This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sumaya v. IAC (1991) Raul Balantakbo inherited from 2 different ascendants the 2 sets of properties subject of this case: 1) A 1/3 interest, pro-indiviso in a parcel of land situated in Dita, Lilio (Liliw), Laguna from his father Jose, Sr., who died on January 28, 1945 2) A 1/7 interest pro-indiviso in 10 parcels of registered lands from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who died on November 3, 1950. On June 13, 1952, Raul died intestate, single, without any issue, and leaving only his mother, Consuelo Joaquin Vda. de Balantakbo, as his sole surviving heir to the real properties. On November 3, 1952, Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the said properties in an Affidavit entitled "Caudal Herederario del finado Raul Balantakbo." On December 21, 1959, Consuelo Joaquin vda de. Balantakbo sold the property inherited from Jose, Sr., to Mariquita H. Sumaya. The same property was subsequently sold by Sumaya to Villa Honorio Development Corporation, Inc., on December 30, 1963. Also on December 30, 1963, Consuelo Joaquin vda. de Balantakbo sold the properties inherited from Luisa Bautista, to Villa Honorio Development Corporation, Inc. The latter in turn transferred and assigned all its rights to the properties in favor of Laguna Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative, Inc. which properties are presently in its possession. On January 23, 1967, Villa Honorio Development Corporation transferred and assigned its rights over the property in favor of Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative, Inc. The properties are presently in the name of the Cooperative, 2/3 share and the remaining 1/3 share is in the name of Sancho Balantakbo. The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above described properties do not contain any annotation of its reservable character. On June 3, 1968, Consuelo Joaquin vda. de Balantakbo died. On March 4, 1970, Amadeo, Sancho, Donato, Luis, and Erasto, all surnamed Balantakbo, brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and Luisa, Jose and Dolores, also all surnamed Balantakbo, surviving children of
deceased Jose Balantakbo, Jr., another brother of the first named Balantakbos, filed suit to recover the properties which they claimed were subject to a reserva troncal in their favor. Held: On the question of registration of reserva troncal Upon the death of the propositus, Raul Balantakbo, the reservista, Consuelo vda. de Balantakbo caused the registration of an affidavit of selfadjudication of the estate of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated that the properties were inherited by Raul from his father Jose, Sr., and from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista. Said affidavit was, in its form, declaration and substance, a recording with the Registry of Deeds of the reservable character of the properties. In Spanish language, the affidavit clearly stated that the affiant, Consuelo, was a lone ascendant and heir to Raul Balantakbo, her son, who died leaving properties previously inherited from other ascendants and which properties were inventoried in the said affidavit. Although the certificates of titles covering the properties in question show that they were free from any liens and encumbrances at the time of the sale, the fact remains however, that the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature thereof was registered with the Register of Deeds of Laguna, and this is sufficient notice to the whole world. Thus, in Gatioan v. Gaffud, We held: "When a conveyance has been properly recorded such record is constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal and equitable, included therein… "Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption is irrebuttable. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed.
de Balantakbo on June 3. Nonetheless. 1970 or less than two (2) years from the death of the reservor. The rule must be absolute. who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor. Relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right (or property) is reserved have no title of ownership or of fee simple over the reserved property during the lifetime of the reservor. thus creating a fee simple. . this right if not exercised within the time for recovery may prescribe in 10 years under the old Code of Civil Procedure or in thirty years under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code. Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal where the person obliged to reserve (the widowed spouse) had the obligation to annotate in the Registry of Property the reservable character of the property. Consuelo Joaquin vda. the reservor (the ascendant who inherited from a descendant property which the latter inherited from another descendant) has the duty to reserve and therefore.Reserva Troncal 2 Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. in reserva troncal. the respondents' cause of action has not prescribed yet. any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation…" On the question of whose duty the annotation of the reserva troncal rests The obligation to reserve rests upon the reservor. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. as it then becomes a right of full ownership on the part of the reservatarios. The reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservor. Only when the reservor should die before the reservees will the latter acquire the reserved property. 1968. Therefore. On the question of prescription of cause of action The cause of action of the reservees did not commence upon the death of the propositus Raul Balantakbo on June 13. 1952 but upon the death of the reservor Consuelo Vda. de Balantakbo. the duty to annotate also. and only then will they take their place in the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives within the third degree. The action for recovery of the reserved property was brought by the respondents on March 4.
