RESERVA TRONCAL or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation

Solivio vs. Court of Appeals of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong
Digest Author: FABI to the line from which said property came.”

DOCTRINE: The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister. It does not apply 1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista)—the ascendant who
to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the situation inherits by operation of law property from his descendants.
covered by Article 891.
2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reservees (reservatarios)—
FACTS: relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant (propositus), and
belonging to the line from which the property came.
1) Esteban Jr.’s mother Salustia died leaving all her property to him.
3. The propositus—the descendant who received by gratuitous title and died without
2) Esteban Jr, died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, issue, making his other ascendant inherit by operation of law.”
nephews or nieces.
In this case, the property of the deceased, Esteban Jr., is not reservable property, for
3) His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia, Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother from whom he inherited
the spinster half-sister of his mother, Salustia; and (2) the private the properties in question.
respondent, Concordia , sister of his deceased father.
Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt,
4) Pursuant to an agreement between Concordia and Celedonia, the latter would take Celedonia Solivio, who is his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side.
care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation.
The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who
5) Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed for a Special inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister. It does not apply to property
Proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate of Esteban inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article
Javellana, Jr., praying that letters of administration be issued to her; that she be 891.
declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of all claims and rendition
of inventory and accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her. Since the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., died without descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, surviving spouse, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces, what should
6) Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo for partition, recovery of possession, apply in the distribution of his estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code.
ownership and damages.
DISPOSITION: petition is dismissed
7) Celedonia averred that the estate of Esteban Jr. was subject to reserve troncal and
thus it should redound to her as a relative within the 3rd degree on his mother side

ISSUE: W/N the estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal and that it pertains to
her as his only relative within the third degree on his mother’s side.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

The Court find no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the estate of the deceased was
subject to reserva troncal and that it pertains to her as his only relative within the third
degree on his mother’s side.

The reserva troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which reads as follows:

“ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the
latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother

1
 - Denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not originate from
petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by Placido and Dominga.
RESERVA TRONCAL - The properties were bought by Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos in
Mendoza vs. Delos Santos 1931.
Digest Author: FENIS
5. RTC – ruled in favor of Petitioners; CA - reversed
DOCTRINE:

Relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, ISSUE:
since the law does not recognize them as such. - The right granted by the Civil Code in (1) W/N law on reserve troncal is applicable? NO
[A]rticle 811 [now Article 891] is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit (2) W/N petitioners have a right to the subject properties by virtue of the law on
of the designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of the person from reserve troncal? NO
whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding
degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as
such. x x x [N]evertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are RULING+RATIO: (1) YES.
within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the deceased person
from whom the reservable property came. LB: There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal. The first transmission is by
gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a
FACTS: descendant called the prepositus. The second transmission is by operation of law from the
prepositus to the other ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last
1. The properties subject in the case are three parcels of land located in Sta. Maria, transmission is from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives
Bulacan. within the third degree from which the property came.
 The lineal character of the
reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the prepositus received the
2. Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido) and Dominga Mendoza property by gratuitous title.
(Dominga).
o Placido and Dominga had four children: Antonio, Exequiel, Apolonio and
AP: In this case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable.
Valentin.
o Petitioners Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia, Adoracion, Marcela and Ricardo are
the children of Antonio. Petitioners Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and
Fortunato, are Valentin’s children.

3. Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and Dominga’s properties
that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel.

Upon prop. passed on. to share share went

leonor Georgia died
Exequiel sps. leonor and went to to
died intestate
's death daugther, georgia Georgia respondent

4. Respondent, who is Leonor’s sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as
the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria.

Petitioner’s contention:
- Petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in their
behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the Civil Code on
reserva troncal.
LB: The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
Respondent’s contention: 1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant
by lucrative or gratuitous title;

2
2. The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the property; LB: The right granted by Article 891 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive
3.The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property from the benefit of the designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of the
prepositus by operation of law; and person from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the
4.The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not
belongs to the (linea o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property recognize them as such.
should be reserved by the reservor.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus the one
AP: Here, the ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel’s as he is at the end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last
the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred, or from whom Gregoria inherited revolved by descent.
the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in
determining the lineal character of the property.
APP: It is Gregoria in this case. Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth degree relatives, being her first
cousins. First cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or
It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and
reservatarios.
Dominga or whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned
the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originally came.
Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from Exequiel by They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as Article
gratuitous title. 891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the third degree from
whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized exemption is in the case of
LB: Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the right to represent their ascendants
descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. A transmission is (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the
gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. third degree

Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant DISPOSITION: Dismissed.
(also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant/prepositus. Petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal. First, because Julia, who now holds the
properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil
APP: What was clearly established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned by Code and second, because petitioners are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree.
Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the
properties as inheritance. Julia, however, is not Gregoria’s ascendant; rather, she is
Gregoria’s collateral relative.1

Gregoria’s ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents, great-
grandparents and so on. On the other hand, Gregoria’s descendants, if she had one, would be
her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Not being Gregoria’s ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her collateral
relatives. In determining the collateral line of relationship, ascent is made to the common
ancestor and then descent to the relative from whom the computation is made. Thus, Julia is
Gregoria’s collateral relative within the third degree and not her ascendant. Petitioners as
first cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth degree relatives and cannot be
considered reservees/reservatarios.

(2) No, petitioners cannot be considered reservees/ reservatarios as they are not relatives
within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came.

1 Art. 964 A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but
who come from a common ancestor.

3
 RESERVA TRONCAL ISSUE: W/N the property in question was acquired by Juanito from his father, Jose,
Chua vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, Branch V gratuitously or not.
Digest Author: FABI
RULING+RATIO: YES.
DOCTRINE: For purposes of “reserva troncal”, there is a gratuitous transfer when the
recipient does not give anything in return and it matters not that the property is subject to LB: Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that a property may be impressed
prior charges, such as an order of the court imposing the payment of a certain sum owed by with a reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit:
the deceased. (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a
brother or sister by gratuitous title;
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that property may be impressed with a (2) that said descendant died without an issue:
reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit: (3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
(4) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
(1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a said property came
brother or sister by gratuitous title;
(2) that said descendant died without an issue;
(3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and AP: In the case, all of the requisites are present. Juanito of the second marriage died
(4) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which intestate in; he died without leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was
said property came. acquired by his mother, Consolacion by operation of law. When Consolacion died, Juanito who
died intestate had relatives within the third degree. These relatives are Ignacio and Dominador
and Remedios, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo, who are the
FACTS: petitioners.

1. In the first marriage of Jose with Patricia, he sired three children, namely: Ignacio, LB: Cabardo v. Villanueva - “The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title
Lorenzo and Manuel. when the recipient does not give anything in return.”

2. When Patricia died, Jose contracted a second marriage with Consolacion with whom AP: It is evident that the transmission of the property in question to Juanito of the
he had a child by the name of Juanito. second marriage upon the death of his father Jose was by means of a hereditary succession
and therefore gratuitous.
3. Manuel died without leaving any issue. Then Jose died intestate leaving his widow
Consolacion and his son Juanito of the second marriage and sons Ignacio and of his
first marriage.

4. In Intestate Proceeding the lower court issued an order adjudicating the one-half
(1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 in favor of Consolacion, the other half in favor of Juanito.

5. Juanito of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his
mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of the subject lot.

6. Then Consolacion died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or
ascending line except her brother and sisters.

7. In the “Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre”, the petitioners filed the

complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly
belonged to Juanito but which passed to Consolacion upon the latter’s death, be
declared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject
to reserva troncal.

