Succession Cases

[10] SPS JOAQUIN VS COURT OF APPEALS made by defendants parents voluntarily, in
good faith, and with full knowledge of the

GR No. 126376, November 20, 2003
consequences of their deeds of sale; (3)
Ponente: Carpio J.
certificates of title were issued with sufficient
Digest Author: Joline Ponce
factual and legal basis.
● RTC: Granted the MTD of Gavino Joaquin noting
Topic: that “compulsory heirs have the right to a legitime
[insert text] but such right is contingent since said right
commences only from the moment of death of the
Relevant Law: decedent pursuant to Art. 777 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.”
[insert text]
● After trial, RTC ruled in favor of the defendants
finding that the argument that plaintiffs do not
Doctrine: have a valid cause of action against defendants
The right of the heirs over the properties is merely since there can be no legitime to speak of prior to
inchoate and vests only upon their parents’ death. the death of the parents tenable.
● In determining the legitime, the value of the
Parties: property left at the death of the testator shall be
considered. Hence, the legitime of a compulsory
Defendants:
heir is computed as of the time of the death of the
● Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito (Sps.
decedent. Plaintiffs therefore cannot claim an
Joaquin)
impairment of their legitime while their parents
● Fidel,
live.
● Tomas,
● CA: affirmed the decision of the trial court.
● Artemio,
● Clarita,
● Felicitas, ISSUES:
● Fe, and W/N the petitioners have a legal interest over the
● Gavino properties subject of the Deeds of Sale? NO
Plaintiffs: RULING:
● Consolacion,
It is evident from the records that petitioners are
● Nora
interested in the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale,
● Emma, and
but they have failed to show any legal right to the
● Natividad
properties. As the appellate court stated, petitioner’s
right to their parents’ properties is merely inchoate and
FACTS: vests only upon their parent’s death. While still living,
● Plaintiffs filed a case seeking to declare null and the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
void ab initio certain deeds of sale of real property properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their
executed by defendant parents Sps. Joaquin in future legitime, petitioners forget that theoretically, the
favor of their co-defendant children and the sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value
corresponding certificates of title issued in their of their parents’ estate. While the sale of the lots
names. reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced
○ They aver that there was no actual valid the lots taken from the estate.
consideration and even if there was it is grossly
less than its value.
○ The DOS does not reflect and express the true [NON RELATED ISSUES]
intent of the parties.
W/N the Deeds of Sale are void for lack of
○ The sale was the result of a deliberate
consideration? NO.
conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the
rest of the compulsory heirs of their legitime. A contract of sale is not a real contract, but a consensual
● Defendants aver that contract. As a consensual contract, a contract of sale
○ (1) plaintiffs do not have a cause of action becomes binding and valid contract upon the meeting of
against them and the requisite standing and the minds as to price. If there is a meeting of the minds
interest to assail their titles over the of the parties as to the price, the contract of sale is
properties; valid, despite the manner of payment, or even the
○ (2) sale were with sufficient considerations and breach of that manner of payment. If the real price is
A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 1 of 42

not stated in the contract, then the contract of sale is
valid but subject to reformation. If there is no meeting
of the minds of the parties as to the price, because the
price stipulated in the contract is simulated, then the
contract is void.
Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of
Sale were absolutely simulated.
W/N the Deeds of Sale are void for gross inadequacy of

price? NO.
Art. 1355. Except in cases specified by law, lesion or
inadequacy of cause shall not invalidate a contract,
unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue
influence.
Art. 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a
contract of sale, except as may indicate a defect in the
consent, or that the parties really intended a donation
or some other act or contract.
Petitioners failed to prove any of the instances
mentioned in the above articles which would invalidate,
or even affect, the Deeds of Sale. Indeed, there is no
requirement that the price be equal to the exact value
of the subject matter of sale. All respondents believed
that they received the commutative value of what they
gave.
Moreover, the factual findings of the appellate court are
conclusive on the parties and carry greater weight when
they coincide with the factual findings of the trial court.

[11] DIZON-RIVERA VS. DIZON 1970 2. Angelina Dizon .................................. 106,307.06
GR No. [#] 3. Bernardita Dizon .................................. 51,968.17
Date [Date decided]
Ponente: [insert text] 4. Josefina Dizon ...................................... 52,056.39
Digest Author: [insert text] 5. Tomas Dizon ....................................... 131,987.41
Topic: 6. Lilia Dizon .............................................. 72,182.47

[insert text] 7. Marina Dizon ..................................... 1,148,063.71
8. Pablo Rivera, Jr. ...................................... 69,280.00
Relevant Law:
[insert text] 9. Lilia Dizon, Gilbert Garcia,
Cayetano Dizon, Francisco Rivera,
Doctrine:
[insert text] Agripina Ayson, Dioli or Jolly
Jimenez, Laureano Tiamzon ................. 72,540.00
Parties:
Total Value ...................... P1,801,960.01
● [List the parties and their relationship with each
other here; or you can make a chart hehe]. Below is the proposed partition by
● [insert text] oppositor-petitioners:
● [insert text]
● [insert text] 1. Estela Dizon ....................................... P 49,485.56
2. Angelina Dizon ..................................... 53,421.42
3. Bernardita Dizon .................................. 26,115.04
FACTS:
Appeal from the orders of the CFI approving the 4. Josefina Dizon ....................................... 26,159.38
Executrix-appellee’s project of partition instead of 5. Tomas V. Dizon .................................... 65,874.04
Oppositors-appellants proposed counter project
6. Lilia Dizon ............................................ 36,273.13
partition.
7. Marina Dizon ...................................... 576,938.82
On Jan 28, 1961, the testatrix Valdez, a widow died and
was survived with 7 compulsory heirs. 6 were legitimate 8. Pablo Rivera, Jr. .................................... 34,814.50
children Estela, Tomas, Bernardita, Marina, Angelina, 9. Grandchildren Gilbert Garcia et al ......... 36,452.80
and Josefina and a legitimate granddaughter named Total .................................................... P905,534.78
Lilia. Lilia was the only child and heir of Ramon, a
predeceased legitimate son of the said decedent. 6 of The oppositors proposed to reduce the amounts to
the heirs are the oppositors to Marina. one-half. While the other half would be deemed as
constituting of the legitime of the petitioners and
The deceased left a will in Pampango dialect. Named as respondent, to be divided among them in 7 equal parts
beneficiaries are the compulsory heirs together with 7 of Php129,362.11 as their respective legitimes.
other legitimate grandchildren. In her will, she disposed
of all her properties appraised at 1.8 million among her Lower Court:
designated heirs. Her will was allowed and admitted to
sustained the approved project partition of respondent
probate and respondent was appointed as executrix of
Marina. Ruling that Articles 906-907 specifically provide
the estate.
that when the legitimate is impaired or prejudiced, the
Valdez in her will commanded that her property be same shall be completed and satisfied. The proposition
divided in accordance with her testamentary disposition of the oppositors, if upheld, will substantially result in a
whereby she bequeathed the entire bulk of her estate distribution of intestacy, which is in controversion of
among the 6 children and 8 grandchildren. Below is the Article 791 of the New Civil Code" adding that "the
partition proposed by respondent executrix: testatrix has chosen to favor certain heirs in her will for
1. Estela Dizon ....................................... P 98,474.80 reasons of her own, cannot be doubted. This is legally
permissible within the limitation of the law, as

aforecited." With reference to the payment in cash of heirs were adjudicated properties that were assigned to
some P230,552.38, principally by the executrix as the them and the differential to complete their respective
largest beneficiary of the will to be paid to her five legitimes of Php 129k each were taken from the cash
co-heirs, the oppositors (excluding Tomas Dizon), to and/or properties of Marina and Tomas, who admittedly
complete their impaired legitimes, the lower court ruled were favored by Valdez and received in the partition by
that "(T)he payment in cash so as to make the proper more than their respective legitimes.
adjustment to meet with the requirements of the law in
Oppositors' proposal would amount substantially to a
respect to legitimes which have been impaired is, in our
distribution by intestacy and pro tanto nullify the
opinion, a practical and valid solution in order to give
testatrix' will, contrary to Article 791 of the Civil Code. It
effect to the last wishes of the testatrix."
would further run counter to the provisions of Article
1091 of the Civil Code that "(A) partition legally made
Issue:
confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the
Whether or not the testamentary disposition or property adjudicated to him."
intention of the will should be controlling – YES.
Oppositors cannot demand more than their legitime.
Their right was merely to demand completion of their
Ruling:
legitime under Art 906 and this has been complied with
Articles 788 and 791 states that “if a testamentary in the approved project of partition and they can no
disposition admits different interpretations, in case of longer demand a further share from the remaining
doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to portion of the estate.
be operative shall be preferred” and “ the words of a
will are to receive an interpretation which will give to
every expression some effect, rather than one which will
render any of the expression inoperative; and of two
modes of interpretation a will, that is to be preferred
which will prevent intestacy.
In Villanueva vs. Juico "the intention and wishes of the
testator, when clearly expressed in his will, constitute
the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised
at the trial, relative to its execution and fulfillment, must
be settled in accordance therewith, following the plain
and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless it
clearly appears that his intention was otherwise."
On partition.
The disposition was in the nature of a partition of her
estate by will. It was expressly provided in the will that
her property be divided in accordance with the
disposition whereby she specified each real property in
her estate and designated the particular heir among her
7 compulsory heirs and 7 other grandchildren.
This was a valid partition as contemplated and
authorized in the first paragraph of Art 1080 of the Civil
code which states “Should a person make a partition of
his estate by an act inter vivos or by will, such partition
shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the
legitime of the compulsory heirs.” This right of a
testator to partition his estate is subject only to the right
of compulsory heirs to their legitime.
The partition was properly complied with as the 5 other

[12] ARELLANO V. PASCUAL ● Francisco and Miguel’s nephew, Victor was
appointed as Administrator of the estate by
GR No. 189776
Makati RTC.
Date December 15, 2010
● RTC Makati, acting as probate court, said that it
Ponente: Carpio-Morale, J.
was precluded from determining the valadity of
Digest Author: Umbalin
the donation of the said parcel of land.
○ Provisionally passing, however, upon the
Topic: question of title to the donated property only
[insert text] for the purpose of determining whether it
formed part of the decedent’s (Angel Pascual)
Relevant Law: estate, the probate court found the Deed of
Donation VALID in light of the presumption of
[insert text]
validity of notarized documents.
○ RTC held that it is SUBJECT TO COLLATION
Doctrine: following Article 1061 of the New Civil Code
[insert text] which reads:5
“Every compulsory heir, who succeeds
Parties: with other compulsory heirs, must bring
into the mass of the estate any property or
DECEDENT: Angel N. Pasucal Jr.
right which he may have received from the
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter,
SIBLINGS OF ANGEL (heirs)
by way of donation, or any other
1. Amelia Arellano
gratuitous title in order that it may be
2. Francisco Pascual
computed in the determination of the
3. Miguel Pascual
legitime of each heir, and in the account of
Administrator: Victor (nephew of the siblings)
the partition.”
Agnes and Nona Arellano (guardians of Amelia) ● Francisco and Miguel appealed to the CA,
questioning the order of the trial court to
include the property subject of the donation as
PETITIONER:
part of the advance inheritance of the
Amelia Arellano (represented by Agnes and Nona
petitioner.
Arellano - her duly appointed guardians)
ISSUE:
RESPONDENTS: Whether the property subject of the donation is subject
Francisco Pascual of collation. –NO.
Miguel Pascual
HELD:
The decedent, Angel, left no compulsory heir who is
FACTS: entitled to legitime. This means that he was at liberty to
donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his
● Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate on January 2,
siblings-collateral relatives to inherit.
1999 leaving as heirs his siblings, namely:
1. Petitioner Amelia P. Arellano who is
Angel’s donation to Amelia, assuming that it was valid, is
represented by her daughters Agnes P. Arellano
deemed as donation made to a “stranger,” chargeable
(Agnes) and Nona P. Arellano, and
against the free portion of the estate.
2. Respondents Francisco Pascual and Miguel N.
Pascual.
There being no compulsory heir, however, the donated
● Angel Pascual transferred a parcel of land located
property is not subject to collation.
in Makati to his sibling, Amelia Arellano, by Deed of
➔ The term collation has two distinct concepts:
Donation.
★ first, it is a mere mathematical operation by
● Francisco and Miguel filed a petition for Judicial
the addition of the value of donations made
Settlement of Intestate Estate and Issuance of
by the testator to the value of the hereditary
Letters of Administration in RTC Makati.
estate; and
o Francisco and Miguel were questioning the
★ second,it is the return to the hereditary estate
validity of the donated parcel of land, assailing
of property disposed of by lucrative title by
that it may be considered as an advance
the testator during his lifetime.
legitime of Amelia.