and was survived by his only legitimate descendant. sisters. In 1928. Romana. Eustacio received the said property subject to a reserva troncal. which devolved upon her children Faustino and Trinidad Dizon in equal proindiviso shares. nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles. and her rights and interests in the 7 parcels of land were inherited by her only child. that under our laws of succession. Thus. He also had a sister. Nicolas. Primo Tongko. during her lifetime. and had 2 legitimate children: Faustino and Trinidad. Eustacio Dizon Toribia Tioco Nicolas Tioco Manuel Tioco Francisc a Tioco de Papa The parties agree that Dalisay now owns one-half (1/2) of all the 7 parcels of land as her inheritance from her mother. cousins. In the partition of his estate. . In 1939 Trinidad died intestate. The latter died intestate in 1915. Under Article 1009. etc. the rules on intestate succession? Held: The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned. Trinidad is the mother of defendant Dalisay D. succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista? Or. and should be determined by. these lands were inherited by her children in equal proindiviso shares. Thus. a decedent's uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed… The late Balbino Tioco had 4 children: Toribia (deceased). survived by her husband and their two children. subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband. Toribia was married to Eustacio Dizon. 1965. TongkoCamacho Whether or not all relatives of the praepositus. Issue: Faustino Dizon Trinidad DizonTongko Dalisay D. hold. the plaintiffs must be held without any right thereto because. which was annotated on the Certificates of Title. 3 parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco. On June 14. Tongko-Camacho. inherited his 1/2 pro-indiviso share in the 7 parcels of land. as aunt and uncles of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus). Romana Tioco. Dalisay. Balbino died intestate. donated 4 parcels of land to her niece Toribia. Camacho (1986) X& Y Romana Tioco Balbino Tioco In 1937. the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. single and without issue. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession. therefore. within the third degree in the appropriate line. and so rule. We. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. Manuel and Francisca.Reserva Troncal 3 De Papa v. Faustino died intestate. the absence of brothers. his father. Dalisay.) being called to the succession. are the rights of said relatives subject to. as he was the sole intestate heir of Faustino. Dalisay. and the granddaughter of the plaintiffs. but within that group. Dalisay is the great granddaughter of Balbino Tioco. they are excluded from the succession by his niece. Trinidad. Thus. Eustacio. Eustacio died intestate.
but from the descendant prepositus.Reserva Troncal 4 This conclusion is fortified by the observation in Padura v. There is no reason why a different result should obtain simply because "the transmission of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva. who may not dispose of it by will.before its transmission to the reservatario. there is no doubt that the plaintiffs would have been excluded by the defendant under the rules of intestate succession. Baldovino. therefore. as long as there are reservatarios existing.e. the reservatarios do not inherit from the reservista. do not inherit from the reservista.. that as to the reservable property. of whom the reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa. but from the descendant praepositus: "… It is likewise clear that the reservable property is no part of the estate of the reservista. subject to the condition that they must survive the reservista…" Had the reversionary property passed directly from the praepositus. . The latter." i. the property took a "detour" through an ascendant ---thereby giving rise to the reservation ---.
Consuelo and Rita. On July 12. Alejandro and Jose (16 grandchildren in all). Filomena Roces. Legarda.Reserva Troncal 5 Gonzales v. Benito F. Legarda died on September 22. represented by Benito F. sisters. Benito. During the period from July. On March 6. Rosario. That motion was opposed by the administrator. Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez. and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property came. 3 transmissions are involved: (1) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant. Mrs. CFI (1981) Benito Legarda y Tuason died on June 17. If there are only two transmissions. Filomena Legarda. to the reservees within the 3rd degree and to bypass the reservees in the 2nd degree? Or. 1958 to February. Without awaiting the resolution on that motion. should that inheritance automatically go to the reservees in the 2nd degree? Held: In reserva troncal. He was survived by his widow. and (3) a third transmission of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant. Mrs. So. 1968 a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter. 1947 an affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter. by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserva) in favor of another ascendant. Mrs. Mrs. (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant. Legarda and her 6 surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the 1/3 share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in representation of their father. nephews and nieces and her mother's estate for the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda. all surnamed Legarda. Teresa and Filomena and 3 sons named Benito. Legarda have the right to convey mortis causa the properties she inherited from her daughter. a daughter of the testatrix. brother or sister of the deceased descendant. 1943. These properties are in litigation in this case. (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or sister. the reservor or reservista. Legarda executed 2 hand-written identical documents wherein she disposed the properties she inherited from her daughter in favor of the children of her sons. there is no reserva. Benito Legarda y De la Paz. Legarda executed on May 12. Issues: 1) Whether or not the properties in litigation are reservable propeDid rties? 2) Did Mrs. filed on May 20. and their 7 children: 4 daughters named Beatriz. which two transmissions precede the reservation. Gonzalez filed on June 20. 1939. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of the properties held pro-indiviso by her other 6 children. on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito. Alejandro and Jose. The persons involved in reserva troncal are: (1) the ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title. 1968 an ordinary civil action against her brothers. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication. Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate and without issue on March 19. Her sole heiress was her mother. Alejandro and Jose. 1933. Mrs. and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz. de Legarda. Legarda could not bequeath in her holographic will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her three daughters and her three sons. 1959. 1967. Filomena. Filomena Roces Vda. (2) a posterior transmission. the real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in 3 equal portions by his daughters. In the testate proceeding. . 1953.
