character. The disposition of the properties should
be made in accordance with Art 891 and in accordance with the reservors holographic will.

Gonzales vs. Legarda

G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981
FACTS:
Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died in Manila on June 17,
1933. He was survived by his widow Filomena and their seven children: four daughters and
three sons.
The real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in three equal portions
by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceasedson Benito Legarda y De la
Paz who were represented by Benito F. Legarda. Filomena Legarda died intestate and without
issue on March 19, 1943. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda.
Mrs. Legarda executed on May 12, 1947 an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties,
which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda, which were the
properties in litigation in this case. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Roces
Legarda succeeded her deceased daughter as co-owner of the properties held pro indiviso by
her other six children.
Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the
properties, which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her sons children, a total of 16
grandchildren all in all. Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned all the
properties consisting of the 1/3 share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason, which the
children inherited, in representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.
Mrs. Legarda died and her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. In the testate
proceeding, Beatriz Legarda, a daughter of the testatrix filed a motion to exclude from the
inventory of her mothers estate the properties, which she inherited from
her deceased daughter on the ground that said properties are reservable properties, which
should be inherited by FilomenaLegarda.
Without awaiting the resolution on the motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil action against
her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mothers estate for the purpose of serving a
declaration that said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda could not
bequeath in her will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her sons and daughters.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject properties are subject to ReservaTroncal
RULING:
In reservatroncal:
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 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 descendants(prepositus) and who belong to the line
from which the said properties came.

5
 So three transmissions are involved:
1. A first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from
an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant;
2. A posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime)
from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserva) in favor of another ascendant, the
reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation; and,
3. A third transmissions of the property (in consequence of the reservation) from
the reservor to the reserves (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree
from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of
the deceased descendant.
THUS, if there is only two transmission there is no reserva.
The persons involved in reservatroncal 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 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 who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the
line (linea or tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property should be
reserved by the reservor.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant, or the one at the end
of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last revolved by
descent. He is called the propositus.
The reserva 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 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
transferees 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 reservors alienation of the reservable property is subject to a resolutory condition,
meaning that if at the time of the reservors 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
reservors death, the transferees title would become absolute. On the other hand, the reservee
has only an inchoate, expectant or contingent right. His expectant right would disappear if he
predeceased the reservor. It would become absolute should the reservor predecease the
reservee.
Even during the reservistas lifetime, the reservatarios, who are the ultimate acquirers of the
property, can already assert the right to prevent the reservista from doing anything that might
frustrate their reversionary right, and, for this purpose, they can compel the annotation of
their right in the registry of property even while the reservista is alive.
The reservable property is not part of the estate of the reservista who may not dispose of them
by will, so long as there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios, therefore, do not inherit
from the reservista but frm the descendant prepositus, of whom the reservatarios are the heirs
mortis causa, subject to the condition that they must survive the reservista.

6
Hence, upon the reservistas death, thereservatario nearest to the propositus becomes
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. The reservee
CANNOT impugn any conveyance made by the reservor BUT he can require that the
reservable character of the property be recognized by the purchaser. In this case, the
properties in question were indubitably reservable property in the hands of Mrs. Legarda.
Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservaton 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.
Chua v. CFI
G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977
FACTS:
In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia Militar he sired three children, namely:
Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel. When Patricia S. Militar died, Jose FriasChua contracted
a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a child by the name of
Juanita Frias Chua. Manuel, one of the children of Jose in his first marriage, died without
leaving any issue.
Then in 1929, Jose Frias Chua died intestate. In the intestate proceeding, Consolacion and
Juanito got 1/2 each of Lot No. 399. Joses children in the first marriage got cash.
On February 27, 1952, JuanitoFrias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any
issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion de la Torresucceeded to his pro-indivisio share
of Lot No. 399. Then on March 5, 1966, Consolacion de la Torre 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, also of the first marriage filed the complaint praying that
the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to JuanitoFrias but which
passed to Consolacion de la Torre upon the latters death, be declaredas a reservable property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint of petitioners to recover the one-half portion of Lot 399 which
originally belonged to JuanitoFrias Chua has already prescribed when it was filed on May 11,
1966, or 14 years after the death of Juanito (prepositus).
RULING:
NO. The Court held that the petitioners herein are claiming as reservees did not arise until the
time the reservor, Consolacion de la Torre, died in March 1966. When the petitioners
therefore filed their complaint to recover the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot 399, they were very
much in time to do so.
Chua v. CFI