4
 RESERVA TRONCAL ISSUE: W/N the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned among
Padura vs. Baldovino the heirs equally.
Digest Author: FABI
RULING+RATIO: NO.
DOCTRINE: The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to thethird degree relatives belonging to the line from which the LB: The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of
property originally came, and avoid its beingdissipated into and by the relatives of the the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
inheriting ascendant (reservista). property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by their relatives of the
inheriting ascendant (reservista).
FACTS:
The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified
relatives of the line of origin. After that, Art. 891 has nothing to do with the relations
1) Agustin contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife
between one reservatario and another of the same degree. Their shares should be foverned
Gervacia, he had one child, Manuel. With the second wife, Benita, he had two
by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. Upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the
children, Fortunato andCandelaria Padura. Agustin died, leaving a last will and
reservable property should pass, not to all reservatarios as a class, but only to those nearest
testament, duly probated, wherein he bequeathed his properties among his
in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those reseravatarios more remote in
three children and his surviving spouse, Benita.
degree.
2) Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried, without
AP: In this case, Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the relatives of
having executed a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were
Fortunato up to the third degree will get the reservable property after his mother dies. The
inherited exclusively by his mother Benita subject to the condition that the
children of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the property by way of right of
properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree
representation. But after applying the rule, the reservatarios and their relationship will be
belonging to the line from which said property came.
considered in determining their shares. The rules on ordinary intestate succession would be
followed after the reservatarios have been determined.
3) Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate children Oppositors-
appellants. Manuel also died, survived by his legitimate children Petitioners-
Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the reservatarios could compel the
appellees.
annotation of their right (over the property) in the registry of property. The reservable
property is no part of the estate of the reservista, who may not dispose them by will so long as
4) Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and Fortunato
there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios are in fact inheriting from the descendant
took possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable properties). prepositus from whom the reservista inherited the property.

5) CFI declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria to be the rightful reservees,
and entitled to the reservable properties (the original reservees, Candelaria and DISPOSITION: petition is dismissed
Manuel,having predeceased the reservista).

6) The Baldovino heirs filed a petition to have the properties partitioned, such that
one-half be adjudicated to them, and the other half to the appellees, allegedly
on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from their respective
parents, the original reservees.

7) The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all (all 11 of them) be deemed
inheriting in their own right hence, they should have equal shares.

8) CFI rendered judgment declaring them all reservees without distinction and
have equal shares over the properties as co-owners, pro indiviso.

5
 RESERVA TRONCAL RULING+RATIO: NO.
De Papa vs. Camacho
Digest Author: FABI LB: In Padura vs. Baldovino, where the reservatario was survived by eleven
nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and seven of
DOCTRINE: In reserva troncal, the successional rights of the relatives of the praepositus half blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary
within the 3rd degree are determined by, and subject to, the rules of intestate succession; so property in equal shares. The Court declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling, and
as to exclude uncles and aunts of the descendant from the reservable property by his niece or ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that
nephew.— of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil
Code.
FACTS:
AP: In this case, Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on
intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because,
1) Appellees Francisca, Manuel and Nicolas and appellant Dalisay have as a as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from
common ancestor the late Balbino, father of appellees and great grandfather the succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within
of defendant, who had a sister by the name of Romana. the same degree as the latter.

2) During her lifetime, Romana gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece To this effect Arts. 1001, 1004, 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code were cited and
Toribia (legitimate sister of appellees). applied.
LB: Under the 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
3) When Toribia died, she was survived by her husband, Eustacio, and their decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the
two legitimate children Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay). succession.

4) The 4 parcels of land were left as inheritance of Toribia’s two children in equal pro- Therefore, the defendant-appellant Dalisay TongkoCamacho is entitled to the entirety of the
indiviso shares. reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.

5) They too inherited 3 parcels of land which was supposed to be the inheritance of the DISPOSITION: complaint is dismissed
late Toribia from her father Balbino.

6) However, when Faustino died intestate, single and without issue, the ½ pro-indiviso
share in the 7 parcels of land was left to his father Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir,
who received the said property subject to a reserve troncal.

7) Subsequently, Trinidad died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of
land were inherited by her only legitimate child, appellant Dalisay.

8) Eustacio thereafter died intestated, survived by Dalisay Tongko-Camacho.

9) The lower Court declared that the appellees as well as appellant Dalisay
were entitled as reservatarios to ½ of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in
equal proportions.

ISSUE: W/N all relatives of the prepositus (Faustino) within the third degree in the
appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of
the reservista.

6
 RESERVA TRONCAL The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latter’s wish or by operation of
Edroso vs. Sablan. law, requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. All
Digest Author: FABI the attributes of the right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use, enjoyment, disposal
and recovery.
DOCTRINE: —The heir of real property who has beyond any doubt the rights of using and
enjoying it, and even of alienating it, is not prevented from himself alone registering the title During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by law to
to the property he has inherited, merely because to his right of disposal there is annexed a be reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after the right
condition subsequent arising from the expectation of a right, when the reservees who have that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only an expectation, and
that expectation of a right agreed thereto, provided that, in accordance with the law, the therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit that expectation to their heirs.
reservable character of such property in their favor be entered in the record.