therefore. But the representative should be within the third degree from the prepositus. If there are no reservees at the time of the reservor's death." Gratuitous title or titulo lucrativo refers to a transmission wherein the recipient gives nothing in return such as donation and succession. "The latter. It would become absolute should the reservor predecease the reservee. of whom the reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa. the transferee of the property should deliver it to the reservees. (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival. The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant. subject to the condition that they must survive the reservista. for this purpose. The transferee's rights are revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor. the reservee has only an inchoate. relationship and relationship by affinity are excluded. The condition is that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the reservor. They cannot even represent their parents because representation is confined to relatives within the third degree. Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. The reserva creates two resolutory conditions. the latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest in the reservable property. Fourth degree relatives are not included. The renunciation of the reservee's right to the reservable property is illegal for being a contract regarding future inheritance. so long as there are reservatarios existing. On the other hand. . He is called the prepositus. First cousins of the prepositus are in the fourth degree and are not reservees. there are reservees. Illegitimate The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is subject to a resolutory condition. The reservor's title has been compared with that of the vendee a retro in a pacto de retro sale or to a fideicomiso condicional. of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. the nearest relatives exclude the more remote subject to the rule of representation. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property. who are the ultimate acquirers of the property. The reservee's right is a real right which he may alienate and dispose of conditionally. Within the third degree. said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista's lifetime." "Even during the reservista's lifetime. The reservees may be half-brothers and sisters. and. He may alienate it subject to the reservation. do not inherit from the reservista but from the descendant prepositus. the transferee's title would become absolute. or the one at the end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent. The reservee cannot impugn any conveyance made by the reservor but he can require that the reservable character of the property be recognized by the purchaser. the other ascendant who obtained the property from the prepositus by operation of law and (4) the reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.Reserva Troncal 6 (2) the descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the property. they can compel the annotation of their right in the registry of property even while the reservista is alive" This right is incompatible with the mere expectancy that corresponds to the natural heirs of the reservista. meaning that if at the time of the reservor's death. namely. expectant or contingent right. (3) the reservor (reservista). can already assert the right to prevent the reservista from doing anything that might frustrate their reversionary right. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. "The reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant (prepositus). the reservatarios. The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. The authorities are all agreed that there being reservatarios that survive the reservista. It is likewise clear that the reservable property is no part of the estate of the reservista who may not dispose of them (it) by will. His expectant right would disappear if he predeceased the reservor. at the time of his death.
the owner of the reservable property. This case is governed by the doctrine of Florentino vs. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein.Reserva Troncal 7 Hence. "automatically and by operation of law. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed. are the 6 children of Mrs. Legarda. through a will or otherwise. upon the reservista's death." 1) In the instant case. within the third degree. if he has at the same time the right of a reservatario" (reservee). in this case. The reservation became a certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus were living. To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary disposition of the reservable properties in favor of the reservees in the third degree and. the heir receiving the same as an inheritance from his ascendant has the strict obligation of its delivery to the relatives. the property retains its reservable character. for the reason that. 2) Mrs. Florentino. as said property continued to be reservable. Undoubtedly. Legarda. there are relatives within the third degree of the prepositus. The reservor cannot. of the predecessor in interest ( prepositus). where it was ruled: "Reservable property left. she was a reservor. This means that as long as during the reservor's lifetime and upon his death. subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor. The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees survived the reservor. choose the reservee to whom the reservable property should be awarded. consequently. without prejudicing the right of the heir to an aliquot part of the property. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes. the properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. The property should go to the nearest reservees. regardless of whether those reservees are common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant from whom the property came. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will the reservable properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her estate. by the death of 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. Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who. of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis causa. to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a glaring violation of article 891. It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit from the reservor but from the prepositus. by means of his will. .