Facts:

Jose Frias Chua had 2 marriages. First with Patricia, he had 3 children- Ignacio, Manuel and
Lorenzo. When Patricia died, he married Consolacion de la Torre and had one child- Juanito Frias
Chua. Jose Frias Chua died intestate. After the intestate proceeding the court adjudicated half of
lot in question to Consolacion and the other half to their only son, Juanito. The two sons in the
first marriage, Lorenzo and Ignacio, received P3k and P1550 respectively. (Manuel already died).

Juanito also died intestate without issue. Consolacion de la Torre executed a declaration of
heirship adjudicating in her favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito in the lot in question.
When dela Torre died, Ignacio and the heirs of Lorenzo filed a complaint praying that the one-half

7
portion of the Lot be declared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was
subject to reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 NCC.

Lower court dismissed complaint.

Issue: WON property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father Jose Frias
Chua gratuitously (as first requisite of Reserva Troncal).

Held: Yes

Ratio:
Inorderthatapropertymaybeimpressedwithareservable
characterthefollowingrequisitesmustexist,towit:(1)that
thepropertywasacquiredbyadescendantfromanasscendantor
fromabrotherorsisterbygratuitoustitle;(2)thatsaid
descendantdiedwithoutanissue;(3)thatthepropertyis
inheritedbyanotherascendantbyoperationoflaw;and(4)that
therearerelativeswithinthethirddegreebelongingtothe
linefromwhichsaidpropertycame.
Alloftheforegoingrequisitesarepresent.Thus,asborneout
bytherecords,JuanoitoFriasChuaofthesecondmarriagedied
intestatein1952;hediedwithourleavinganyissue;hispro
indivisoof1/2shareofLotNo.399wasacquiredbyhismother,
ConsolaciondelaTorredied,JuannnitoFriasChuawhodied
intestatehadrelativeswithinthethirddegree.Theserelatives
areIgnacioFriasChuaandDominadorChuaandRemidiosChua,the
supposelegitimatechildrenofthedeceasedLorenzoFriasChua,
whoarethepetitionersherein
AccordingtoManresa,"Thetransmissionisgratuitousorby
gratuitoustitlewhentherecipientdoesnotgiveanythingin
return."Itmattersnotwhetherthepropertytransmittedbeor
benotsubjecttoanypriorcharges;whatisessentialisthat
thetransmissionbemadegratuitously,orbyanactofmere
liberalityofthepersonmakingit,withoutimposingany
obligationonthepartoftherecipient;andthattheperson
receivingthepropertygivesordoesnothinginreturn.
"theessentialthingisthatthepersonwhotransmitsitdoesso
gratuitously,frompuregenerosity,withoutrequiringfromthe
transfereeanyprestation."Itisevidentfromtherecordthat
thetransmissionofthepropertyinquestiontoJuanitoFrias
ChuaofthesecondmarriageuponthedeathofhisfatherJose
FriasChuawasbymeansofahereditarysuccessionandtherefore
gratuitous.