FACTS:
DISPOSITION: complaint is dismissed
1. Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death. In this marriage they had a
son named Pedro who at his father’s death inherited the two said parcels.

2. Pedro also died, unmarried and without issue and by this decease the two parcels of land
passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso.

3. Hence the hereditary title is based the application for registration of her ownership.

4. Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan — that is, two uncles german of Pedro Sablan —
appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things: Either that the
registration be denied, “or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the opponents be
recorded in the registration of each parcel.”

5. The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.

6. Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in question partake
of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and that in such a
case application could only be presented jointly in the names of the mother and the said two
uncles of Pedro Sablan.

ISSUE: W/N the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the reservable
properties by reservista, Edroso.

RULING+RATIO: YES.

The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land
which are the subject matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the right
required by the law to be reserved to either or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and
Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.

The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he can use, enjoy, dispose of and
recover it; and if, in addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner and can
alienate it, although under a condition.

7
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Cano vs. Director a) The property was received by a descendant by gratuitous title from an ascendant or
Digest Author: Fabi from a brother or sister .
b) Said descendant dies without issue;
c) The property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
DOCTRINE: — d) The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
GR: Once an original certificate of title by virtue of the final decree of the land court was said property came.
duly issued in the name of the reservista, subject to reserva, troncal, and subsequently the
latter died, the registration court, in view of the said recorded reserva has authority under ISSUE: W/N Guerrero being the reservatorio is entitled to the said property.
Sec. 112 of Act 496 to order the reservatario; for the reason that the death of the reservista
vested the ownership of the property in the sole reservatario troncal. RULING+RATIO: YES.

EXCEPTION.—Where, however, the registration decree merely specifies the reservable The requisites enumerated by appellants have already been declared to exist by the decree of
character of the property, without determining the identity of the reservatario (as in the case registration wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were expressly
of Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil., 279) or where several reservatories dispute the recognized.
property among themselves, further proceedings would be unavoidable.
Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the applicant Maria Cano by inheritance from her deceased
The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the reservee are (1) the daughter, Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn, inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero
death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista. and, hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code

FACTS: Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest of kin, excludes all the other private oppositors, whose
degree of relationship to the decedent is remoter.
1. CFI decreed that the two parcels of land be registered in the name of Maria Cano (reservista),
with the understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the right of reservation in favor of
This decree having become final, all persons are barred thereby from contesting the existence
Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Code.
of the constituent elements of the reserva.
2. The decision being final, the decree and the Certificate of Title were issued in the
name of Maria Cano, subject to reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero. LB: The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are: (1)
the death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista
3. Counsel for the Guerrero filed a motion, alleging the death of the original registered
owner and reservista, Maria Cano, and praying that the OCT be ordered cancelled It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario
and a new one issued in favor of movant Eustaquia Guerrero. nearest to the prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes, automatically and by
operation of law, the owner of the reservable property.
4. This was opposed by the sons of the reservista, who contended that the application
and operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary contentious It is equally well settled that the reservable property can not be transmitted by a reservista
proceeding, and that the Registration Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the to her or his own successors mortis causa, (like appellants herein) so long as a reservatorio
motion. within the third degree from the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property
came, is in existence when the reservista dies.
5. The lower court granted the petition for the reason that the death of the reservista
vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole reservatario AP: ustaquia Guerrero have been expressly recognized, and it is nowhere claimed that there
troncal. are other reservatarios of equal or nearer degree. It is thus apparent that the heirs of the
reservista are merely endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the reservable property to
6. The oppositors, heirs of the reservista Maria Cano, duly appealed from the order, the detriment of the party lawfully entitled thereto.
insisting that the ownership of the reservatario can not be decreed in a mere
proceeding under sec. 112 of Act 496, but requires a judicial administration
proceedings.

7. appellants argue that the reversion in favor of the reservatario requires the
declaration of the existence of the following facts:

8
 RESERVA TRONCAL 7. Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the
Gonzales vs. CFI one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in
Digest Author: FENIS representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.