Isabel Macaraya. The estate possessed by Cornelia at the time of her death was derived by inheritance from two sources: in part. died in December. which import a gratuitous title. was a sister to Basilia in life. and that the person receiving the property transmitted deliver.Reserva Troncal 8 Cabardo v. . "In a case where the question raised was as to the right of a minor to the inheritance of his grandmother. Lorenzo Abordo. the Court held that it was not the document of compromise that determined the character of the title by virtue of which the minor got the amounts awarded to him. from her mother Basilia.e. Thus. Cornelia’s father. what is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously.whether by testate or intestate succession is immaterial . upon the death of the latter in 1912 . and which question were settled by a compromise. but the thing which was the subject-matter of the compromise.. she died on October 30. notwithstanding the fact that a division of Isabel Macaraya's estate was effected by a partition deed executed by the persons in interest. without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. 1899. Her mother. who had no brothers or sisters living at the time of the death of her niece. give or do nothing in return." The person from whom the degrees are reckoned is Cornelia Abordo herself. Basilia Cabardo. It is sufficient that Cornelia acquired it by inheritance from her mother. 1920. since she was at the end of the line from which the property came and the person upon whom the property last devolved by descent. became impressed with the character of reservable property in the hands of Lorenzo Abordo when he succeeded to those properties by inheritance from his daughter Cornelia. upon the death of Lorenzo Abordo. 1912). who died in November. and as Cornelia had no brothers or sisters. the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the aforementioned properties.pertains to the reservable estate. upon the death of the latter in 1899. Lorenzo Abordo was a stranger to that line and not related by blood to those for whom the property is reserved. The property which Cornelia Abordo acquired from her mother. Villanueva (1922) The last owner of the property in question was Cornelia Abordo. died as far back as in February. the hereditary rights. 1918. or by an act of mere liberality of the person making. from her grandmother Isabel Macaraya (mother of Basilia Cabardo. succeeded to all of her properties. and in part. the property acquired by Cornelia Abordo from her grandmother. Basilia Cabardo. her own father. Issue: Whether or not the properties are subject to reserva troncal? Held: The case falls precisely under Article 811 of the Civil Code. The present claimant. Lorenzo. It is sufficient that the property descend to Cornelia Abordo from her grandmother by gratuitous title (por titulo lucrativo): "The transmission is by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. intestate and without issue. Cornelia. Rosa Cabardo. Also. The circumstance that said property originally pertained to the conjugal partnership composed of Basilia Cabardo and Loranzo Abordo is immaterial. she being the only living person within the limits of the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. i. It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges.
On September 8. the reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant (prepositus). However. further proceedings would be unavoidable. But this is not the case. and (2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista. 1955. The only requisites for the passing of title from the reservista to the appellee are: (1) the death of the reservista. and The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the assumption that the reservatario will succeed in. The oppositors appealed and argued that the reversion in favor of the reservatario requires the declaration of the existence of the following facts: (1) The property was received by a ascendant by gratuitous titled from an ascendant or from a brother or sister. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes. Of course. and belonging to the line whence the property came. not in the Registration Court. its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records without necessity of estate proceedings. They contended that the application and operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary proceeding. automatically and by operation of law. . Both facts are admitted. (4) The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property came. (2) Said descendant dies without issue. Director of Lands (1959) The Certificate of Title of the land in question was registered in the name of Maria Cano. The property was inherited by Cano from her deceased daughter. 1955. the latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest in the reservable property. and their existence in nowhere questioned. Held: The requisites enumerated by appellants have already been declared to exist by the decree of registration wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were expressly recognized. the reservee (reservatorio) Eustaquia applied for the cancellation of the original title and a new one issued in her favor. since the basic requisites therefor appear of record. or inherit. and it is nowhere claimed that there are other reservatarios of equal or nearer degree. Evaristo Guerrero. Thus. is in existence when the reservista dies. The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is the reservable property part of the reservista's estate. died. the reservable property from the reservista. the owner of the reservable property. The motion was opposed by the sons of Cano: Jose and Teotimo Fernandez.Reserva Troncal 9 Cano v. without determining the identity of the reservatario. It held that the issuance of a new certificate is proper. the reservista Cano. where the registration decree merely specifies the reservable character of the property. This is not true. in October. Lourdes Guerrero. or where several reservatarios dispute the property among themselves. Hence. the lower court granted the petition on the basis of the recorded reserve. subject to reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero. who inherited the same from her father. It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista. falls squarely within the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code. said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservatarios that survive the reservista. for the reason that the death of the reservista vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole reservatario troncal. so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the prepositus. Hence. (3) The property ascendant by operation of law. It is equally well settled that the reservable property cannot be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa. The rights of the reservataria Eustaquia Guerrero have been expressly recognized.