8
 Aslongasthetransmissionofthepropertytotheheirsisfree
fromanyconditionimposedbythedeceasedhimselfandthe
propertyisgivenoutofpuregenerosity,itgisgratuitous

Edroso v. Sablan
G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913
FACTS:
Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22,
1882. In this marriage they had a son named Pedro who at his fathers death inherited the
two said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and without issue and by
this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina
Edroso. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration of
her ownership.
Two legitimate brothers of VictorianoSablan that is, two uncles german of Pedro Sablan
appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things: Either that
the registration be denied, or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the
opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel.
The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.
Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in question
partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and 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:
Whether or not the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the
reservable properties by reservista, Edroso.
RULING:
YES. The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels
of land which are the subject matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the
right required by the law to be reserved to either or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan
and Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.
The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he can use, enjoy, dispose of and
recover it; and if, in addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner and
can alienate it, although under a condition.
The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latters wish or by
operation of law, requires 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.
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.
EDROSO vs. SABLAN

FACTS:

Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22, 1882. In this
marriage they had a son named Pedro, who was born on August 1, 1881, and who at his father's

9
death inherited the two said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and without
issue and by this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother,
Marcelina Edroso.. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration
of her ownership. Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan that is, two uncles german of
Pedro Sablan appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things:
Either that the registration be denied, "or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the
opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel." The Court of Land Registration denied
the registration and the application appealed through a bill of exceptions.

Appellants Contention:

The applicant acquired said lands from her descendant Pedro Sablan by inheritance; (2) Pedro
Sablan had acquired them from his ascendant Victoriano Sablan, likewise by inheritance; (3)
Victoriano Sablan had likewise acquired them by inheritance from his ascendants, Mariano
Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, they having been adjudicated to him in the partition of
hereditary property had between him and his brothers. These are admitted facts.

The appellant also 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 reserved.

Appellees Contention:
Argue that the appellants defense was not alleged or discussed in first instance, but only herein.
Certainly, the allegation in first instance was merely that "Pedro Sablan acquired the property in
question in 1882, before the enforcement of the Civil Code, which establishes the alleged right
required by law to be reserved, of which the opponents speak; hence, prescription of the right of
action; and finally, opponents' renunciation of their right, admitting that it existed and that they
had it"

RTC Ruling:
The trial court held that the parcels of land in question partake of the nature of property required
by law to be reserved and 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

Whether or not the lands which are the subject matter of the application are required by law to
be reserved

HELD

YES.

10
The hereditary title is one without a valuable consideration [gratuitous title]. He who acquires by
inheritance gives nothing in return for what he receives and a very definite conclusion of law
also is that the uncles german are within the third degree of blood relationship.

Art. 811, OCC provides:

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.

Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him these two parcels of land which
he acquired without a valuable consideration that is, by inheritance from another ascendant, his
father Victoriano. 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. The trial court's ruling
that they partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved is therefore in
accordance with the law.

If Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will as the universal heiress of his property, all he
left at death would not be required by law to be reserved, but only what he would have perforce
left her as the legal portion of a legitimate ascendant. [Art. 809, OCC.] In such case only the half
constituting the legal portion would be required by law to be reserved, because it is what by
operation of law would fall to the mother from her son's inheritance; the other half at free
disposal would not have to be reserved.

Proof of testate succession devolves upon the heir or heiress who alleges it. It must be admitted
that a half of Pedro Sablan's inheritance was acquired by his mother by operation of law. The law
provides that the other half is also presumed to be acquired by operation of law that is, by
intestate succession. Otherwise, proof to offset this presumption must be presented by the
interested party, that is, that the other half was acquired by the man's wish and not by operation
of law. In this case, the interested party has not proved that either of the lots became Marcelinas
inheritance through the free disposal of her son.

Two kinds of property required by law to be reserved are distinguished in the Civil Code.

Article 968 provides:

11
"Besides the reservation imposed by article 811, the widow or widower contracting a second
marriage shall be obliged to set apart for the children and descendants of the first marriage the
ownership of all the property he or she may have acquired from the deceased spouse by will, by
intestate succession, by gift, or other transfer w/out a valuable consideration."

From principles of jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain, it is inferred that if
from December, 1889, to July, 1893, a case had occurred of a right required to be reserved by
article 811, the persons entitled to such right would have been able to institute, against the
ascendants who must make the reservation, proceedings for the assurance and guaranty that
articles 977 and 978 grant to the children of a first marriage against their father or mother who
has married again. The proceedings for assurance, under article 977, are: Inventory of the
property subject to the right reserved, annotation in the property registry of such right reserved
in the real property and appraisal of the personal property; and the guaranty, under article 978, is
the assurance by mortgage, in the case of realty, of the value of what is validly alienated.