The purposes of collation are to secure equality among
the compulsory heirs in so far as is possible, and to
determine the free portion, after finding the legitime, so
that in officious donations may be reduced.
Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs,

one of its purposes being to determine the legitime and
the free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is
no legitime to be safeguarded.
The decedent’s remaining estate should thus be

partitioned equally among his heirs-siblings-collateral
relatives, herein petitioner and respondents, pursuant
to Art. 1003 and 1004 of the NCC.
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.
(underscoring supplied)
Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and

sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal
shares. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

[13] RE: CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS OF THE HEIRS OF THE ○ at the time of his death on July 12, 1976, Atty.
LATE MARIO V. CHANLIONGCO, FIDELA B. Chanliongco was more than 63 y.o.
CHANLIONGCO, MARIO B. CHANLIONGCO II, MA. ○ more than 38 years of service in the
ANGELINA C. BUENAVENTURA AND MARIO C. government
CHANLIONGCO, JR.
○ did not have any pending criminal
AM No. [190 ] administrative or not case against him
Date [October 18, 1977] ○ did not have any money/ property
Ponente: [ MAKASIAR, J.] accountability.
Digest Author: [ARQUILLO, GERTRUDE]
○ claimants filed separate applications for
benefits w/ SC and w/ Government Service
Topic:
Insurance System (GSIS)
[System of Distribution of Property under Philippine ● Aside from Dra. Fidela and Mario II, there are other
Law: The System of Partial Reservation; The Reserved
claimants—Mrs. Ma. Angelina Buenaventura and
Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion ]
Mario Chanliongco, Jr., both born out of wedlock to
Angelina Crespo, and duly recognized by deceased.
Relevant Law:
● Except Mario, Jr., who is only 17 years of age, all the
The legitimate child gets one-half of the estate as his
other claimants are of legal age.
legitime which is regarded as his share as a legal heir
● Benefits accruing to the deceased consist of:
(Art. 888, Civil Code).
(1) retirement benefits;
The widow's legitime is one-fourth of the estate. That (2) money value of terminal leave;
represents also her share as a legal heir (Art. 892, 1st (3) life insurance proceeds; and
sent ence, Civil Code). (4) refund of retirement premiums.
● GSIS had already released to the claimants:
"the legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken ○ life insurance proceeds and
from the portion of of the estate at the free disposal of ○ refund of retirement premiums
the testator, provided that in no case shall the total ● What remains to be settled are
legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free ○ retirement benefits and
portion, and that the legitime of the surviving spouse ○ money value of terminal leave,
must first be fully satisfied" (Last par., Art. 895, Civil ○ both of which are to be paid by SC as the
Code). deceased's last employer.
When the surviving spouse concurs with only one ISSUES:

legitimate child, the spouse is entitled one-half of the 1. WON retirement benefits shall accrue to ATTY.
estate and the child gets the other half (Art. 996, Civil CHANLIONGCO’s estate [YES]
Code 2. Should money value of terminal leave be
treated as conjugal property [YES]
Doctrine: 3. WON legitime must also be taken into
consideration in legal succession.[YES]
The provisions on legitime are found under the rubric of
testamentary succession. That does not mean that the
RULING:
legitime is taken into account only in testamentary
Retirement benefits accrue to Chanliongco’s estate.
succession.
Atty. Chanliongco died ab i ntestato and failed or to state
Parties: Already in ruling under legal heirs (italicized) in his application for membership w/ GSIS the
beneficiary/s of his retirement benefits, should he die
FACTS:
before retirement.
● Claims for retirement benefits filed by heirs of the
late Atty. Chanliongco, an attorney in this Court, Hence, the retirement benefits shall accrue to his estate
under RA 1616, as amended by RA. 4986 and will be distributed among his legal heirs under law
● SC: approved in resolution of Aug 19, 1976, on intestate succession, as in the case of a life insurance
effective July 12, 1976

if no beneficiary is named in the insurance policy representing withhold tax due from him, or a total of
P8,740.42, from above sub-total sum of P22,245.87. WE
SC adopts in toto the GSIS determination of the amount
have at the net sum P13,505.45, available for distribute
of retirement gratuity, the legal heirs and their
to the claimants as follows:
respective shares:
(a) Amount of retirement gratuity: 1. Fidela B. Chanliongco

a. As her conjugal share P 6,752.72
(1) Total creditable service . . . ..37.57 yrs
b. As a legal heir P 1,688.18
(2) Highest rate of salary . . . . .…
2. Mario Chanliongco IIP 3,376.36
P1,558.33/mo.
3. Ma. Angelina Buenaventura 844.10
(3) Gratuity in terms of months . 50.14 months
4. Mario Jr. 844.09
(4) Amount of gratuity (highest salary) x
T O T A L P13,505.45
(No. of gratuity months) . . P7, 140.10
THe money value of the unused vacation and sick leave,
(b) Legal heirs:
unpaid will and 10% adjustment has been treated as
Fidela B. Chanliongco . . ... ….widow
conjugal property.
Mario B. Chanliongco II ..…… legitimate son
Ma. Angelina C. Buenaventura …illegitimate child
Accordingly, l/2 goes to the widow as her share in the
Mario Chanliongco, Jr. . . . . . . . illegitimate child
conjugal hip and the other half P6,752.725 is to be
distributed to the deceased's legal heirs, using the same
(c) Distribution
proportion SC used in distributing the retirement
8/16 share to Mario II ...……P39,070.050
benefits, because vacation with pay is not a gratuity but
4/16 share to Fidela 19,535.025
is compensation for services rendered.
2/16 share, or P9,767.51 each to the two
illegitimate children: 19,535.02
TOT A L P78,140 They are conjugal properties because of the rule that
property "obtained by the industry, or work, or as salary
of the spouses, or either of them", is conjugal in
Value of terminal leave, treated as conjugal property
character (Art. 153[2], Civil Code).
● pursuant to Budget Circular 240, dated July 22, 1974,
FALLO:
SC’s Finance Officer, in a memorandum dated March 23,
CLAIMS APPROVED; SC’s FINANCE OFFICER to pay:
1977, indicated the breakdown of these items:
● FIDELA (widow)
● Unpaid salary for July 8-12, 1976 @
○ 4/16 share of retirement gratuity (P19,535.025)
P1,416.66/mo…………………… P 228.49
○ share from money value of terminal leave,
● 10% salary adj. for July 1-12, 1976. 54.84
unpaid salary and 10% adjustment
● Money value of terminal leave for period from
■ as her conjugal share (6852.72)
July 13, 1976 to Sept 14, 1977 @
■ as a legal heir (1688.18)
P1,558.33……….. 21,962.54
○ TOTAL due Fidela: (27,975.93)
○ Sub-Total - - - P22,245.6
● MARIO II (legitimate son)
● Less:
○ Withholding Tax . . P1,400.00
○ Supreme Court:
unpaid salary and 10% adjustment (3,376.36)
○ Savings&LoanAssoc 7,340.42 or
○ TOTAL due Mario II: (P42,446.41)
8,740.42
● M. ANGELINA (illegitimate child)
○ NET PROCEEDS P13,505.45
At the time of his death, Atty. C had an outstanding unpaid salary and 10% adjustment (844.10)
account w/ SC Savings & Loans Association (P7,340.42.) ○ TOTAL due Angelina: (P10,611.61)
● MARIO JR. (illegitimate child)
Deduction this amount plus another sum of P1,400., ○ TOTAL due Mario Jr.: same as Angelina

The legitime must also be taken into consideration in legal
succession. (Concurring Opinion of Aquino)
● The provisions on legitime are found under the rubric of

testamentary succession. That does not mean that the
legitime is taken into account only in testamentary
succession.
● There may be instances, like the instant case, wherein
legal succession the estate is distributed according to
the rules on legitime without applying the rules on
intestate succession.
○ Reason: sometimes the estate is not sufficient to
satisfy the legitimes.
○ The legitimes of the primary compulsory heirs, like a
child or descendant, should first be satisfied.
● His estate is partitioned among heirs (legitimate child,
widow and 2 ill. children) by giving them their
respective legitimes.
● The remaining 1/4 of the estate, which is the free
portion, goes to the 2 ill. children in equal shares, as
their legitime, pursuant to Art. 895, Civil Code.
● Art 996 of the Civil Code, does not apply because her
illegitimate children concur with the surviving spouse
and the legitimate child.
● To d ivide the estate between the surviving spouse and
the legitimate child would deprive the illegitimate
children of their legitime.
● So, the decedent's estate is distributed in the
proportion of 1/2 for the legitimate child, 1/4 for the
widow and 1/8 each for the two illegitimate children.
● Also not of possible application to this case is the rule
natural that the legitime of an acknowledged natural
child is 1/2 of the legitime of the legitimate child and
that the legitime of the spurious child is 2/5 of that of
the legitime of the legitimate child or 4/5 of that of the
acknowledged natural child.
○ Reason: the estate is not sufficient to cover the
legitimes of all the compulsory heirs. That is one of
the flaws of the law of succession.
● A situation, as in the instant case, may arise where the
illegitimate children get less than their legitime.

[14] INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA V. ROSALES. value of about P30,000.00.
● Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased in
IRENEA C. ROSALES, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNATO ROSALES,
CFI.
MAGNA ROSALES ACEBES, MACIKEQUEROX ROSALES ● The trial court appointed Magna Rosales Acebes
AND ANTONIO ROSALES, RESPONDENTS. administratrix of the said estate.
○ In the course of the intestate proceedings, the
GR No. L-40789 trial court issued an Order declaring the
Date 1987-Feb-27 following individuals the legal heirs of the
Ponente: GANCAYCO, J.: deceased and prescribing their respective share
Digest Author: Ramos of the estate:
■ Fortunato T. Rosales (husband) 1/4;
■ Magna R. Acebes (daughter), 1/4;
Topic:
■ Macikequerox Rosales, 1/4; and
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion ■ Antonio Rosales (son), 1/4.
Relevant Law: Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate -

"Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of ● in her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late
law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased,
the place and the degree of the person represented, ● claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her
and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he mother-in-law together with her son, Macikequerox
were living or if he could have inherited. Rosales.
"Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession ISSUES:

by the law and not by the person represented. The First ---- is a widow (surviving spouse) an intestate heir
representative does rot succeed the person represented of her mother-in-law? NO
but the one whom the person represented would have
succeeded." Second ---- are the Orders of the trial court which
excluded the widow from getting a share of the estate in
Doctrine: question final as against the said widow?
A surviving spouse is not an intestate heir of his or her
parent-in-law. RULING:
Widow is NOT an intestate heir of her mother-in-law.

Parties:
● Petra - grandmother who died. Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two (2) groups,
● Fortunato - husband of Petra. namely,
○ Magna and Antonio - children of Petra and 1) those who inherit by their own right, and
Fortunato. 2) those who inherit by the right of representation.
○ Carterio - child who predeceased Petra.
■ Macikequerox - child of Carterio Restated, an intestate heir can only inherit either by his
■ Irenea - widow of Carterio. own right, as in the order of intestate succession
provided for in the Civil Code, 2 or by the right of
representation provided for in Article 981 of the same
FACTS: law. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code are;.
● Mrs. Petra V. Rosales died intestate.
○ She was survived by her husband Fortunato T. "Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always
Rosales and their two (2) children Magna inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. inheritance in equal shares."
○ Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased
her, "Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and
■ leaving behind a child, Macikequerox descendants of other children who are dead, survive,
Rosales, and the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter
■ his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the herein by right of representation."
petitioner.
● The estate of the deceased has an estimated gross "Art. 982. The grandchildren and other descendants

shall inherit by right of representation, and if any one of ● It does NOT apply to the estate of a parent-in-law.
them should have died, leaving several heirs, the
portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a third
latter in equal portions." person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law.
"Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with A careful examination of Article 999 confirms that the
legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate estate contemplated therein is the estate of the
children or their descendants, whether legitimate or deceased spouse.
illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to ● The estate which is the subject matter of the
the same share as that of a legitimate child." intestate estate proceedings in this case is that of
the deceased Petra V. Rosales, the mother-in-law of
The entire Code is devoid of any provision which entitles the petitioner.
her to inherit from her mother-in-law either by her own ● It is from the estate of Petra V. Rosales that
right or by the right of representation. Macikequerox Rosales draws a share of the
inheritance by the right of representation as
The provisions of the Code which relate to the order of provided by Article 981 of the Code.
intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate
with meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a The essence and nature of the right of representation is
decedent, with the State as the final intestate heir. explained by Articles 970 and 971 of the Civil Code, viz
If the legislature intended to make the surviving spouse "Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of
an intestate heir of the parent-in-law, it would have so law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to
provided in the Code. the place and the degree of the person represented,
and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he
Petitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir in were living or if he could have inherited.
accordance with the provisions of Article 887 of the Civil
Code which provides that: "Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession
by the law and not by the person represented. The
"Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs: representative does rot succeed the person represented
but the one whom the person represented would have
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to succeeded."
their legitimate parents and ascendants;
Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox Rosales
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and is called to succession by law because of his blood
ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and relationship.
descendants; ● He does not succeed his father, Carterio Rosales
(the person represented) who predeceased his
(3) The widow or widower; grandmother, Petra Rosales,
● He succeeds his grandmother, Petra Rosales, whom
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children his father would have succeeded.
by legal fiction;
Petitioner cannot assert the same right of
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287; representation as she has no filiation by blood with her
mother-in-law.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not
excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they Petitioner however contends that at the time of the
exclude one another. death of her husband Carterio Rosales he had an
inchoate or contingent right to the properties of Petra
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be Rosales as compulsory heir.
duly proved.
Be that as it may, said right of her husband was
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the extinguished by his death that is why it is their son
three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the Macikequerox Rosales who succeeded from Petra
manner and to the extent established by this Code." Rosales by right of representation.
The aforesaid provision of law 3 refers to the estate of
the deceased spouse in which case the surviving spouse We find it unnecessary to pass upon the second
(widow or widower) is a compulsory heir. question posed by the petitioner.