Agustina. if not exercised within the time for recovering real properties. As a result. De Paz (1966) The property in question is Lot No. Agustina died. Honoria. 1946. and Adolfo died last — his properties went to his maternal grandmother. Severino died. applying the survivorship presumption: i. entitled to the immediate delivery to him of the said 3/4 share declared reserved to him …" On April 22. 221. Doña Agustina. or on December 5. the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by prescription. Ernesto Bautista. iii. 221. Scaevola shares the view that prescription can apply against the reservatarios to cut off their right to the reservable property. Appellants. 1941). the court held: "… in view of the death of the reservista. Isabel. 1950. Prima Carrillo and Lorenzo Licup. Severino sold to Honoria Salak his 1/2 portion of Lot 221. Honoria. Thus. A year later. counted from the time the cause of action accrued. Simeon died first — his properties went to his children: Adolfo. to settle the estates of Severino Salak and Petra Garcia On September 4. or on June 8. or more than 10 years from April 24. 1963. Honoria. and that the reservee. 1944. on November 6. Ernesto. those of Ligaya went to her son. 1950. the other 3/4 by purchase and/or exchange with her co-heirs: Rita Sahagun. Acting on said petition. Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure fixes 10 years as the period of prescription for actions to recover real property. including 1/2 of Lot No. September 21. heirs of Agustina. 221 against Francisca and Ernesto. prescribes. On June 20. two settlement proceedings were instituted: On April 24. Agustina de Guzman Vda. Consuelo and Ligaya The court held that the heirs entitled to the estates of the Salak family were Agustina (3/4 share) and Ernesto (1/4 share). has prescribed. 1943. iv. 1950. a Project of Partition adjudicated Lot No. who can bring a revindicatory suit therefor. Appellants' suit herein. However. 1963. 1963. each). as it then becomes a right of full ownership on the part of the reservatarios. Aurea Sahagun and Ernesto Bautista). Subsequently. the court declares all her interest in the 3/4 share of the properties terminated. Agustina. On August 16. originally owned by Severino Salak and Petra Garcia (deceased. having been filed only on April 22. to settle the estates of the Salak family ℘ Parents: Simeon Salak and Isabel Carrillo ℘ Children: Adolfo. 221. ii. Consuelo and Ligaya (1/4. Consuelo and Ligaya died next — Honoria's and Consuelo's properties went to their mother. 1948. succeeded to the properties that came by intestate succession from Honoria and Isabel. thereby. as reservatarios. in her capacity as heir. Held: According to Manresa.Reserva Troncal 10 Carillo v. Honoria and other members of her family died — massacred by the Japanese. . filed suit for the recovery of their share in Lot No. Isabel died next — her properties went to her son Adolfo. 23. Agustina. the court decreed the properties inherited by Agustina subject to reserva troncal. (1) SP No. On November 9. Ernesto filed a petition for the execution of the said judgment. the reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservista. had the right to claim the property from the time when the reservista. (2) SP No. this right. died on April 24. 221 to Francisca Salak de Paz (1/4 of it. de Carrillo filed an action against the Francisca to recover 1/2 of Lot No. Sometime in January 1945. 1950. 3. 1950.