Article 199 of amended Mortgage Law: "The special mortgage for guaranteeing the right reserved
by article 811 of the Civil Code can only be required by the relatives in whose favor the property
is to be reserved, if they are of age; if minors, it will be required by the persons who should legally
represent them. In either case the right of the persons in whose favor the property must be
reserved will be secured by the same requisites as set forth in the preceding articles (relative to
the right reserved by article 968 of the Civil Code), applying to the person obligated to reserve the
right the provisions with respect to the father."

The lapse of the ninety days is not the expiration by prescription of the period for the exercise of
this right of action by the persons in whose favor the right must be reserved, but really the
commencement thereof, and enables them to exercise it at any time, since no limit is set in the
law. So, if the annotation of the right required by law to be reserved in the two parcels of land in
question must be made in the property registry of the Mortgage Law, the persons entitled to it
may now institute proceedings to that end, and an allegation of prescription against the exercise
of such right of action cannot be sustained.

What are the rights in the property of the person who holds it subject to the reservation of
article 811 of the Old Civil Code?

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, 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,

12
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. If any of the persons in whose favor the right is
reserved should, after their right has been assured in the registry, dare to dispose of even nothing
more than the fee simple of the property to be reserved his act would be null and void, for it is
impossible to determine the part "that might pertain therein to the relative at the time he
exercised the right, because in view of the nature and scope of the right required by law to be
reserved the extent of his right cannot be foreseen, for it may disappear by his dying before the
person required to reserve it, just as it may even become absolute should that person die."

No act of disposal inter vivos of the person required by law to reserve the right can be impugned
by him in whose favor it is reserved, because such person has all, absolutely all, the rights
inherent in ownership, except that the legal title is burdened with a condition that the third party
acquirer may ascertain from the registry in order to know that he is acquiring a title subject to a
condition subsequent. In conclusion, it seems to us that only an act of disposal mortis causa in
favor of persons other than relatives within the third degree of the descendant from whom he got
the property to be reserved must be prohibited to him, because this alone has been the 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."

Can the heir of the property required by law to be reserved himself alone register the
ownership of the property he has inherited?

YES. When the persons in whose favor the reservation must be made agree thereto and provided
that the right reserved to them in the two parcels of land is recorded, as the law provides.

Sienesv.Esparcia
G.R.No.L12957,March24,1961
FACTS:

13
Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, TeresaRuales, he had four
childrennamedAgaton,Fernando,PaulinaandCipriana,whilewithhissecondwife,AndreaGutang,
hehadanonlysonnamedFrancisco.OCTNo.10275coveringLot3368,hisinheritance,wasissuedin
the name ofFrancisco. Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his
motheradministeredtheproperty.
WhenFranciscodiedsingleandwithoutanydescendant,hismotherAndrea,ashissoleheir,executed
an EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE whereby,among other things, for and in
considerationofthesumofP800.00shesoldthepropertyinquestiontoappellants.
When thereafter said vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husbandJose Esparcia, the
surrenderofOOCTNo.10275whichwasintheirpossessionthelatterrefused.
Thereafter,CiprianaandPaulinaYaeso,thesurvivinghalfsistersofFrancisco,andwhoassuchhad
declared the property in their name, on January 1, 1951 executedadeed of saleinfavorof the
spousesFidelEsparciaandPaulinaSienes.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotthesalemadebythereservistaAndreawasvoidtherebeingnorighttodisposethe
same.
RULING:
NO.TheCourtheldthatthereservistahasthelegaltitleanddominiontothereservablepropertybut
subjecttoaresolutorycondition;thatheislikealifeusufructuaryofthereservableproperty;thathe
mayalienatethesamebutsubjecttoreservation,saidalienationtransmittingonlytherevocableand
conditionalownershipofthereservists,therightsacquiredbythetransfereebeingrevokedorresolved
bythesurvivalofreservatariosatthetimeofthedeathofthereservista.
ThesalemadebyAndreaGutanginfavorofappelleeswas,therefore,subjecttotheconditionthatthe
vendeeswoulddefinitelyacquireownership,byvirtueofthealienation,onlyifthevendordiedwithout
beingsurvivedbyanypersonentitled tothereservableproperty.InasmuchmuchaswhenAndrea
Gutangdied,CiprianaYaesowasstillalive,theconclusionbecomesinescapablethattheprevioussale
madebytheformerinfavorofappellantsbecameofnolegaleffectandthereservablepropertysubject
matterthereofpassedinexclusiveownershiptoCipriana.
Ontheotherhand,itisalsoclearthatthesaleexecutedbythesistersPaulinaandCiprianaYaeso
infavorofthespousesFidelEsparciaandPaulinaSieneswassubjecttoasimilarresolutorycondition.
Thereserveinstitutedbylawinfavoroftheheirswithinthethirddegreebelongingtothelinefrom
which the reservable propertycame, constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate
anddisposeof,albeitconditionally,theconditionbeingthatthealienationshalltransferownershipto
thevendeeonlyifandwhenthereserveesurvivesthepersonobligedtoreserve.Inthepresentcase,
CiprianaYaeso,oneofthereservees,wasstillalivewhenAndreaGutang,thepersonobligedtoreserve,
died.ThustheformerbecametheabsoluteownerofthereservablepropertyuponAndreasdeath.

Constancio Sienes et. al. v Fidel Esparcia et.al, G.R. No. L-12957, March 24, 1961

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.

14
 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 PaulinaYaeso, 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: Whether or not the sale of the property by Andrea Gutang who is obliged to reserve the property
is valid although at the time of her death, there are still surviving relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which the property came.

Ruling: No.
The land in question was a 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 the former in favor of appellant became
of no legal effect and the reservable property passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.

On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana
Yaeso in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory
condition. The reserve instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the
line from which the reservable property came, constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate
and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being that the alienation shall transfer ownership to

15
the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person obliged to reserve. In the present case,
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.
Florentino v. Florentino

+ ++ +++

Antonia Faz de Leon Apolonio Florention II Severina

9 children Mercedes Apolonio III

(3 died single) (posthumuous)

FACTS: In 1890, Apolonio II died leaving a notarial will. He was survived by his ten children
and his widow as heirs. Apolonio III received in the partition of the subject property. When
Apolonio III died, the said property were inherited by his mother Severina, who latter died,
leaving a will instituting her only daughter as her universal heiress. Herein appellants
demands from Mercedes to deliver their corresponding share in the reservable property but
Mercedes refused. CFI dismissed the complaint of specific performance.

HELD: REVERSED. Even if Severina left in her will said property together with her own
property to her only daughter, nevertheless, this property had not lost their reservable nature
in as much as it originated from the common ancestor of herein appellants. The property was
inherited by the son and was transmitted by operation of law to his mother.

Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property while there are living within the
3rd degree relative of the latter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the
reservable property received. But if afterwards, all of such relative die, the said property

16
become 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 legal succession.

There are seven reservatoris who are entitled to the reservable property left at the death of
Apolonio III:

(1) 3 children of the 1st marriage;

(2) 3 children who are represented by their own children (nephews/ nieces);
(3) Mercedes

All of the appellants are the relatives of the posthumous son within the third degree. Hence,
they are entiled as reservatarios to the property which came from the common ancestors.

Mendoza v Delos Santos (Succession)

Mendoza v Delos Santos

GR No 176422, March 20, 2013

MARIA MENDOZA, in her own capacity and as Attorney-in-fact 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 SANTOS-CABUHAT, 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. 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.
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

17
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.

It should be pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from
Exequiels 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. It was also
immaterial for the CA to determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and Dominga or
18
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.
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.18 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.
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 Gregorias
ascendant; rather, she is Gregorias collateral relative.