DOCTRINE: The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property and holds title subject 8. Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will.
to a resolutory condition. - The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor 9. Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix, filed motion to exclude from the
predeceased the reservee. inventory of her mother’s estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased
daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which
The reservee has only an inchoate right. He cannot impugn a conveyance made by the should be inherited by Filomena Legarda’s three sisters and three brothers and not by
the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
reservor.—On the other hand, the reservee has only an inchoate, expectant or contingent
right. His expectant right would disappear if he predeceased the reservor. It would become 10. Mrs. Gonzales filed an ordinary civil action for the purpose of securing a declaration that
absolute should the reservor predecease the reservee. The reservee cannot impugn any the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath in
conveyance made by the reservor but he can require that the reservable character of the her holographic will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her three daughters and her
property be recognized by the purchaser. three sons. – dismissed

Florentino case doctrine: As long as during the reservor’s lifetime and upon his death there are ISSUE: W/N Mrs. Legarda, as reservor, could convey the reservable properties by will or
relatives within the third degree of the prepositus, regardless of whether those reservees are mortis causa to the reservees within the third degree (her sixteen grandchildren) to the
common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant from whom the property came, the exclusion of the reservees in the second degree, her three daughters and three sons?
property retains its reservable character. The property should go to the nearest reservees. The
RULING+RATIO: NO, because the reservable properties did not form part of her estate.
reservor cannot, by means of his will, choose the reservee to whom the reservable property
should be awarded. LB: The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long
as the reservees survived the reservor. In the Cano and Padura cases, the reservees inherit
FACTS: the reservable properties from the prepositus, not from the reservor.

1. Benito Legarda y De la Paz, son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, was survived by his widow, APP: Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the
Filomena Roces, and their seven children: 4 daughters - Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the six
Filomena; 3 sons- Benito, Alejandro and Jose. children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property
should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein.
2. The real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in three equal
portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito. LB: The doctrine of the Florentino case means that as long as during the reservor’s lifetime
and upon his death there are relatives within the third degree of the prepositus, regardless
3. Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena of whether those reservees are common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant
Roces Vda. de Legarda. from whom the property came, the property retains its reservable character. The property
should go to the nearest reservees. The reservor cannot, by means of his will, choose the
4. Mrs. Legarda executed affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which reservee to whom the reservable property should be awarded.
she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda.
APP: Applying that doctrine to this case, it results that Mrs. Legarda could not dispose of in
5. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased her will the properties in question even if the disposition is in favor of the relatives within
daughter Filomena Legarda as co- owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other the third degree from Filomena Legarda. The said properties, by operation of Article 891,
six children. should go to Mrs. Legarda’s six children as reservees within the second degree from Filomena
Legarda.
6. Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the
properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of her 16 grandchildren. DISPOSITION: Lower court’s decision is reversed and set aside.

9
 RESERVA TRONCAL ISSUE: W/N accordance with the provision of the Civil Code in article 891, Severina Faz de
Florentino v. Florentino Leon had the obligation to preserve and reserve same for the relatives, within the third degree,
Digest Author: Fenis of her deceased son?