[15] SY V. EUFEMIO FACTS:
GR No. L-30977 On 1953, Carmen Lapuz Sy filed a petition for legal
separation against Eufemio S. Eufemio, alleging that
Date 1972-Jan-31
● they were married civilly and canonically on 1934;
Ponente: Reyes
● that they had lived together as husband and wife
Digest Author: Ramos continuously until 1943 when her husband
abandoned her;
Topic in the Syllabus: ● that they had no child;
● that they acquired properties during their
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion
marriage; and
● that she discovered her husband cohabiting with a
Relevant Law: Chinese woman named Go Hiok on or about
Art. 106. The decree of legal separation shall have the March 1949.
following effects:
She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal
(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from separation, which, among others, would order that the
each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be defendant Eufemio S. Eufemio should be deprived of his
severed; share of the conjugal partnership profits.
(2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute Eufemio alleged defenses, along with:
conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and
● several other claims involving money and other
liquidated, but the offending spouse shall have no right
properties,
to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or
● counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity ab
community, without prejudice to the provisions of
initio of his marriage with Carmen on the ground of
article 176;
his prior and subsisting marriage, celebrated
(3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded according to Chinese law and customs with Hiok.
to the innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by
Before the trial could be completed, petitioner Carmen
the court in the interest of said minors, for whom said
died in a vehicular accident on 1969.
court may appoint a guardian;
Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal
(4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from
separation on two grounds, namely:
inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate
succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the ● that the petition for legal separation was filed
offending spouse made in the will of the innocent one beyond the one-year period provided for in Article
shall be revoked by operation of law. 102 of the Civil Code and
● that the death of Carmen abated the action for
Doctrine: legal separation.
Action for legal separation is personal and death of a Counsel for deceased petitioner moved to substitute the
party before issuance of decree of legal separation deceased Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz.
abates the action,
Counsel for Eufemio opposed the motion.
Resulting changes in property relations between
The court issued an order dismissing the case.
spouses , being solely the effects of legal separation,
claims arising therefrom cannot survive the death of ● The question of whether or not the plaintiff's cause
plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree. of action has survived was resolved in the negative.
● The lower court did NOT act on the motion for
Declaration of nullity of marriage became moot and
substitution.
academic.
Although Eufemio filed counterclaims involving money
Notes: and properties, he did not pursue them after the court
dismissed the case.
● Carmen Lapuz Sy - wife who died during the
pendency of the actions. ● He acquiesced in the dismissal of said counterclaims
● Eufemio - husband who had a prior and subsisting by praying for the affirmance of the order that
marriage. dismissed -
● Macario Lapuz - self-assumed substitute of Carmen. ○ not only the petition for legal separation
● (Short case but full of Civil Law principles). ○ but also his counterclaim to declare the

Eufemio-Lapuz marriage to be null and void ab action, for the reason that death has settled the
initio. question of separation beyond all controversy and
deprived the court of jurisdiction, both over the persons
The self-assumed substitute of Carmen (her father
of the parties to the action and of the subject-matter of
Macario) filed the present case before the Court.
the action itself.
● stated the principal issue to be as follows: "When
The same rule is true of causes of action and suits for
an action for legal separation is converted by the
separation and maintenance.
counterclaim into one for a declaration of nullity of
a marriage, does the death of a party abate the
proceedings?" Resulting Changes in Property Relations Between
Spouses , Being Solely the Effects of Legal Separation,
Claims arising therefrom Cannot Survive the Death of
ISSUE: Plaintiff if it Occurs Prior to the Decree
1) Whether or not the cause of action for Legal The resulting changes in property relations between
Separation has survived? NO. spouses shows that they are solely the effect of the
2) Does the death of the plaintiff before final decree, decree of legal separation; hence, they cannot survive
in an action for legal separation, abate the action? YES. the death of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree.
3) If it does, will abatement also apply if the action Based on Article 106, the things mentioned therein are
involves property rights? YES. (Property Rights cannot vested exclusively in the persons of the spouses; and by
survive the death of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the their nature and intent, such claims and disabilities are
decree) difficult to conceive as assignable or transmissible.
A claim to said rights is not a claim that "is not thereby
RULING: extinguished" after a party dies, under Section 17, Rule
The issue as framed by petitioner injects into it a 3, of the Rules of Court, to warrant continuation of the
supposed conversion of a legal separation suit to one for action through a substitute of the deceased party.
declaration of nullity of a marriage, which is without The same result flows from a consideration of the
basis. The petition for legal separation and the enumeration of the actions that survive for or against
counterclaim to declare the nullity of the same marriage administrators in Section 1, Rule 87, of the Revised
can stand independent and separate adjudication. Rules of Court.
The rights are mere effects of a decree of separation,
Action for Legal Separation is Personal and Death of a
their source being the decree itself; without the decree
Party before Issuance of Decree of Legal Separation
such rights do not come into existence, so that before
Abates the Action
the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in
An action for legal separation which involves nothing expectation.
more than the bed-and-board separation of the spouses
(there being no absolute divorce in this jurisdiction) is Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Became Moot and
purely personal. Academic
The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes such fact in There could be no further interest in continuing the
its Article 100, by allowing only the innocent spouse same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the
(and no one else) to claim legal separation; and in its questioned union.
Article 108, by providing that the spouses can, by their
reconciliation, stop or abate the proceedings and even Any property rights acquired by either party as a result
rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered. of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines could
be resolved and determined in a proper action for
Being personal in character, it follows that the death of partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the
one party to the action causes the death of the action appellant.
itself - actio personalis moritur cum persona.
In fact, even if the bigamous marriage had not been void
When one of the spouses is dead, there is no need for ab initio but only voidable under Article 83, paragraph 2,
divorce, because the marriage is dissolved. The heirs of the Civil Code, because the second marriage had
cannot even continue the suit, if the death of the spouse been contracted with the first wife having been an
takes place during the course of the suit. The action is absentee for seven consecutive years, or when she had
absolutely dead. been generally believed dead, still the action for
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, the death of annulment became extinguished as soon as one of the
one of the parties to action for divorce abates the three persons involved had died, as provided in Article

87, paragraph 2, of the Code, requiring that the action
for annulment should be brought during the lifetime of
any one of the parties involved.
And furthermore, the liquidation of any conjugal
partnership that might have resulted from such voidable
marriage must be carried out "in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse", as expressly
provided in Section 2 of the Revised Rule 73, and not in
the annulment proceeding.

[16] BARITUA V. CA for the funeral expenses incurred by reason
thereof, and for the damage for the tricycle the
G.R. No. 82233
purchase price of which they only loaned to the
Date [March 22, 1990]
victim.
Ponente: [SARMIENTO, J]
Digest Author: [Dimla] After trial, the court a quo dismissed the complaint,
holding that:
Topic: ● the payment by the defendants (herein
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion petitioners) to the widow and her child, who are
the preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of
Relevant Law: the deceased Bienvenido to the exclusion of his
parents, the plaintiffs (herein private
Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose
respondents), extinguished any claim against the
favor the obligation has been constituted, or his
defendants (petitioners).
successor in interest, or any person authorized to
receive it. The appellate court ruled that the release executed by
Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario did not discharge the
Doctrine: liability of the petitioners because:
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased ● the case was instituted by the private respondents
succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate in their own capacity and
descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse ○ not as "heirs, representatives, successors, and
concurs with all classes of heirs. As it has been assigns" of Alicia; and
established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and ● Alicia could not have validly waived the damages
that they begot a child, the private respondents are not being prayed for (by the private respondents)
successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not since she was not the one who suffered these
compulsory heirs. damages arising from the death of their son.
● The petitioners "failed to rebut the testimony of
FACTS: the appellants (private respondents) that they
were the ones who bought the tricycle that was
In the evening of November 7, 1979, the tricycle then
damaged in the incident.
being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along the national
highway at Barangay San Cayetano, figured in an
accident with JB Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar ISSUES:
Bitancor and owned and operated by petitioner Jose Whether or not Baritua is still liable to pay damages to
Baritua. Nacario’s parents despite the extra-judicial settlement
with his wife. NO.
As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his
passenger died and the tricycle was damaged.
RULING:
As a consequence of the extra-judicial settlement of the
Obligations are extinguished by various modes among
matter negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer
them being by payment.
Bienvenido Nacario's widow, Alicia Baracena Vda. de
Nacario, received P18,500.00. There is no denying that the petitioners had paid their
obligation petition arising from the accident that
In consideration of the amount she received, Alicia
occurred on November 7, 1979.
executed on March 27, 1980 a "Release of Claim" in
favor of the petitioners and PFICI, releasing and forever The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the
discharging them from all actions, claims, and demands spouse and the one who received the petitioners'
arising from the accident payment, is entitled to it.
About one year and ten months from the date of the Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her
accident, the private respondents, who are the parents son with the deceased are the successors in interest
of Bienvenido Nacario, filed a complaint for damages referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive
against the petitioners. They alleged that - payment.
● during the vigil for their deceased son, the It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased
petitioners through their representatives promised succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate
them (the private respondents) that as descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse
extra-judicial settlement, concurs with all classes of heirs.
● they shall be indemnified for the death of their son,

As it has been established that Bienvenido was married
to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private
respondents are not successors-in-interest of
Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs.
The petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their
obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as
the natural guardian of their lone child.
● This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from
Bienvenido.
● Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of
the deceased spouse.
Neither could the private respondents, as alleged
creditors of Bienvenido, seek relief and compensation
from the petitioners.
While it may be true that the private respondents
loaned to Bienvenido the purchase price of the
damaged tricycle and shouldered the expenses for his
funeral, the said purchase price and expenses are but
money claims against the estate of their deceased son.