II. 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/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 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.
3. Art. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral. A direct line
is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.
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.
4. Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse,
the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the
following articles.
Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, the
19
other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of
relationship by the whole blood.
5. 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 latters
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.

Sum
aya v. IAC
G.R. No. 68843-44, September 2, 1991
FACTS:
Raul Balantakbo inherited from two (2) different ascendants the two (2) sets of properties
subject of this case: 1) 1/3 interest of a parcel of land from his father Jose, Sr., who died on
January 28, 1945; and 2) 1/7 interest from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who
died on November 3, 1950. On June 13, 1952, Raul died intestate, single, without any issue,
and leaving only his mother, ConsueloJoaquin Vda. deBalantakbo, as his sole surviving heir to
the subject real properties.
Vda. de Balantakbo caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of
Raul, wherein it was clearly stated that the properties were inherited by Raul from his father
Jose, Sr. and from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista.
Vda de Balantakbo sold the property to Sumaya which was subsequently sold to Villa Honorio
Development Corporation. Villa then transferred and assigned its rights over the property
to Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative.
The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above described properties do not
contain any annotation of its reservable character.
On March 4, 1970,five brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and three surviving children
of deceased Jose Balantakbo, Jr., another brother of the first named Balantakbos, filed civil
cases to recover the subject properties which they claimed were subject to a reservatroncal in
their favor.
ISSUE:

20
Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source of
the properties thereby showing the reservable nature of the properties
is sufficient annotation of the reservable nature of the same.
RULING:
NO. The Court disagreed 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
(reservatarios), against innocent third persons.
In this case, the affidavit of self adjudication executed by Consuelo Vda. de Balantakbo which
contained a statement that the property was inherited from a descendant, Raul, which has
likewise inherited by the latter from another ascendant, was registered with the Registry of
Property. The failure of the Registerof Deeds to annotate the reservable character of the
property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo.
As to the sale of subject properties, the Court affirmed the order of lower courts against
plaintiff Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative to convey the subject properties back to
reservatarios. The Court held that there is sufficient proof that the petitioners had actual
knowledge of the reservable character of the properties before they bought the same
from Consuelo as evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed by the parties.
Moreover, the Court a quo found that the petitioners and private respondents were long time
acquaintances and that they knew all along that the properties litigated in this case were
inherited by Raul Balantakbo from his father and from his maternal grandmother, and
that Consuelo Vda. deBalantakbo inherited these properties from his son Raul.

Mariquita Sumaya and Laguna Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative v. IAC et.al

GR 68843-44

FACTS:

Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different ascendants two sets of parcels of property, one from
his father and the other from his maternal grandmother. Raul died intestate, single and without
any issue, leaving Consuelo Balantakbo, his mother as sole heir. Subsequently, Consuelo
adjudicated to herself the property in affidavit stating that she is the sole and lone ascendant heir
of Raul who left the properties inherited from his father and grandmother. Consuelo sold the
properties to Mariquita Sumaya, who sold the same to Villa Honorio Development Corporation
which subsequently transferred its right over the property in favor of Laguna Agro-Industrial
Coconut Cooperative. Certificates of title were issuedin Agros name. However, such title do not
contain any annotation of the property being reservable in character. Two years after Consuelos
death, Amadeo et al, brothers, sisters, nephew and nieces of Raul filed a civil case for the recovery
of the parcels of land sold to Agro alleging that such is subject of reserva troncal. Court a quo
ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding Agro as not innocent purchasers for value. The CA affirmed the
lower courts decision and ruled that there is no need to annotate the reservable interest of
reserves in property covered by the certificate of title.