DOCTRINE: — Reservable property left, through a will or otherwise, by the death of RULING+RATIO: YES.
ascendant (reservista) together with his own property in favor of another of his descendants
as forced heir, forms no part of the latter's lawful inheritance nor of the legitime, for the LB: According to the provisions of law, ascendants do not inherit the reservable property, but
reason that, as said property continued to be reservable, the heir receiving same as an its enjoyment, use or trust, merely for the reason that said law imposes the obligation to
inheritance from his ascendant has the strict obligation of its delivery to the relatives, within reserve and preserve same for certain designated persons who, on the death of the said
the third degree, of the predecessor in interest, without prejudicing the right of the heir to ascendants reservists, acquire the ownership of said property in fact and by operation of law
an aliquot part of property, if he has at the same time the right of a reservatario. 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
FACTS: right of reservatarios (persons for whom property is reserved), and are relatives, within the
third degree, of the descendant from whom the reservable property came.
1. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married the first time Antonia Faz de Leon and had 9
children. Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property, while there are living, within
the third degree, relatives of the latter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the
2. On becoming a widower he married the second time Severina Faz de Leon with whom he reservable property received. He is, however, the legitimate owner of his own property which
had two children. is not reservable property and which constitutes his legitime. But if, afterwards, all of the
relatives, within the third degree, of the descendant (from whom came the reservable
3. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II died and was survived by his second wife Severina Faz de property) die or disappear, the said property becomes free property, by operation of law, and
Leon and the ten children his eleventh son, Apolonio III, was born a month after he died. is thereby converted into the legitime of the ascendant heir who can transmit it at his death to
his legitimate successors or testamentary heirs. This property has now lost its nature of
4. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino executed a will before the notary public of Ilocos Sur, reservable property, pertaining thereto at the death of the relatives, called reservatarios, who
instituting as his universal heirs his aforementioned 10 children, the posthumos Apolonio belonged within the third degree to the line from which such property came.
III and his widow Severina Faz de Leon. It is said that all his property should be divided
among all of his children of both marriages. GR: The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claming same as a reservatario
of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third degree belonging to the
5. In the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio Florentino III: a line from which such property came.
gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver, and of table service, livestock, palay, some personal
property and other objects mentioned in the complaint. EXC: Nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came have the
right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said
6. Apolonio Florentino III died and all his property were succeeded by his mother, Severina deceased person and relatives within the third degree.
Faz de Leon.
APP: In this case, plaintiffs, there are then seven "reservatarios" who are entitled to the
7. Severina died. As a universal heiress in a will, properties went to her only living daughter, reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III;
Mercedes. Among the properties was the property inherited by Severina from Apolonio o the posthumos son of' the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo II, to wit, his three
III, as reservable property. children of his first marriage— Encarnacion, Gabriel, Magdalena;
o his three children, Jose, Espirita and Pedro who are represented by their own twelve
8. Plaintiffs asked the defendants, to deliver the corresponding part of the reservable children respectively;
property but the latter refused to do so. o and Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by a second marriage.

Petitioner’s contention: All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased posthumos son, Apolonio Florentino III,
For nine years Mercedes Florentino has been receiving, as rent for the lands mentioned, 360 within the third degree (four of whom being his halfbrothers and the remaining twelve being
bundles of palay at fifty pesos per bundle and 90 bundles of corn at f our pesos per bundle; his nephews as they are the children of his three half- brothers). As the first four are his
that thereby the plaintiffs have suffered damages. relatives within the third degree in their own right and the other twelve are such by
representation, all of them are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the property which
9. Trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. came from the common ancestor, Apolonio Isabelo, to Apolonio Florentino III by inheritance

10
during his life-time, and in turn by inheritance to his legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon,
widow of the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II.

LB: Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the
ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant, therefore it does not form
part of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced heirs. It becomes his own
property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista), in
which case said reservable property losses such character.

APP: In this case, whatever provision there is in Severina Faz de leon’s will concerning the
reservable property received from her son Apolonio III, or rather, whatever provision will
reduce the rights of the other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of her daughter
Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said property is not her own and she has
only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve and to deliver same to
the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes Florentino.

DISPOSITION: Order reversed.

11
 RESERVA TRONCAL AP: The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, subject to the
Sienes v. Esparcia condition that the vendees would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation,
Digest Author: FABI only if the vendor died without being survived by any person entitled to the reservable
property. Inasmuch as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso was still alive, the
DOCTRINE: — In reserva troncal the reservor has the legal title and dominion over the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in favor of
reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. He may alienate the same but appellants became of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof
subject to the reservation, i.e., the rights acquired by the transferee are revoked upon the passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
survival of reservees at the time of death of the reservor.

The reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the It is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in
line from which the reservable property came constitutes a real right which the reservee may favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory
alienate and dispose of, although conditionally, the condition being that the alienation condition.
would transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the
reservoir. LB: The reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to
the line from which the reservable property came, constitutes a real right which the reservee
FACTS: may alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being that the alienation
shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person
1. The case involves a lot which originally belonged to Saturnino. According to the cadastral obliged to reserve.
records, upon Saturnino’s death, he left the aid land to Franisco, his only son with his
second wife, Andrea. Because Francisco was a minor that time, his mother administered AP: In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea
the property for him and declared it in her name. Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died, Thus the former became the absolute owner of
the reservable property upon Andrea's death.
2. Fracisco died at the age of 20, singe and without any descendant, his mother, as his sole
heir, sold the property to the appellant Sienes. DISPOSITION: Order reversed.