[17] SOLIVIO V. COURT OF APPEALS ● His mother brought to her marriage paraphernal
properties to Esteban Jr. including a house and lot
GR No. 83484
in La Paz, Iloilo City where they lived -
Date February 12, 1990
○ these properties were transferred to Esteban
Ponente: Medialdea
Jr.’s name
Digest Author: Dizon
● During his lifetime, Esteban Jr. had expressed to his
aunt Celedonia and some close friends his plan to
Topic: The Reserved Portion (Legitime) place his estate in a foundation to honor his mother
and to help poor but deserving students obtain a
Relevant Law: college education.
ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, ○ He died of heart attack without having set up
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral the foundation.
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the ○ Concordia and Celedonia talked about what to
deceased in accordance with the following articles. do with deceased’s properties
○ Celedonia told Concordia about deceased’s
ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, desire to set up a foundation using his estate
nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral and to be named after his mother, by which
relatives shall succeed to the estate. Concordia agreed to carry out.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or ○ The agreement is that Celedonia will take care
preference among them by reason of relationship by the of the proceedings leading to the formation of
whole blood. the foundation.
● Celedonia filed a proceeding for her appointment as
Doctrines: special administratrix of the estate of deceased.
○ She filed amended petition praying that letters
● If there is an agreement between co-heirs to place of administration be issued to her;
their share in a foundation (as the deceased ○ that she be declared sole heir of deceased; and
wished), the same shall be honored. ○ that after payment of all claims and rendition
● A petition for administration of a decedent’s estate of inventory and accounting, the estate be
may be filed by any interested person. adjudicated to her.
● Reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by → she was declared SOLE HEIR
an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it ● Celedonia sold properties of the estate to pay the
from another ascendant or a brother or sister. It taxes and other obligations of the deceased and
does not apply to property inherited by a proceeded to set the foundation which she caused
descendant from his ascendant. to be registered in the SEC
● 4 months after, Concordia filed MR of the court’s
Parties: order declaring Celedonia as the sole heir claiming
● Plaintiff: Concordia Villanueva (paternal aunt of that she is also an heir of the deceased → motion
Esteban Jr.) denied for tardiness
● Respondent: Celedonia Solivio (maternal aunt of ● Concordia filed for a Civil Case in the RTC Iloilo for
Esteban Jr.) partition, recovery of possession, ownership and
damages → RTC favored Concordia
● Celedonia filed motion for reconsideration averring
FACTS: that properties of deceased had already been
● This case involves the estate of the late novelist transferred to the foundation → RTC denied MR
Esteban Javellana Jr., author of the first post-war ● Celedonia appealed to CA → affirmed RTC decision
Filipino novel “Without Seeing the Dawn” who died ● Hence, this petition for review of the decision of the
a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, CA affirming the decision of the trial court for the
brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. partition, reconveyance of ownership and
● Only surviving relatives: possession and damages in favor of Concordia.
1) maternal aunt Celedonia, half-sister of his
mother; and
ISSUE/S:
2) paternal aunt Concordia, sister of his deceased
father, Esteban Sr. 1) WoN RTC had jurisdiction of the civil case for partition
○ Esteban Jr. is a posthumous (born after his and recovery of Concordia’s share of the estate of
father’s death) Esteban Jr. while the probate proceedings are still
○ He was brought up by his mother and his pending in the same court. [NO]
maternal aunt Celedonia

2) WoN Concordia is prevented from intervening due to Article 891 of the Civil Code provides:
extrinsic fraud. [NO]
The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
WoN properties were subject to reserva troncal in favor property which the latter may have acquired by
of Celedonia alone. [NO] gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or
sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have
3) WoN Concordia may recover her share of the estate
acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives
after she agreed to place the same in the foundation
who are within the third degree and who belong to the
(plus the fact that the foundation has already been
line from which said property came.
formed and properties have already been transferred).
[NO] Persons involved in reserva troncal are:
1. reservor - person obliged to reserve; the ascendant
RULING: who inherits, by operation of law, property from
1) No. descendants;
2. reservee/s - person/s for whom the property is
The settlement of the estate is still pending, there being reserved; relatives within the 3rd degree counted
no orders for the submission and approval of the from the descendant and belonging to the line from
administratrix’s inventory and accounting, distributing which the property came; and
the residue of the estate to the heir and terminating the 3. propositus - descendant who received by gratuitous
proceedings. title and died without issue, making his other
It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the ascendant inherit by operation of law.
residue of the estate to the persons entitled thereto The property of deceased is not reservable property for
that closes the intestate proceedings. deceased was not an ascendant but the descendant of
The assailed order declaring Celedonia as sole heir of his mother from whom he inherited the properties in
the estate of Esteban Jr. did not toll the end of the question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance
proceedings. subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt Celedonia
who is his relative within the 3rd degree on his mother’s
Thus, Concordia’s motion to set aside the order side.
declaring Celedonia as sole heir and to have herself
declared as co-heir and recover her share of the The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an
properties of the deceased was properly filed. ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from
another ascendant or a brother or sister. It does not
For orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and a apply to property inherited by a descendant from his
conflicting disposition of a decedent’s estate, a court ascendant.
should not interfered with probate proceedings pending
in a co-equal court. Since deceased dies without descendants, ascendant,
illegitimate children or surviving spouse, brothers,
2) No. sisters, nephews or nieces, Articles 1003 and 1009
Concordia stayed away by choice. She knew that the should apply:
estate came exclusively from Esteban Jr.’s mother and ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants,
she agreed with Celedonia to place it in a foundation as illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral
the deceased had planned to do. relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
Celedonia’s omission of stating Concordia as her co-heir deceased in accordance with the following articles.
did not constitute extrinsic fraud because her allegation ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters,
that she was the sole heir within the 3rd degree on the nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral
mother side is true. It was made in good faith and in the relatives shall succeed to the estate.
honest belief that since the properties came from
Esteban Jr.’s mother (Celedonia’s sister), she is the The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
nearest surviving relative on his mother’s side and is the preference among them by reason of relationship by the
rightful heir to them. whole blood.
A petition for administration of a decedent’s estate may The CA is correct in holding that plaintiff and
be filed by any interested person. Thus, the filing of respondent being relatives of deceased within the 3rd
Celedonia’s petition did not preclude Concordia’s filing degree in the collateral line shall succeed to the estate
of her own. without distinction of line or preference among them by
reason of relationship by the whole blood and is entitled
3) No. ½ share each of the estate.

4) No.
Concordia is obligated to commit to her agreement to
deliver the estate of deceased to the foundation. While
it is true that she did not waiver her inheritance in favor
of Celedonia, she agreed to place all of Esteban Jr.’s
estate in the foundation which he planned to set up. She
confirmed this admission in her Motion to Reopen
and/or Reconsider Order and was never withdrawn or
impugned. Her husband even confirmed this agreement
but said that his wife did not intend to give all but only
½ of her share to the foundation.
Petition for review granted. RTC and CA decisions are
set aside. Concordia is declared an heir of deceased and
is entitled to ½ of his estate. Plaintiff and respondent
are trustees of the foundation.

[18] PADURA V. BALDOVINO
GR No. L-11960
Date DECEMBER 27, 1958
Ponente: REYES, JBL,J.,
Digest Author: Ramos
Topic:
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion
Reserva Troncal: (little backgrounder coz this topic is

mej magulo)
In reserva troncal,
(1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous
title property from an ascendant or from a brother or
sister;
(2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant
or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said
descendant, and
(3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property
for the benefit of relatives who are within the third
degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and
who belong to the line from which the said property
came.
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 (origin); (back to the Case...)
(2) a posterior transmission, by operation of law
Relevant Law:
(intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased
descendant (causante de la reserva) in favor of another Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
ascendant (the reservor or reservista), which two descendant any property which the latter may have
transmissions precede the reservation; and acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or
a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
(3) a third transmission of the same property (in he may have acquired by operation of law for the
consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and
the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the who belong to the line from which said property came.
third degree from the deceased descendant belonging
to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the
Doctrine:
deceased descendant.
The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily
to assure the return of the reservable property to the
third degree relatives belonging to the line from which
the property originally came, and avoid its being
dissipated into and by their relatives of the inheriting
ascendant (reservista).

○ His heirs were his legitimate children (the
Parties: appellees) Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio,
Francisco, Juana and Severino, all surnamed
Padura.
● Benita Garing (the reservista) died.
● The children of Candelaria and Fortunato took
possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable
properties).
● CFI Laguna issued a resolution declaring the
legitimate children of Manuel and Candelaria are
the rightful reserves and as such entitled to the 4
parcels of land.
● The Baldovinos filed this present petition wherein
they seek to have the properties partitioned such
that -
○ one-half of the same be adjudicated to them,
○ the other half to the Paduras
○ on the basis that they inherited by right of
representation from their respective parents,
the original reserves.
1 ○ The Baldovinos contend that notwithstanding
the rule on Reservable character of the
property under Art. 891, the reservatarios
FACTS:
nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a
● Agustin Padura (the origin) married twice. share twice as large as that of the others
○ His first wife was Gervacio Landig with whom pursuant to Art. 10062, Art. 10083 on intestate
he had one child named Manuel Padura. succession.
○ His second wife was Benita Garing with whom ● The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all
he had 2 children named Fortunato and (all 11 of them) be deemed inheriting in their own
Candelaria Padura right hence, they should have equal shares.
○ He died in 1908 leaving a last will and ● TC rendered judgment declaring them all reservees
testament duly probated wherein - without distinction and have equal shares over the
■ he bequeathed his properties among his properties as co-owners, pro indiviso.
children, Manuel, Candelaria and
Fortunato, and his surviving spouse Benita
ISSUES:
(2nd wife).
■ Fortunato was adjudicated 4 parcels of In a case of reserva troncal, where the only
land under the probate proceedings (this is reservatarios (reservees) surviving the reservista, and
when Fortunato became the propositus). belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the
● Fortunato died unmarried and without having descendant (prepositus), but some are nephews of the
executed a will; and not having any issue, half blood and the others are nephews of the whole
○ the 4 parcels of land were inherited exclusively blood, should the reserved properties be apportioned
by Benita (this is when Benita became the among them equally, or should the nephews of the
reservista). whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the
● Benita applied for and later was issued a Torrens nephews of the half blood?
Certificate of Title in her name,
○ BUT subject to the condition that the RULING:
properties were reservable in favor of relatives The nephews of the whole blood get twice the share.
within the 3rd degree belonging to the line from
which the property came (Fortunato) The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily
● Candelaria (Fortunato’s “full” sister) died - to assure the return of the reservable property to the
○ leaving as her heirs her 4 legitimate children
(the appellants) Cristeta, Melania, Anicia and
Pablo all surnamed Baldovino
2
Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive
together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall
● Manuel (Fortunato’s half brother) also died. be entitled to a share double that of the latter.
3
Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall
succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid
1
*Nephews and Nieces down for brothers and sisters of the full blood.

third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the same degree.
the property originally came, and avoid its being ● Their shares should be governed by the ordinary
dissipated into and by their relatives of the inheriting rules of intestate succession.
ascendant (reservista). ● Upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the
reservable property should pass, not to all
Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the reservatarios as a class, but only to those nearest in
relatives of Fortunato up to the third degree will get the degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding
reservable property after his mother dies. The children those reseravatarios more remote in degree.
of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the ● And within the third degree of relationship from the
property by way of right of representation. But after descendant (prepositus), the right of representation
applying the rule, the reservatarios and their operates in favor of nephews (Florentino vs.
relationship will be considered in determining their Florentino)
shares. The rules on ordinary intestate succession would
be followed after the reservatarios have been Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate
determined. succession, when there are relatives of the descendant
within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative,
Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his called reservatario, over the property which the
descendant any property which the latter may have reservista (person holding it subject to reservation)
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or should return to him, excludes that of the one more
a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as remote.
he may have acquired by operation of law for the ● The right of representation cannot be alleged when
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and the one claiming the same as a reservatario of the
who belong to the line from which said property came. property is not among those relatives within the
third degree belonging to the line from which the
● The motives for such rule were explained by D. property came.
Manuel Alonso Martinez in his book “El Codigo Civil ● Relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees
en sus relaciones con Las Legislaciones Forales” can never be considered as reservatarios, since the
law does not recognize them as such.
○ [Summary of not so good translation]: consider ● But there is right of representation on the part of
this sample case: father dies leaving his wife reservatarios who are within the third degree
and lone son as heirs. Wife remarries and had mentioned by law as in the case of nephews of the
children with 2nd husband. Lone son dies and deceased person from whom the reservable
his mother (wife) inherits whatever he got from property came
the father. In case the wife dies, the relatives of
the lone son are prejudiced since the wife’s Proximity of degree and right of representation are
children from the second marriage will inherit basic principles of intestate succession so is the rule that
the properties of the lone son as opposed to his whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a
uncle (father’s brother). share double that of brothers and nephews of
○ The code commission chose to give more half-blood.
importance to lineal succession than the ● In determining the rights of the reservatarios inter
presumed affection of the deceased. se, proximity of degree and the right of
○ The commission settled with the suggestion of representation of nephews are made to apply, the
Manresa, among others, to reserve the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of
property in case the ascendants inherit in favor the whole blood should likewise be operative.
of relatives up to the third degree. No reason
was given why 3rd degree. Reserva Troncal merely determines the group pof
○ Aside from the sample case, another reason relatives to whom the property should be returned
why this rule was adopted was to make it the (reservatarios).
law more democratic (Democracy was ● Within the group, the individual right to the
becoming a trend when the civil code was property should be decided by applicable rules of
being made by the Spaniards). ordinary intestate succession (since art. 891 is silent
on the matter).
The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the
property has devolved to the specified relatives of the Reserva Troncal is an exceptional case and its
line of origin. application should be limited to what is strictly needed
● After that, Art. 891 has nothing to do with the to accomplish the purpose of the law
relations between one reservatario and another of

Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the
reservatarios could compel the annotation of their right Appealed order REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Whole blood
(over the property) in the registry of property (Edroso nephews will get twice the share of those who are
vs. Sablan). This right is incompatible with the mere nephews of Half-blood.
expectancy that corresponds to the natural heirs of the
reservista. Let the records be remanded to the court below for
further proceedings in accordance with this decision.
The reservable property is no part of the estate of the
reservista, who may not dispose of them by will, so long
as there are reservatarios existing.
The latter, therefore, do not inherit from the reservist,
but from the descendant prepositus, of whom the
reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa, subject to the
condition that they must survive the reservista.
Had the nephews of whole and half-blood succeeded

the prepositus directly, those of full-blood would
undoubtedly receive a double share compared to those
of the half-blood (Arts. 1008 and 1006.) Why then
should the latter receive equal shares simply because
the transmission of the property was delayed by the
interregnum of the reserva? The decedent (causante)
the heirs and their relationship being the same, there is
no cogent reason why the hereditary portions should
vary.
(this is a case of first impression so sabi ng Court, in fair

sa trial court conflicting naman talaga yung opinions
about this so understandable nagkamali ang trial court
lol):
It should be stated, in justice to the trial court, that its

opinion is supported by distinguished commentators of
the Civil Code of 1889, among them Sanchez Román and
Mucius Scaevola. The reason given by these authors is
that the reservatarios are called by law to take the
reservable property because they belong to the line of
origin; and not because of their relationship.
But the argument, if logically pursued, would lead to the

conclusion that the property should pass to any and all
the reservatarios, as a class, and in equal shares,
regardless of lines and degrees.
But, as we have seen, the Supreme Courts of Spain and

of the Philippines have rejected that view, and consider
that the reservable property should be succeeded by
the reservatario who is nearest in degree, according to
the basic rules of intestacy.
Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this

despite the contrary opinions of authors such as Sanchez
Roman and Mucius Scaevola.
Reason and policy favor keeping to a minimum the

alterations introduced by the reserva in the basic rules
of succession mortis causa.