ISSUE:

Whether there is a need to annotate the reservable character of the property subject of reserva
troncal

RULING:

21
 Yes. In a ruling decided by the Court, the reservable character of a property may be lost to
innocent purchasers for value and hence, the obligation is imposed on a widowed spouse to
annotate the reservable character of a property subject of reserve viudal. Such obligation is also
applicable in reserva troncal. Moreover, the purpose of notation is nothing more than to afford the
persons entitled to reservation, if any, due protection against any act of the reservoir, which may
make it ineffective.
Celedonia Solivio v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
FACTS:
On October 11, 1959, Esteban Javellana, Jr.s mother Salustia died leaving all her property,
including a house and lot in La Paz, Iloilo City, to him. Esteban Jr, died a bachelor,
without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. His only surviving
relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt, petitioner CeledoniaSolivio, the spinster half-sister of his
mother, SalustiaSolivio; and (2) the private respondent, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva,
sister of his deceased father, Esteban Javellana, Sr.
Pursuant to an agreement between Concordia and Celedonia, the latter would take care of the
proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation. Celedonia in good faith and upon the
advice of her counsel, filed for a Special Proceeding for her appointment as special
administratrix of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr., praying that letters of administration be
issued to her; that she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of all
claims and rendition of inventory and
accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her.
Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo for partition, recovery of possession, ownership
and damages. Celedonia averred that the estate of Esteban Jr. was subject to reservatroncal
and thus it should redound to her as a relative within the 3rd degree on his mother side.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal and that it pertains to
her as his only relative within the third degree on his mothers side
RULING:
No. There is no merit in the petitioners argument that the estate of the deceased was subject
to reservatroncal, and that it pertains to her as his only relative within the third degree on his
mothers side. The reservatroncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which
reads as follows:
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.
The persons involved in reservatroncal 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 propositusthe descendant who received by gratuitous title and died
without issue, making his other ascendant inherit by operation of law. (p. 692, Civil Law by
Padilla, Vol. II, 1956 Ed.)
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

22
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 mothers side. The reservatroncal 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.
Solivio versus Court of Appeals
182 SCRA 119
February 12, 1990

Facts:

This case involves the estate of the late Esteban Javellana, Jr. He died a bachelor, without descendants,
ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. His only surviving relatives are his two aunts namely; Petitioner
Celedonia Solivio, the sister of his mother Salustia Solivio and Private respondent Concordia Javellana-Villanueva,
sister of his deceased father. Salustia Solivio brought to her marriage paraphernal properties which she had
inherited from her mother but no conjugal property was acquired during her short-lived marriage to Esteban Sr. On
October 11, 1959, Salustia died, leaving all her properties to her only child, Esteban, Jr.

During his lifetime, Esteban, Jr. had expressed to his aunt Celedonia his plan to place his estate in a
foundation in honor of his mother. Unfortunately, he died sooner without having set up the foundation. Two 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 that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of
the foundation. Celedonia then filed a special proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the
estate. Thereafter, she was declared sole heir of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. Four months later after the
courts pronouncement, Concordia Javellana Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision because
she too was an heir of the deceased. On October 27, 1978, her motion was denied by the court for tardiness.
Instead of appealing the denial, Concordia filed for partition, recovery of possession, ownership and damages. The
trial court ruled in favour of Concordia and ordered the execution of its judgment pending appeal and required
Celedonia to submit an inventory and accounting of the estate. Celedonia filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied by the trial court. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this instant petition.

Issues:

1.) Whether or not 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

2.) Whether or not private respondent may recover her share of the estate after she had agreed to place the
same in the foundation
23
Ruling:

1.) Article 891 of the NCC provides for the reserva troncal provision which reads that:

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
degree and who belong to the line from which said property came.

No. Based from the foregoing provision, 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. In
the case at bar, the property of the deceased is not a 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. Since the deceased, Esteban
Javellana, Jr., died without descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, surviving spouse, brothers, sisters,
nephews or nieces, Articles 1003 and 1009 of the NCC should apply in the distribution of his estate.

2.) No. Private Respondent Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation, an
agreement which she ratified and confirmed during the court proceedings. She is thereby bound by that
agreement. It is true that by virtue of the agreement, she did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia,
but she did agree to place all of Esteban's estate in the foundation which Esteban, Jr. This was taken
by the Court as an admission. Being a judicial admission, it is conclusive and no evidence need be presented
to prove the agreement. 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.

24