3. Cipriana and Paulina, surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who had declared the
questioned property in their name, sold it in favor of spouses Fidel and Paulina.

4. RTC declared both sale as void and that the property be reverted to the estate of Cipriana,
the lone surviving relating and heir of Francisco at the death of Andrea.

ISSUE: W/N the sale by Andrea is valid although at the time of her death, there are still
surviving relatives within the 3rd degree belonging to the line from which the property came.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

The land was reservable property. Francisco inherited it by operation of law from his father
Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death, unmarried and without descendants, it was inherited,
in turn, by his mother, Andrea.

The latter was, therefore, under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives within the
third degree belonging to the line from which said property came, if any survived her.

LB: 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

12
 DISINHERITANCE can be disinherited only by will, and for causes mentioned in the Civil Code, it would seem to
Pecson v. Mediavillo follow that the courts might properly inquire whether the disinheritance has been made
Digest Author: FABI properly and for the causes provided for by law. The right of the courts to inquire into the
causes and whether there was sufficient cause for the disinheritance or not, seems to be
DOCTRINE: — Disinheritance of a lawful heir can only be made for one of the causes supported by express provisions of the Civil Code. Then article 850 provides that:
expressly fixed by law. (Arts. 848, 756, 853, and 849, Civil Code.) Such disinheritance can only The proof' of the truthfulness of the reason for disinheritance shall be established by
be effected by a will in which shall be mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such the heirs of the testator, should the disinherited person deny it.
disinheritance. Article 850 of the Civil Code provides that the reason for the disinheritance It would appear then that if the person disinherited should deny the truthfulness of the cause
shall be established by the heirs of the testator. In other words, if the person disinherited of disinheritance, he might be permitted to support his allegation by proof.
shall deny the truthfulness of the cause of disinheritance, he may be permitted to support
his allegations by proof. (Art. 851, Civil Code.) In accordance with the foregoing provisions of Then Article 851 provides that:
the Civil Code, courts may inquire into the justice of a disinheritance, and if they find that the "Disinheritance made without statement of the reason, or for a cause the truth of
disinheritance was without cause, that part of the will may be pronounced null and void. which, if contradicted, should not be proven * * * shall annul the designation of
heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person disinherited."
FACTS:
APP: From the above-quoted provisions, that the courts may inquire into the justice of a
1. The last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court for probate. disinheritance such as was attempted in the present case, and if they find that the
disinheritance was without cause, that part of the testament or will may be pronounced null
2. Respondent’s lawyer opposed the legalization of the will on the ground that it had not and void.
been authorized nor signed by the deceased. – Trial court denied.
(2) The court supports the conclusion of the lower court.
3. Respondent’s lawyer assail that: It appears from the record that:
o Respondents, Rosario and Joaquin Mediavillo (represented by his father Basiliso) are - when Rosario Mediavillo was about 14 years of age, she had received some attentions
grandchildren of the deceased and that Rosario was disinherited by the testator from a young man—that she had received a letter from him—and that her grandfather,
because she failed to show him due respect and on a certain occasion raised her took occasion to talk to her about the relations between her and the said young man
hand against him. - That it was upon that occasion when, it is alleged, the disobedience and disrespect were
shown to her grandfather, and that was the cause for her disinheritance by her
o Rosario did not commit such an act, and if perhaps she did, it was due to the grandfather
derangement of her mental faculties which occurred a long time ago and from which - Soon after said event she lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never
she now suffers in periodical attacks. regained them, except for very brief periods, up to the present time

4. Respondents prays that the disinheritance clause shall be annulled and to make them The lower court, taking into consideration her tender years, and the fact that she very soon
participants in the estate of their grandfather. thereafter lost the use of her mental faculties, reached the conclusion that she was probably
not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfather
5. Trial court ruled in favor of the respondents.

DISPOSITION: Nuillification of disinheritance clause is affirmed.

ISSUE:
(1) W/N the courts, may inquire into the cause of the disinheritance and decide that
there was or was not ground for such disinheritance? YES
(2) W/N the disinheritance clause in the will is contrary to law? NO

RULING+RATIO:

(1) YES.

LB: Civil Code provides that the disinheritance can only be effected by the testament, in which
shall be mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance. If it is true that heirs

13