[19] ENCARNACION FLORENTINO V. MERCEDES FLORENTINO ● Miguel Florentino as guardian ad litem of Rosario
● Eugenio Florentino father and as guardian ad litem
GR No. 14856
of Emilia, Jesus, Lourdes, Caridad and Dolores of
Date November 15, 1919
Singson y Florentino
Ponente: Torres, J.
Digest Author: LAI RESPONDENT:
● Mercedes Florentino
Topic: Reserva Troncal ● Apolonio III
Relevant Law: Other parties:

Article 811 CC: Any ascendant who inherits from his
● Apolonio Florentino II – father of Petitioners
descendant any property acquired by the latter
● Antonia Faz De Leon – 1st wife of Apolonio
gratuitously from some other ascendant, or from a
● Severina Faz – 2nd wife of Apolonio II
brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such of the
property as he may have acquired by operation of law
for the benefit of relatives within the third degree FACTS:
belonging to the line from which such property came. ● Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II and Antonia got
married (1st wife) and begot nine children
Doctrine: (petitioners)
● After becoming a widower Apolonio married the
● First, with respect to the right of representation
Severina Faz de Leon (2nd wife) with whom he had
accorded the reservee, the same may be exercised
two children, Mercedes and Apolonio III
only by such person seeking to represent if he
● After that Apolonio II died and was survived by his
himself is a relative within the third degree of the
second wife Severina Faz de Leon and the 11
prepositus.
children mentioned above (Apolonio being the 11th
● Second, Florentino rejected the theory that if the
was born after Apolonio died)
reservable property does not fall into the hands of
● Apolonio II before his death executed a will
strangers, then the reserva is not applicable. Thus,
instituting as his universal heirs his
whether or not the reservable property was
aforementioned 11 children and his widow
devised or willed by the reservor to a relative of
Severina Faz de Leon.
the prepositus coming from the same line as the
● In the partition of the said testator's estate,
origin, the reservable nature of the property is not
Apolonio III was given 6 parcels of land marked
lost. From this principle arises an inference that
with the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F in the
the reservable property is not part of the estate of
complaint, a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver
the reservor upon his demise.
and of table service, livestock, palay, some
● Third, there is an affirmation that the title of the
personal property and other objects mentioned in
reservor to the reservable property is not in the
the complaint.
nature of full dominion, by reason of the
● Apolonio III died and his mother, Severina Faz de
reservation provided by law. However, there is
Leon, succeeded to all his property described in
serious doubt as to the validity of this proposition
the complaint
in the light of the more recent pronouncements of
● Severina Faz de Leon subsequently died leaving a
the Court. That the reservor is a mere usufructuary
will instituting as her universal heiress her only
(as intimated in Florentino), is contradicted by
living daughter, Mercedes Florentino
later decisions characterizing the title of the
● As such heir, Mercedes took possession of all the
reservor to the reservable property as absolute
property left at the death of her mother, including
but possessed with a resolutory condition.
the property inherited by Severina from Apolonio
III, which is said to be reservable property.
Parties: Accordingly, Mercedes had been gathering the
PETITIONERS: fruits of the parcels of land.
● The children of Apolonio II by his first wife, as well
● Encarnacion Florentino
as his grandchildren by the first marriage,
● Gabriel Florentino
instituted an action for recovery of their share of
● Magdalena Florentino
the reservable property.
● Ramon Florentino
● Miguel Florentino
Argument of Respondent:
● Victorino Florentino
● The provision being cited by the petitioners is
● Antonio Florentino
inapplicable in trying to recover their alleged

share by right of representation, all are entitled as
● The object of the provision is to avoid the reservees.
transfer of said reservable property to those ● The properties in question came from the common
extraneous to the family of the owner. ancestor, Apolonio II, and when, on the death of
● However, in the present case, the property Apolonio III without issue, the same passed by
inherited by the widow Severina from her operation of law into the hands of his legitimate
deceased son Apolonio III which originated mother, Severina
from their father has all passed into her hands, ○ It became reservable property with the object
and being a legitimate heir, it didn’t pass into that the same should not fall into the
the hands of possession of persons other than those
comprehended within the order of succession
ISSUES: traced by the law from Apolonio II, the origin
of the property.
1) WON the property contested is of the nature of
● Severina could have disposed in her will all her
reservable property – YES
own property in favor of her only living daughter,
2) WON the 2nd wife Faz de Leon had the obligation to
Mercedes, as forced heir.
preserve and reserve the property she inherited for the
● But the provision concerning the reservable
relatives w/in the 3rd degree – YES
property reducing the rights of the other reserves
is null and void inasmuch as said property is not
RULING:
her own and she has only the right of usufruct or
of fiduciary, with the right to deliver the same to
● Even if Severina left in her will said property,
the reserves.
together with her own, to her only daughter and
● Reservable property neither comes nor falls under
forced heiress, Mercedes, this property had not
the absolute dominion of the ascendant who
lost its reservable nature inasmuch as it originated
inherits and receives the same from his
from the common ancestor of the litigants,
descendant, therefore, it does not form part of his
Apolonio II and was inherited by his son Apolonio
property nor become the legitime of his forced
III and subsequently was transmitted by operation
heirs.
of law to his legitimate mother and ascendant,
● It becomes his own property only in case all the
Severina Faz de Leon.
relatives of his descendant died, in which case, the
● Although said property was inherited by his
said reservable property loses such character.
mother, Severina Faz de Leon, nevertheless, she
was in duty bound, according to article 811 of the
Civil Code, to reserve the property thus acquired
for the benefit of the relatives, within the third
degree, of the line from which such property
came.
● Ascendants do not inherit the reservable property,
but its enjoyment, use or trust, merely for the
reason that said law imposes the obligation to
reserve and preserve same for certain designated
persons who, on the death of the said ascendants
reservists, acquire the ownership of said property
in fact and by operation of law in the same manner
as forced heirs—
○ said property reverts to said line as long as the
aforementioned persons who, from the death
of the ascendant-reservists, acquire in fact the
right of reservatarios ( person for whom
property is reserved), and are relatives, within
the third degree, of the descendant from
whom the reservable property came.
● All of the petitioners are relatives of the
posthumous son within the third degree (four as
half-siblings and 12 as his nephews and nieces).
○ As the first four are his relatives within the
third degree in their own right and the others

[20] EDROSO VS. SABLAN oppose the registration.
● Either that the registration be denied,
GR No. 6878
● "or that if granted to her the right reserved by
Date: 1913-Sept-13
law to the opponents be recorded in the
Ponente: ARELLANO, C.J.
registration of each parcel."
It is undisputed that:
Topic: (1) The applicant Marcelina Edroso acquired said lands
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion from her descendant Pedro Sablan by inheritance;
(2) Pedro Sablan had acquired them from his ascendant
Relevant Law: Victoriano Sablan, likewise by inheritance;
Art. 811. "The ascendant who inherits from his
(3) Victoriano Sablan had likewise acquired them by
descendant property which the latter acquired without
inheritance from his ascendants, Mariano Sablan and
a valuable consideration from another ascendant, or
Maria Rita Fernandez, they having been adjudicated to
from a brother or sister, is under obligation to reserve
him in the partition of hereditary property had between
what he has acquired by operation of law for the
him and his brothers.
relatives who are within the third degree and belong to
the line whence the property proceeded." Marcelina Edroso alleges:
● that it is not proven that the two parcels of land in
Doctrine: question have been acquired by operation of law,
Reserva troncal: If the mother acquired the son's and that only property acquired without a valuable
properties, not by operation of law, but by testamentary consideration, which is by operation of law, is
disposition (will), only the legitime portion would be required by law to be reserved.
required to be reserved. ○ the appellees justly argue that this defense
was not alleged or discussed in first instance,
No prescription of the right of action to have the
but only herein.
reservation right recorded in the registry.
● the prescription of the opponents' right of action
Nature of ownership over the inherited property by the for requiring the recording in the property registry
person who holds it subject to the reservation. of the reservation right in their favor.
● that “the Mortgage Law grants a period of time for
Parties/Notes: recording it in the property registry, i.e. ninety
days,... The right of action for requiring that the
● Marcelina Edroso married to Victoriano Sablan.
property be reserved has not prescribed, but the
● Victoriano Sablan - husband (who died).
right of action for guaranteeing in the property
● Pedro (who died) - son of Marcelina and Victoriano.
registry that this property is required by law to be
● Marcelina applied for registration of parcels of land.
reserved.”
● Uncles (within the third degree of blood
○ but as they have not exercised that right of
relationship) of Pedro - who opposed the
action, such right of action for seeking here
registration.
that it be recorded has prescribed.
FACTS: The Court of Land Registration denied the registration

on the grounds -
Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until
● that the parcels of land partake of the nature of
his death on September 22, 1882.
property required by law to be reserved and
● They had a son named Pedro, who at his father's
● that application could only be presented jointly in
death, inherited two parcels of land in Pagsanjan,
the names of the mother and the said two uncles
Laguna.
of Pedro Sablan.
○ Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried
and without issue.
The trial court denied the registration, holding that:
● Thus the two parcels of land passed through
● "Absolute title to the two parcels of land
inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso.
undoubtedly belongs to the applicant and the two
uncles of the deceased Pedro Sablan, and the
Marcelina Edroso applied for registration and issuance
application cannot be made except in the name of
of title to the two parcels of land.
all of them in common."
Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan - two
Hence, the present appeal.
uncles german of Pedro - appeared in the case to