Second. del Rosario. alleged that the said Tomas G. until they were acquired by the applicant in August and September. therefore of Tomas G. issued in behalf of Tomas G. the said Concepcion del Rosario y Reyes also died. Tomas G. 1909. "On June 3. and if that judgment or decree of the Court of Land Registration became final. 1907. During the trial. much more than one year elapsed. and was succeeded in all her rights and actions. who died intestate." From the 21st of September. Cruz. of the entry made in the old property registry. . and made this assignment of error: that the lower court "erred in not holding that the decree of the Court of Land Registration is res judicata against the plaintiff. 1891. The plaintiff having lost his right to claim any interest in the lots or parcels of land in question. if he ever had any interest or title in said land. a daughter of the marriage of the deceased with the applicant. Manila. Juana Reyes y Reyes. and in respect to one-half of the property. That on the 21st of September.Reserva Troncal 11 De los Reyes v. 1900. That the said Tomas G. by purchase. the present action was commenced on the 7th of February. for the registration under the Torrens system of the two parcels of land in question. during his conjugal partnership. the defendant presented as proof Exhibit C which shows the following facts: First. del Rosario or to question the registration in his name during a period of one year after the certificate of title had been issued." Held: If it is true that during the lifetime of Tomas G. del Rosario. at the age of 9 years. from which a certified copy issued by the register of deeds of Manila on July 17. and that the two certificates of title of the properties that are the subject matter of the complaint. with his wife. or (b) to question the validity of such registration within a period of one year thereafter he has forever lost his right therein. The court a quo rendered a judgment ordering the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff one-half of one of said parcels of land. del Rosario was absolute and complete. was the sole and only owner of said lots or parcels of land. 1909. Paterno (1916) This action was commenced on February 7. was declared to be the sole heir of decedent on February 20. del Rosario by virtue of said decree. then his title is unimpeachable and cannot be annulled or set aside. the Court of Land Registration rendered the following decree. 1909. even for fraud. del Rosario. The title. are conclusive and decisive proof against the plaintiff. 1914. ordering said parcels of land to be registered in the name of Tomas G. The defendant. until the 7th of February. operates to exclude him forever from questioning the title granted under the Torrens system. As was noted above. From that conclusion the defendant appealed. by the applicant Tomas G. The failure of the plaintiff. "Upon the death of Juana Reyes y Reyes. 1892. or if more than one year had elapsed after the decree. for the purpose of declaring the plaintiff as owner of 1/2 of 2 parcels of land located in Sta. and that the ownership of both properties was recorded in the said property registry in the name of Tomas G. he obtained a Torrens title for the lots or parcels of land in question. del Rosario. by virtue of his (a) failure to present any opposition to the registration of the same under the Torrens system in favor of Tomas G. del Rosario. who was already the owner of the other half of the property. del Rosario. Concepcion Crispina Dorotea Severina del Rosario y Reyes. at the time of his death. del Rosario: "The applicant has presented documentary evidence. now dissolved. del Rosario presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration on the 24th of April. it was deduced that these properties have been the subject of successive and legal conveyances since the year 1879. to appear and oppose the registration of the same in the name of Tomas G. 1914. 1914. if he ever had any. in his special defense.