what he would have perforce left her as the legal
ISSUES: portion of a legitimate ascendant.
Whether Marcelina has the duty to reserve the parcel of In such case only the half constituting the legal portion
lands for the uncles? [YES] would be required by law to be reserved, because it is
what by operation of law would fall to the mother from
Whether Marcelina is entitled to register in her own her son's inheritance; the other half at free disposal
name the two parcels of land, recording in the would not have to be reserved.)
registration the right required by article 811 to be
In this case, the two parcels of land are required by law
reserved? [YES]
to be reserved, because the applicant party has not
proven that either of them became her inheritance
RULING: through the free disposal of her son.
Proof of testate succession devolves upon the heir or
Reserva troncal heiress who alleges it. It must be admitted that a half of
Pedro Sablan's inheritance was acquired by his mother
It is undisputed that hereditary title is one without a
by operation of law.
valuable consideration [gratuitous title], and the uncles
german are within the third degree of blood The law provides that the other half is also presumed to
relationship. be acquired by operation of law ---- that is, by intestate
succession. Otherwise, proof to offset this presumption
"The ascendant who inherits from his descendant
must be presented by the interested party, that is, that
property which the latter acquired without a valuable
the other half was acquired by the man's wish and not
consideration from another ascendant, or from a
by operation of law.
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
Nature of ownership over the inherited property by
whence the property proceeded." (Civil Code, art. 811.)
the person who holds it subject to the reservation
Having acquired the lands by operation of law,
The ascendants who inherits from a descendant,
Marcelina Edroso, is obligated to reserve the lands
whether by the latter's wish or by operation of law,
intact for the claimants, who are uncles or relatives
acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
within the third degree and belong to the line of
transferring absolute ownership.
Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the
lands proceeded. All the attributes of the right of ownership belong to
him exclusively ---- use, enjoyment, disposal and
The trial court's ruling that they partake of the nature of
recovery.
property required by law to be reserved is therefore in
accordance with the law. If there should be relatives within the third decree who
belong to the line whence the property proceeded, then
When Pedro Sablan died without issue, his mother
a limitation to that absolute ownership would arise.
became his heir by virtue of her right to her son's legal
portion under article 935 of the Civil Code (legitime by The nature and scope of this limitation must be
operation of law). determined with exactness in order not to vitiate rights
that the law wishes to be effective.
● The legal presumption is that the transfer of the
two parcels of land was abintestate or by operation The person required by article 811 to reserve the right
of law, and not by will or the wish of the has the rights of use and usufruct. He has, moreover,
predecessor in interest. the legal title and dominion, although under a condition
● All the provisions of article 811 of the Civil Code subsequent.
have therefore been fully complied with.
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.
If the mother acquired the son's properties, not by
operation of law, but by testamentary disposition He has the right to recover it, because he is the one who
(will), only the legitime portion would be required to possesses or should possess it and have title to it,
be reserved although a limited and revocable one.
(If Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will as the In a word, the legal title and dominion, even though
universal heiress of his property, all he left at death under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After the
would not be required by law to be reserved, but only right required by law to be reserved has been assured,

he can do anything that a genuine owner can do. No prescription of the right of action to have the
reservation right recorded in the registry
On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree
in whose favor the right is reserved cannot dispose of The parties agree that the period of ninety days to
the property, require the mortgage that guarantees the effectiveness
of the right required by law to be reserved, has
● first because it is no way, either actually,
prescribed.
constructively or formally, in their possession; and,
● moreover, because they have no title of ownership However, it should be noted that such action has not
or of fee simple which they can transmit to prescribed, because the period of ninety days fixed by
another, the Mortgage Law is NOT for the exercise of the right of
○ on the hypothesis that only when the person action of the persons entitled to the right reserved, but
who must reserve the right should die before for the fulfillment of the obligation of the person who
them will they acquire it, thus creating a fee must make the reservation.
simple, and
The lapse of the ninety days is not the expiration by
○ only then will they take their place in the
prescription of the period for the exercise of this right of
succession of the descendant of whom they
action by the persons in whose favor the right must be
are relatives within the third degree.
reserved, but really the commencement thereof, and
The heir of the property required by law to be reserved, enables them to exercise it at any time, since no limit is
merely because a condition subsequent is annexed to set in the law.
his right of disposal, [can] himself alone register the
So, if the annotation of the right required by law to be
ownership of the property he has inherited, when the
reserved in the two parcels of land in question must be
persons in whose favor the reservation must be made
made in the property registry of the Mortgage Law, the
agree thereto, provided that the right reserved to them
persons entitled to it may now institute proceedings to
in the two parcels of land be recorded, as the law
that end.
provides.
The prescription of the right of action cannot take place,
In view of the foregoing, the court declared that the
because such right of action does not exist with
applicant is entitled to register in her own name the two
reference to instituting proceedings for annotation in
parcels of land, recording in the registration the right
the registry of Act No. 496 of the right to the property
required by article 811 to be reserved to either or both
required by law to be reserved.
of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan,
should they survive her. It is sufficient, as was done in the present case, to
intervene in the registration proceedings with the claim
set up by the two opponents for recording therein the
The uncles did NOT renounce the right to be reserved. right reserved in either parcel of land.
Marcelina attributes that the uncles have renounced
their right to be reserved, and the trial court failed to
sustain such renunciation.
Marcelina deduces it from the fact that the appellees
did not contradict her statement at the trial:
"The day after my brother-in-law Pablo Sablan died and
was buried, his brother came to my house and said that
those rice lands were mine, because we had already
talked about making delivery of them"
Such renunciation does not appear in the case.
The other brother alluded to is Basilio Sablan. From the
fact that Basilio Sablan said that the lands belong to the
appellant and must be delivered to her it cannot be
deduced that he renounced the right required by law to
be reserved in such lands by virtue of the provisions of
article 811 of the Civil Code, for they really belong to her
and must be delivered to her.

[21] SIENES V. ESPARCIA ● Francisco’s mother, being Francisco’s sole heir,
GR. No: L-12957 executed the public instrument entitled
Ponente: DIZON, J. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE.
Digest Author: Lo ○ She sold the property to the appellants for 800
pesos.
Topic: Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion ● Thereafter, vendees demanded Paulina Yaeso and
her husband Jose Esparcia, the surrender of Original
Relevant Law:
Certificate of Title No. 10275 — which was in their
Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his possession —
descendant any property which the latter may have ○ the latter refused, thus giving rise to the filing
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or of the corresponding motion in the cadastral
a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as record No. 507.
he may have acquired by operation of law for the ● Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, surviving half-sisters of
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and Francisco, and
who belong to the line from which said property came. ○ who declared the property in their name,
○ executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses
Doctrine:
Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes.
In connection with reservable property, the weight of ■ Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes, in turn,
opinion is that the reserve creates two resolutory declared it in their name for tax purposes.
conditions, namely, ● Appellants commenced this action below to secure
judgment
(1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and
(1) declaring null and void the sale executed by
(2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives
Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of
within the third degree belonging to the line from which
appellees, the spouses Fidel Esparcia and
the property came.
Paulina Sienes;
Parties:
(2) ordering the Esparcia spouses to reconvey
Saturnino Yaeso – Original owner of the properties in
to appellants Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey
controversy
of Ayuquitan (now Amlan), Oriental Negros;
Teresa Ruales – 1st wife of Saturnino Yaeso
and
Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana – Children of
Saturnino and Teresa (3) ordering all the appellees to pay, jointly and
Andrea Gutang – 2nd wife of Saturnino severally, to appellants the sum of P500.00 as
Francisco – Only child of Saturnino and Andrea damages, plus the costs of suit.
● Appellees argued that -
Facts:
○ properties in question was never in the
● Saturnino Yaeso & possession of appellants,
○ his first wife, Teresa Ruales, had 4 children ○ the truth being that appellees, as owners, had
named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, been in continuous possession thereof since
○ while with his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he the death of Francisco Yaeso.
had an only son named Francisco. ○ Furthermore, appellees stressed that Paulina
● According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the and Cipriana Yaeso, as the only surviving heirs
properties left by Saturnino upon his death — the of Francisco Yaeso, executed a public
date of which does not clearly appear of record — instrument of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel
were left to his children as follows: Esparcia and Paulina Sienes,
○ Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to Fernando, ■ the said sale having been registered
○ Lot 3375 to Agaton, together with an affidavit of adjudication
○ Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina, and executed by Paulina and Cipriana on July
○ Lot 3368 (western portion) to Francisco. 18, 1951, as sole surviving heirs of the
● Due to the cadastral proceedings, OCT#10275 aforesaid deceased;
covering Lot 3368 was issued in the name of ■ that since then the Esparcias had been in
Francisco. possession of the property as owners.
● However, since Francisco was still a minor, his ● Trial Court ruled that the sale made by Paulina and
mother administered the property for him, and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of defendants Fidel Esparcia
declared it in her name for taxation purposes. and Paulina Sienes involving the same lot is also
● Francisco died on May 29, 1932 at the age of 20, void & that reservable property in question is part
single and without a decedent. of and must be reverted to the estate of Cipriana

Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of The reserve instituted by law in favor of the heirs within
Francisco Yaeso at the death of Andrea Gutang as of the third degree belonging to the line from which the
December 13, 1951. reservable property came, constitutes a real right which
● Sps. Sienes appealed. the reservee may alienate and dispose of, albeit
conditionally, the condition being that the alienation
shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when
Issue 1: the reservee survives the person obliged to reserve. In
the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees,
WON the land in question was a Reservable property? –
was still alive when Andrea Gutang, the person obliged
YES.
to reserve, died.
Ruling 1:
Thus the former became the absolute owner of the
The land in question was reservable property. reservable property upon Andrea's death.
Francisco Yaeso inherited it by operation of law from his While it may be true that the sale made by her and her
father Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death, unmarried sister prior to this event, became effective because of
and without descendants, it was inherited, in turn, by the occurrence of the resolutory condition, we are not
his mother, Andrea Gutang. now in a position to reverse the appealed decision, in so
far as it orders the reversion of the property in question
The latter was, therefore, under obligation to reserve it
to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees —
for the benefit of relatives within the third degree
the Esparcia spouses did — not appeal therefrom.
belonging to the line from which said property came, if
any survived her.
The record discloses in this connection that Andrea
Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee
surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on
January 13, 1952.
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.
This Court has held in connection with this matter that
the reservista has the legal title and dominion to the
reservable property but subject to a resolutory
condition;
that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable
property;
that he may alienate the same but subject to
reservation, said alienation transmitting only the
revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists,
the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or
resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of
the death of the reservista.
Issue 2:
WON the sale executed by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in
favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes
was subject to a similar resolutory condition? – YES.
Ruling 2:

[22] GONZALEZ V. CFI Benito Legarda Y Tuason.
● Filomena Roces Legarda died. Her will was admitted
GR No. L-34395
to probate.
Date: May 19, 1981
● One of her daughters—Beatriz (now surnamed
Ponente: J. Aquino
Gonzalez)—filed a motion to exclude from the
Digest Author: Abby Martinez
inventory of the properties of her mother’s estate
the properties inherited from daughter Filomena as
Topic: Reserva Troncal (also called lineal familiar, they ought to be received by them (the 6 surviving
extraordinaria or semi-troncal) siblings) and not by the children of Benito,
Alejandro, and Jose alone.
Relevant Law: ● Beatriz says that the subject properties are
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable reservable properties which their mother (Filomena
properties should be inherited by all the nearest Roces Legarda) cannot bequeath in her holographic
relatives within the third degree from the prepositus will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her 6
surviving children. But lower court dismissed
Doctrine: Beatriz’s claims.
● The children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose claims
The reservable property is not part of the estate of the that Filomena Roces Legarda acquired the subject
reservor who may not dispose of it by will, so long as properties in exchange for her conjugal and
there are reservees existing. hereditary shares in the estate of husband, Benito
Legarda Y de la Paz. They also contend that Beatriz
Parties: is now barred by estoppel, laches and prescription.
ISSUES:
WON the disputed properties are reservable under Art
891 (reserva troncal) in the hands of Filomena Roces
Legarda - YES
WON Filomena Roces Legarda could dispose them in her
FACTS: will in favor of the 16 grandchildren to the exclusion of
the 6 surviving children - NO
● Benito Legarda Y De la Paz was survived by his
widow (Filomena Roces) and their 7 children.
● The properties left by Benito Legarda Y Tuason RULING:
were partitioned in 3 equal portions by his
children--Consuelo, Rita and Benito Legarda Y De la Properties were reservable in the hands of Filomena
Paz (represented by son Benito Roces Legarda) Roces Legarda and she cannot convey the same to the
● Filomena (daughter) died intestate and without 16 grandchildren.
issue. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena In reserva troncal, three transmissions are involved:
Roces Legarda
● Filomena Roces Legarda then executed an affidavit 1. Transmission by lucrative title
extrajudicially adjudicating unto herself the (inheritance/donation) from an
properties left by daughter Filomena: ascendant/brother/sister to the deceased
○ Savings deposit in National City Bank of New 2. Posterior transmission, by operation of law
York (intestate succession or legitime) from the
○ Shares in Benguet Mining Company deceased descendant (causante de la reserva) in
○ Other lands in Manila, Baguio and Tayabas favor of another ascendant, the reservor or
● By virtue of this affidavit, Filomena Roces Legarda reservista, which two transmissions precede the
became co-owner of the properties held pro reservation,
indiviso by the other six children. 3. A third transmissions of the same property (in
● Filomena Roces Legarda executed two handwritten consequence of the reservation) from the reservor
documents wherein she disposed the properties to the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives
inherited from daughter Filomena in favor of the 16 within the third degree from the deceased
children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose (so descendant belonging to the line of the first
grandchildren na ni Filomena Roces Legarda). ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased
● In the meantime, Filomena Roces Legarda and her 6 descendant
children partitioned the 1/3 part of the estate of

Four persons are involved:
1. Ascendant or brother or sister from whom the
properties were received by the descendant by
lucrative title;
2. Descendant (prepositus) who received them;
3. Reservor (reservista) who obtained property from
the prepositus;
4. Reservee (reservatorio) who is within the 3rd
degree from deceased descendant (perepositus)
and within the line (linea o tronco) from which
property came and for whom the property should
be reserved.
Identifying in this case:
1. Properties inherited from Filomena’s father and
grandfather
2. Filomena (daughter/prepositus) received the
properties
3. Filomena Roces Legarda (mother/reservor)
obtained the properties from Filomena
(daughter/prepositus)
4. Reservees within the 3rd degree from Filomena
(daughter/prepositus)
a. Six siblings of Filomena - 2nd degree
b. 16 grandchildren of Filomena Roces Legarda - 3rd
degree
HOWEVER - 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 o
f Mrs.
Filomena Roces Legarda.
● She cannot convey the reservable properties to her
16 grandchildren since these 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 (the 6 siblings) survived the reservor
● The reservees, as heirs, inherit the properties from
the prepositus and not from the reservor.
● Allowing the reservor to make a testamentary
disposition of the reservable properties in favor of
reservees in the 3rd degree, while ignoring the 2nd
degree, is a violation of Art 891.
● Filomena Roces Legarda’s death did not extinguish
the reservable character of the properties since
during that time, the reserves belong to the 2nd
and 3rd degrees.

[23] MARIA CANO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, EUSTAQUIA ○ alleging the death of the original registered
GUERRERO, ET AL.,. JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL. owner and reservista, Maria Cano, on
September 8, 1955, and
GR No. G.R. No. L-10701.
○ praying that the original Certificate of Title be
Date January 16, 1959.
ordered cancelled and a new one issued in
favor of movant Eustaquia Guerrero and that
Ponente: REYES, J.B.L., J.
the Sheriff be ordered to place her in
Digest Author: Doms
possession of the property.
● The motion was opposed by Jose and Teotimo
Topic: The Reserved Portion (Legitime) - Reserva Troncal Fernandez, sons of the reservista Maria Cano, who
contended that -
Relevant Law: Article 891 of the Civil Code ○ the application and operation of the reserva
troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary
Doctrine: contentious proceeding, and
Once an original certificate of title by virtue of the final ○ that the Registration Court did not have
decree of the land court was duly issued in the name of jurisdiction to grant the motion.
the reservista, subject to reserva troncal, and ● LOWER COURT: granted the petition for the
subsequently the latter died, the registration court, in issuance of a new certificate, for the reason that
view of the said recorded reserva has authority under the death of reservista vested the ownership of the
Sec. 112 of Act 496 to order the reservatario; for the property in the petitioner as the sole reservatario
reason that the death of the reservista vested the troncal.
ownership of the property in the sole reservatario ● The oppositors, heirs of the reservista Maria Cano,
troncal. duly appealed from the order, insisting that -
○ the ownership of the reservatario can not be
decreed in a mere proceeding under sec. 112 of
Parties:
Act 496,
○ but requires a judicial administration
proceedings, wherein the rights of appellee, as
the reservatario entitled to the reservable
property, are to be declared.
● In this connection, appellants argue that the
reversion in favor of the reservatario requires the
declaration of the existence of the following facts:
○ The property was received by an ascendant by
FACTS: gratuitous titled from an ascendant or from a
● In an amended decision dated October 9, 1951, CFI brother or sister;
of Sorsogon decreed the registration of Lots. Nos. ○ Said descendant dies without issue;
1798 and 1799 of the Juban (Sorsogon) Cadastre, ○ The property ascendant by operation of law;
under the following terms and conditions. and
● That the two parcels of land, known as Lots Nos. ○ The existence of relatives within the third
1798 and 1799 of the Cadastral Survey of Juban, degree belonging to the line from which said
with their improvements, - property came."
○ be registered in the name of Maria Cano,
Filipina 71 years of age, widow and resident of ISSUES:
Juban, province of Sorsogon,
○ with the understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall WON the title was validly issued to Eustaquia Guerrero,
be subject to the right of reservation in favor of the reservatorio? YES
Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article 891 of
Civil Code. RULING:
● A Certificate of Title was then issued in the name of
From the agreed stipulation of facts, it is evident -
Maria Cano,
○ subject to reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia that Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the applicant Maria
Guerrero. Cano by inheritance from her deceased daughter,
● In October 1955, counsel for the reservee Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn, inherited the same from
(reservatario) Guerrero filed a motion with the her father Evaristo Guerrero and, hence falls squarely
Cadastral Court,

under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code; and It is equally well settled that the reservable property
cannot be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own
that each and everyone of the private oppositors are successors mortis causa, (like appellants herein) so long
within the third degree of consanguinity of the decedent as a reservatario within the third degree from the
Evaristo Guerrero, and who belonging to the same line prepositus and belonging to the line whence the
from which the property came. property came, is in existence when the reservista dies.
It appears, however, from the agreed stipulation of facts
that with 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 degree of
relationship to the decedent is remoter.
The only requisites for the passing of the titled from the
reservista to the appellee are:
(1) the death of the reservista; and
(2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the

reservista.
Both facts are admitted, and their existence in nowhere

questioned.
The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still

necessary rests upon the assumption that the
reservatario will succeed in, or inherit, the reservable
property from the reservista. This is not true.
The reservatario is not the reservista’s successor mortis

causa nor is the reservable property part of the
reservista’s estate.
The reservatario receives the property as a conditional

heir of the descendant (prepositus), said property
merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had
temporarily and accidentally strayed during the
reservatarios that survive the reservista, the latter must
be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest
in the reservable property.
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the

death of the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the
prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes,
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the
reservable property.
As already stated, that property is no part of the estate

of the reservista, and does not even answer for the
debts of the latter.
Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be

entered in the property records without necessity of
estate proceedings, since the basic requisites therefor
appear of record.

[24] VIZCONDE VS COURT OF APPEALS ● In June of the same year, Estrellita bought from
Premier Homes, Inc., a parcel of land with
GR No. 118449, February 11, 1998
improvements situated at Vinzon St., BF Homes,
Ponente: Francisco, J.
Parañaque (Parañaque property) using a portion of
Digest Author: Joline Ponce
the proceeds was used in buying a car while the
balance was deposited in a bank.
Topic: ● The following year, Estrellita’s daughters, Carmela
Collation and Jennifer were killed, an incident popularly
known as “Vizconde Massacre.”
Relevant Law: ● The findings of the investigation conducted by the
NBI reveal that Estrellita died ahead of her
Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with
daughters.
other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the
● Accordingly, Carmela, Jennifer and herein petitioner
estate any property or right which he may have received
succeeded Estrellita and, with the subsequent
from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by
death of Carmela and Jennifer, petitioner Lauro was
way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order
left as the sole heir of his daughters.
that it may be computed in the determination of the
● Nevertheless, petitioner Lauro entered into an
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
“Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased
Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde With Waiver of Shares,”
Doctrine: with Rafael and Salud, Estrellita’s parents.
Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or ○ The extrajudicial settlement provided for the
other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the division of the properties of Estrellita and her
inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common two daughters between petitioner and spouses
mass, the property which they received from him, so Rafael and Salud.
that the division may be made according to law and the ● The properties include bank deposits, a car and the
will of the testator. Collation is only required of Parañaque property.
compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory ○ The settlement gave 50% of the total amount
heirs and involves property or rights received by of the bank deposits of Estrellita and her
donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the daughters to Rafael.
decedent. The purpose is to attain equality among the ○ The other 50% was allotted to petitioner Lauro.
compulsory heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed ○ The Parañaque property and the car were also
that the intention of the testator or predecessor in given to petitioner with Rafael and Salud
interest in making a donation or gratuitous transfer to a waiving all their “claims, rights, ownership and
forced heir is to give him something in advance on participation as heirs” in the said properties.
account of his share in the estate, and that the ● Rafael died.
predecessor’s will is to treat all his heirs equally, in the ● To settle Rafael’s estate, Teresita instituted an
absence of any expression to the contrary. intestate estate proceeding.
○ Additionally, she sought to be appointed as
Parties: guardian ad litem of Salud and Ricardo.
○ Herein private respondent Ramon filed an
opposition praying to be appointed instead as
Salud and Ricardo’s guardian.
● Ramon filed another opposition alleging, among
others,
○ that Estrellita was given the Valenzuela
property by Rafael which she sold for not less
than P6Million before her murder.
○ Ramon pleaded for the court’s intervention “to
determine the legality and validity of the inter
vivos distribution made by deceased Rafael to
his children,” Estrellita included.
FACTS: ● Ramon filed his own petition entitled “In The
● Estrellita purchased from Rafael a parcel of land Matter of The Guardianship of Salud G. Nicholas
with an area of 10,110 sq.m located at Valenzuela, and Ricardo G. Nicholas” and averred -
Bulacan (Valenzuela property). ○ that their legitime should come from the
● Estrellita sold the Valenzuela property to Amelia collation of all the properties distributed to his
Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar Chiu. children by Rafael during his lifetime.

○ Ramon stated that herein petitioner is one of compulsory heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed
Rafael’s children “by right of representation as that the intention of the testator or predecessor in
the widower of deceased legitimate daughter interest in making a donation or gratuitous transfer to a
Estrellita.” forced heir is to give him something in advance on
● RTC appointed Ramon as guardian and Teresita as account of his share in the estate, and that the
the Special Administratix of Rafael’s estate. predecessor’s will is to treat all his heirs equally, in the
○ The court’s order did not include petitioner in absence of any expression to the contrary.
the slate of Rafael’s heirs.
Collation does not impose any lien on the property or
○ Neither was the Parañaque property listed in
the subject matter of collationable donation. What is
its list of properties to be included in the
brought to collation is not the property donated itself,
estate.
but rather the value of such property at the time it was
○ RTC in another order removed Ramon as Salud
donated, the rationale being that the donation is a real
and Ricardo’s guardian for selling his ward’s
alienation which conveys ownership upon its
property without the court’s knowledge.
acceptance, hence any increase in value or any
● RTC released another order giving petitioner the
deterioration or loss thereof is for the account of the
chance to file any appropriate petition or motion
heir or donee.
related to the pending petition.
● In response, petitioner filed a Manifestation The attendant facts herein do not make a case of
stressing that he was neither a compulsory heir nor collation.
an intestate heir of Rafael and he has no interest to
First: The probate court erred in ordering the inclusion
participate in the proceedings.
of petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding.
● Despite the Manifestation, Ramon moved to
Petitioner, a son-in-law of Rafael, is not one of Rafael’s
include petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding
compulsory heirs as provided in Art. 887 if the Civil
and asked that the Parañaque property, as well as
Code.
the car and the balance of the proceeds of the sale
of the Valenzuela property, be collated. With respect to Rafael’s estate, therefore, petitioner
○ RTC granted said motion. who was not even shown to be a creditor of Rafael is
● Petitioner filed its MR but it was denied by the considered a third person or a stranger. As such,
court. petitioner may not be dragged into the intestate estate
● Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and proceeding. Neither may he be permitted or allowed to
prohibition with the CA but it also denied said intervene as he has no personality or interest in the said
petition stressing that - proceeding, which petitioner correctly argued in his
○ the RTC correctly adjudicated the question on manifestation.
the title of the Valenzuela property as “the
Second: As a rule, the probate court may pass upon and
jurisdiction of the probate court extends to
determine the title or ownership of a property which
matters incidental and collateral to the exercise
may or may not be included in the estate proceedings.
of its recognized powers in handling the
Such determination is provisional in character and is
settlement of the estate of the deceased.
subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve
title. In the case at bench, however, we note that the
ISSUES: probate court went beyond the scope of its jurisdiction
W/N the Order nullifying the transfer of the Valenzuela when it proceeded to determine the validity of the sale
property from Rafael to Estrellita and declaring the of the Valenzuela property between Rafael and Estrellita
Parañaque property as subject to collation is proper? and ruled that the transfer of the subject property
NO between the concerned parties was gratuitous.
Third: The order of the probate court subjecting the
RULING: Parañaque property to collation is premature. Records
Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or indicate that the intestate estate proceedings is still in
other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the its initiatory stage. We find nothing herein to indicate
inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common that the legitime of any of Rafael’s heirs has been
mass, the property which they received from him, so impaired to warrant collation.
that the division may be made according to law and the
Fourth: Even on the assumption that collation is
will of the testator. Collation is only required of
appropriate in this case the probate court, nonetheless,
compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory
made a reversible error in ordering collation of the
heirs and involves property or rights received by
Parañaque property. We note that what was transferred
donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the
to Estrellita, by way of deed of sale, is the Valenzuela
decedent. The purpose is to attain equality among the

property. The Parañaque property which Estrellita
acquired by using the proceeds of the sale of the
Valenzuela property does not become collationable
simply by reason thereof.
The order of the probate court presupposes that the
Parañaque property was gratuitously conveyed by
Rafael to Estrellita. Records indicate, however, that the
Parañaque property was conveyed for and in
consideration of P900,000.00, by Premier Homes, Inc.,
to Estrellita. Rafael, the decedent, has no participation
therein, and petitioner who inherited and is now the
present owner of the Parañaque property is not one of
Rafael’s heirs. Thus, the probate court’s order of
collation against petitioner is unwarranted for the
obligation to collate is lodged with Estrellita, the heir,
and not to herein petitioner who does not have any
interest in Rafael’s estate.
Fifth: Finally, it is futile for the probate court to
ascertain whether or not the Valenzuela property may
be brought to collation. Estrellita, it should be stressed,
died ahead of Rafael. In fact, it was Rafael who inherited
from Estrellita an amount more than the value of the
Valenzuela property. Hence, even assuming that the
Valenzuela property may be collated collation may not
be allowed as the value of the Valenzuela property has
long been returned to the estate of Rafael. Therefore,
any determination by the probate court on the matter
serves no valid and binding purpose.