The complaint was dismissed. or before the widower contracts another marriage. are considered as reservable property. it is absolutely free and is transferred to the purchaser unencumbered. before becoming reservable. who acquired the said land in good faith. Article 975 permits the sale of reservable property by the widower. the rules established for reservation by a widowed spouse to secure the value of the property sold by the widower. Since these parcels of land have been legally transferred to third persons. before becoming reservable. at the time of the death of the vendor bound to make the reservation. after contracting a second marriage. when the property goes to the widower without being reservable. the law relating to the reservation by the widowed spouse in Article 968 is applicable to the reserva troncal in Article 811. If the property is sold during the 1st stage. which are reservable property. that Juan Medina and Teodoro Jurado be ordered to return the said parcels of land. As already intimated. in case. A sale in the case of reserva troncal might be analogous to a sale made by the widower after . free of all incumbrances. Vicente sold the 1st 2 parcels to Juan Medina. Rufina Dizon died. the property goes to the purchaser subject to the reservation. there should be legitimate children or descendants of the first marriage. so that the reservation may not lose its efficacy and that the rights of those for whom the reservation is made may be assured. without prejudice to the contrary provisions of the Mortgage Law and the rights of innocent purchasers. Held: The provisions regarding a reservation by the widowed spouse in Article 968 are also applicable to the reservation known as troncal referred to in Article 811. 1904. Galang (1926) Rufina Dizon was married to Vicente Galang. The complaint prays that the sales of this land by Vicente Galang to Juan Medina and Teodoro Jurado be set aside. when the widower contracts a second marriage. in 1909. These lands. the sales made by Vicente Galang (who was bound to make the reservation) of the three parcels of land. These two stages affect differently transfers that may be made of the property. Vicente Galang has lost ownership thereof and cannot now register nor record in the registry of deeds their reservable character. when the duty to reserve has arisen. being related to her within the third degree.Reserva Troncal 12 Dizon v. However. the property goes to the reservor as reservable property and it remains so until the reservation takes place or is extinguished. that Vicente Galang be compelled to record in the registry of deeds the reservable character of this land and to execute a mortgage to secure its value. Juan Medina and Teodoro Jurado. he will be compelled to secure the value of the property by a mortgage upon contracting a new marriage. that is. the 3rd to Teodoro Jurado. According to the foregoing. Francisco inherited from her the said lands. to the damage of Juan Medina and Teodoro Jurado. with whom she had a son named Francisco. in the reserva troncal. by operation of law. On December 8. Francisco died and his father Vicente. The plaintiffs: Pedro and Severina Dizon. In 1913. the property becomes reservable. But if the sale is made during the 2 nd stage. in favor of Juan Medina and Teodoro Jurado. inherited from him the 3 parcels of land. are not applicable to the reserva troncal where the property goes to the ascendant already reservable in character. brought this action against Vicente Galang. neither can he affect the fee simple. 1904. cannot be set aside unless the resolutory condition imposed by the reservation shall have occurred. This mortgage is not required by law when the sale is made after the reservation has arisen because the reservation will follow the property. without informing them that they were reservable property. to the reservation as a resolutory condition. which does not belong to him. although they do not appear as such in the registry of deeds. subject. under the law. Thus. without prejudice to the provisions of the Mortgage Law. two. She inherited from her parents the 3 parcels of land in question. In a reservation by the widowed spouse there are two distinct stages: one. however. brother and sister of the deceased Rufina. which is not the case here. This is why the law provides that should the property be sold before it becomes reservable. without prejudice to the provisions of the Mortgage Law. On October 4.
Reserva Troncal 13 contracting a second marriage in the case of reservation by the widowed spouse. .
At the death of Apolonio II. Held: 1. The law so provides that ascendants do not inherit the reservable property. among those is that property inherited from Apolonio II. However. Florentino (1919) Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II. 1890. together with her own. within the third degree. These designated persons (reservatarios) are the relatives. relatives of the latter. of the descendant die or disappear. the posthumous Apolonio III and his widow Severina Faz. the source of said property. among whom is her daughter. to her only daughter and forced heiress. Reservable property neither comes. during his lifetime. on the death of Apolonio III. within the third degree. with whom he had 2 children: Mercedes and Apolonio III. the reservable nature of such property was not lost. On becoming a widower.Reserva Troncal 14 Florentino v. within the third degree. On January 17 and February 13. That Apolonio III acquired the property in question by a lucrative title or by inheritance from his father is without any doubt. 1908. with Antonia Faz de Leon. Apolonio III died. he declared that all his property should be divided among all of his children of both marriages. Thus. The 1st time. with whom he begot 9 children: Jose. Espirita. married twice. of the descendant from whom the reservable property came. Juan. is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reservable property received. all of the relatives. but only its enjoyment. with the object that the same should not fall into the possession of persons other than those comprehended . Apolonio III. under a will. 2. and Magdalena. in which case said reservable property losses such character. his 11 children succeeded to the inheritance he left. But if. nor falls under. and the ascendant heir can transmit it at his death to his legitimate successors or testamentary heirs. 3. Pedro. he was succeeded by his mother Severina Faz (included in the inheritance is the property in question). his mother. 