[25] IN RE: ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE GARCIA changed to Garcia, her mother's surname, and
○ that her surname Garcia be changed to Catindig,
GR No. 148311
his surname.
Date 2005-March-31
● The trial court granted the petition and
Ponente: [insert text]
○ declared Stephanie as his legitimate child and
heir, and pursuant to Art. 189 of the Family
Code,
Topic: ○ she was now known as Stephanie Nathy
The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion Catindig.
○ “In the absence of any opposition to the
Relevant Law: petition, this Court finds that the petitioner
possesses all the qualifications and none of the
(Sec 16, RA 8552) Parental Authority. – Except in cases
disqualification provided for by law as an
where the biological parent is the spouse of the
adoptive parent, and that as such he is qualified
adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s)
to maintain, care for and educate the child to be
and the adoptee shall be severed and the same shall
adopted; that the grant of this petition would
then be vested on the adopter(s).
redound to the best interest and welfare of the
Status of Adopted Child (Sec 17, RA 8552) Legitimacy. – minor Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. The
The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate Court further holds that the petitioner's care
son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and and custody of the child since her birth up to the
purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and present constitute more than enough
obligations provided by law to legitimate compliance with the requirement of Article 35 of
sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of Presidential Decree No. 603.”
any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, ● Honorato filed a motion for clarification and/or
guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the reconsideration that Stephanie should be allowed
family. to use the surname Garcia as her middle name.
● The trial court denied petitioner's motion for
Rights of Adopted Child (Sec 18, RA 8552) Succession. –
reconsideration holding that there is no law or
In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the
jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the
adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession
surname of his biological mother as his middle
without distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if
name.
the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a
● Petitioner submits that the trial court erred in
will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern.
depriving Stephanie of a middle name as a
consequence of adoption because:
Doctrine: ○ (1) there is no law prohibiting an adopted child
An illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother from having a middle name in case there is only
as her middle name when she is subsequently adopted one adopting parent;
by her natural father. ○ (2) it is customary for every Filipino to have as
middle name the surname of the mother;
Parties: ○ (3) the middle name or initial is a part of the
name of a person;
● Honorato - Stephanie’s father.
○ (4) adoption is for the benefit and best interest
● Stephanie - illegitimate daughter adopted by her
of the adopted child, hence, her right to bear a
[illegitimate] father Honorato.
proper name should not be violated;
○ (5) permitting Stephanie to use the middle name
FACTS: "Garcia" (her mother's surname) avoids the
● Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his stigma of her illegitimacy; and;
minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga ○ (6) her continued use of "Garcia" as her middle
Garcia. name is not opposed by either the Catindig or
● He alleged therein, among others, Garcia families.
○ that Stephanie was born on June 26, 1994; ● The Republic, through the Office of Solicitor
○ that her mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; General, agreed with Honorato -
○ that Stephanie has been using her mother's ○ for her relationship with her natural mother
middle name and surname; and should be maintained and preserved,
○ that he is now a widower and qualified to be ○ to prevent any confusion and hardship in the
her adopting parent. future, and
● He prayed that the child's middle name Astorga be ○ under Article 189 she remained to be an

intestate heir of her mother. Also, Article 189 of the Family Code, enumerating the
legal effects of adoption, is likewise silent on the matter,
ISSUES: thus:
May an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural "(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to
father, use the surname of her natural mother as her be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall
middle name? [YES] acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from
the relationship of parent and child, including the right
RULING: of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters.”
A man's name is the designation by which he is known The members of the Civil Code and Family Law
and called in the community in which he lives and is best Committees that drafted the Family Code recognized
known. the Filipino custom of adding the surname of the child's
mother as his middle name.
It is defined as the word or combination of words by
which a person is distinguished from other individuals The Underlying Intent of Adoption Is In Favor of the
and, also, as the label or appellation which he bears for Adopted Child
the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or
Adoption is defined as the process of making a child,
in speaking of or dealing with him.
whether related or not to the adopter, possess in
It is both of personal as well as public interest that every general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child.
person must have a name.
It is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates
The name of an individual has two parts: between two persons a relationship similar to that
which results from legitimate paternity and filiation.
(1) the given or proper name and
The modern trend is to consider adoption not merely as
(2) the surname or family name.
an act to establish a relationship of paternity and
The given or proper name is that which is given to the filiation, but also as an act which endows the child with
individual at birth or at baptism, to distinguish him from a legitimate status.
other individuals.
Stephanie is Entitled to all the Rights Provided by Law
The surname or family name is that which identifies the to a Legitimate Child
family to which he belongs and is continued from parent
Being a legitimate child by virtue of her adoption, it
to child.
follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights
The given name may be freely selected by the parents provided by law to a legitimate child without
for the child, but the surname to which the child is discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear
entitled is fixed by law. the surname of her father and her mother.
The Governing Laws on the Regulation of the Use of Such is consistent with the intention of the members of
Surnames the Civil Code and Family Law Committees as earlier
discussed.
Articles 364 to 380 of the Civil Code provides the
substantive rules which regulate the use of surname of In fact, it is a Filipino custom that the initial or surname
an individual whatever may be his status in life, i.e., of the mother should immediately precede the surname
whether he may be legitimate or illegitimate, an of the father.
adopted child, a married woman or a previously married
Stephanie's continued use of her mother's surname as
woman, or a widow.
her middle name will maintain her maternal lineage.
There is No Law Regulating the Use of Middle Names
It is to be noted that Article 189(3) of the Family Code
Even Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by and Section 18[24], Article V of RA 8552, the law on
Republic Act No. 9255, otherwise known as "An Act adoption, provide that the adoptee remains an intestate
Allowing Illegitimate Children To Use The Surname Of heir of his/her biological parent.
Their Father," is silent as to what middle name a child
Adoption Statutes Should be Liberally Construed for
may use.
the Benefit of the Child
Notably, the law is likewise silent as to what middle
Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should
name an adoptee may use.
be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent
Article 365 of the Civil Code merely provides that an purposes of adoption.
adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter.
The interests and welfare of the adopted child are of

primary and paramount consideration, hence, every
reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote
and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of
the law.
Since there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child
adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as
middle name her mother's surname, the Supreme Court
found no reason why she should not be allowed to do
so.
Stephanie and her mother are living together in the
house built by petitioner. Petitioner provides for all their
needs. Stephanie is closely attached to both her mother
and father. She calls them "Mama" and "Papa". Indeed,
they are one normal happy family.
Hence, to allow Stephanie to use her mother's surname
as her middle name will not only sustain her continued
loving relationship with her mother but will also
eliminate the stigma of her illegitimacy.

[26] FRANCISCO VS. FRANCISCO-ALFONSO 2001 kasulatan t hat would prove receipt of the purchase
price.
FACTS:
as not simulated, it still violated
Even if the kasulatan w
Respondent Aida is the only daughter of spouses
the Civil Code provisions insofar as the transaction
Gregorio Francisco and Cirila de la Cruz, who are now
affected respondents legitime.
both deceased.
The sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable law
Petitioners Regina and Zenaida are the daughter of
was the Civil Code, not the Family Code.
Gergorio with his common law wife Julia Mendoza
whom he begot 7 children. Obviously, the sale was Gregorios way to transfer the
property to his illegitimate daughters at the expense of
Gregorio owned two parcels of residential land in
his legitimate daughter.
Bulacan.
The sale was executed to prevent respondent Alfonso
● When he was confined in the hospital he confided
from claiming her legitime and rightful share in said
to respondent that the certificates of title were in
property.
the possession of petitioners.
● When he died, respondent inquired of the Before his death, Gregorio had a change of heart and
certificates. informed his daughter about the titles to the property.
Petitioners informed her that it was sold to them by According to Article 888, Civil Code: The legitime of
Gregorio in 1983. legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half
of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
Respondent then learned that there was a deed of
absolute sale in favor of petitioners. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half
subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the
Gregorio allegedly executed a Kasulatan sa Ganap na
surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.
Bilihan whereby he sold the properties to petitioners for
25k. Gregorio Francisco did not own any other property.
Respndent filed with the RTC for annulment of sale and If indeed the parcels of land involved were the only
alleged that the signature of Gregorio was forged. property left by their father, the sale in fact would
deprive respondent of her share in her fathers estate.
Petitioners denied the alleged forgery.
By law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father
RTC ruled in favor Petitioners.
as his only legitimate child.
CA reversed.
The legal heirs of the late Gregorio Francisco must be
Issue: determined in proper testate or intestate proceedings
for settlement of the estate.
May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share in
the estate of her deceased father by a simulated His compulsory heir can not be deprived of her share in
contract transferring the property of her father to his the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.
illegitimate children?
The deed was simulated.
There was no consideration for the contract of sale. A
family friend of the petitioners testified that they did
not have any source of income to buy the property.
Petitioners countered by saying they were engaged in
operating of a canteen as a cashier and selling ready to
wear items. Regina was a market vendor selling lugaw
earning a net income of 300 a day. Zenaida paid 10k
while Regina paid 15k.
The testimonies of petitioners were incredible
considering their inconsistent statements as to whether
there was consideration for the sale and also as to
whether the property was bought below or above its
supposed market value.
They could not even present a single witness to the

[27] [CASE NAME]
GR No. [#]
Date [Date decided]
Ponente: [insert text]
Digest Author: [insert text]
Topic:
[insert text]
Relevant Law:
[insert text]
Doctrine:
[insert text]
Parties:
● [List the parties and their relationship with each
other here; or you can make a chart hehe].
● [insert text]
● [insert text]
● [insert text]
FACTS:
● [insert text]
○ [insert text]
■ [insert text]
● [insert text]
○ [insert text]
■ [insert text
ISSUES:
● [insert text] [YES/NO]
RULING:

Succession Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[10] SPS JOAQUIN VS COURT OF APPEALS made by defendants parents voluntarily, in

good faith, and with full knowledge of the

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 1 of 42

W/N the Deeds of Sale are void for gross inadequacy of

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 2 of 42

Topic: 6. Lilia Dizon .............................................. 72,182.47

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 3 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 4 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 5 of 42

Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs,

The decedent’s remaining estate should thus be

Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants,

Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 6 of 42

When the surviving spouse concurs with only one ISSUES:

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 7 of 42

(a) ​Amount of retirement gratuity​: 1. Fidela B. Chanliongco

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 8 of 42

● The provisions on legitime are found under the rubric of

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 9 of 42

Relevant Law: Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate -

"Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession ISSUES:

Widow is NOT an intestate heir of her mother-in-law.

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 10 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 11 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 12 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 13 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 14 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 15 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 16 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 17 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 18 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 19 of 42

Reserva Troncal: ​(little backgrounder coz this topic is

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 20 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 21 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 22 of 42

Had the nephews of whole and half-blood succeeded

(this is a case of first impression so sabi ng Court, in fair

It should be stated, in justice to the trial court, that its

But the argument, if logically pursued, would lead to the

But, as we have seen, the Supreme Courts of Spain and

Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this

Reason and policy favor keeping to a minimum the

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 23 of 42

Relevant Law: Other parties:

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 24 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 25 of 42

FACTS: The Court of Land Registration denied the registration

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 26 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 27 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 28 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 29 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 30 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 31 of 42

HOWEVER - Article 891 clearly indicates that the

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 32 of 42

A1 - The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free Portion. Page 33 of 42

Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest of kin, excludes

(1) the death of the reservista; and

(2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the

Both facts are admitted, and their existence in nowhere

The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still

(a) Amount of retirement gratuity: 1. Fidela B. Chanliongco

Reserva Troncal: (little backgrounder coz this topic is