2. the same passed by operation of law into the hands of his mother. Mercedes Florentino. If this property was clothed with the character and condition of reservable property when Severina Faz inherited the same from her son Apolonio III. Issues: 1. Maria. As such heir. the absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and receives the same from his descendant. In 1891. with the necessary obligation to preserve and to deliver or return it as such reservable property to her deceased son's relatives within the third degree. in case all the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista). Apolonio III died in 1891. Encarnacion. constitute reservable properties? Whether or not the testator can dispose by will the properties subject to reserva troncal? Whether or not the reservista can choose which reservatorio can inherit the property subject to reserva troncal? within the order of succession traced by the law from Apolonio II. Mercedes. (taking into consideration the nature of the line from which such property came) acquire the ownership of said property in fact and by operation of law in the same manner as forced heirs. succeeded to all his property. Isabel. When Severina Faz died in 1908. by operation of law. said daughter took possession of all the property left at the death of her mother. Whether or not the properties inherited by Severina Faz from her son. Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property. it does not form part of his own property nor become the legitime of his forced heirs. the said property becomes free property. Mercedes. It becomes his own property. she did not acquire the dominion or right of ownership but only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary. Apolonio II executed a will instituting as his universal heirs his 10 children. she left in her will said property. upon the death of the said ascendants-reservists. afterwards. Gabriel. while there are living. The law imposes the obligation to reserve and preserve the same for certain designated persons who. it became reservable property. he married the 2 nd time with Severina Faz de Leon. without issue. only. Therefore. Severina Faz died on November 18. use or trust. Severina Faz. leaving a will instituting as her universal heiress her only living daughter. when.
inasmuch as said property is not her own. And there is no reason founded upon law and upon the principle of justice why the other reservatarios. All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased Apolonio III. called reservatario. But it is likewise true that Mercedes is not the only reservataria. Severina Faz de Leon could have disposed in her will of all her own property in favor of her only living daughter as forced heiress. his daughter by 2nd marriage. Jose. Mercedes Florentino. as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. as a reservee. when there are relatives of the descendant within the 3rd degree. pertain to them. over the property which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him. within the 3rd degree (4 of whom being his half-brothers and the remaining 12 being his nephews as they are the children of his 3 half-brothers). 3. Mercedes was entitled. It is true that when Mercedes Florentino. Gabriel. within the third degree. relatives within the third degree should be deprived of portions of the property which. . These reservatarios have the right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said deceased person and relatives. to one-seventh of the properties. Espirita and Pedro. Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession. As there were seven reservees.Encarnacion. Obiter: On the question of right of representation The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claming as a reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property came. all of them are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the property. There are then 7 "reservatarios" who are entitled to the reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III: a. there is a right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law. as reservable property. the other 3 children. The other six-sevenths portions were adjudicated to the other six reservees. Thus. same did not pass into the hands of strangers. As the first 4 are his relatives within the third degree in their own right and the other 12 are such by representation. the 3 children of the 1st marriage of Apolonio II . the right of the nearest relative. and c. took possession of the property in question. b. is unlawful. the heiress of the reservista Severina. excludes that of the one more remote.Reserva Troncal 15 With full right. But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the reservable property received from her son Apolonio III. null and void. the other brothers and nephews. Magdalena. represented by their own 12 children respectively.
Of said marriage Alfeo Deocampo was born. . (The reservation in article 811 i6 a privilege of the legitimate family. Thereafter. Furthermore. arrives at the same conclusion as Manresa. Thus. "La reserva del articulo 811 es privilegio de la familia legitima. there can be no question. because relationship by affinity is established between each spouse and the family of the other. as acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana. would be a flagrant violation of the express provisions of the foregoing article (943). whereupon his widow and son took possession of the lands in question. from which it must be deduced that natural parents neither have the right to inherit from legitimate ones. provides as follows: "A natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who has acknowledged it. invoking the article 811 of the Civil Code. Alfeo Deocampo. which is just what this article intends to prevent. married Francisco Deocampo. On September 30. properties of the legitimate family shall never pass by operation of law to the natural family. and this being true. Francisco. instituted the present action for the purpose of recovering from the parcels of land in question. Francisco married Manuela Alcala. would be to favor the transmission of the properties of the family of one spouse to that of the other. the natural mother of Segunda Maria Nieva. the law in the article cited establishes a barrier between the two families. the parcels of land in question. by intestate succession. by marriage. inherited from her ab intestate.)" Article 943. nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from the natural or legitimated child.… In the interpretation of article 811 … the reservation is established in favor of the parents who are within the third degree and belong to the line from which the properties came. 1890. Article 943 denies to legitimate parents the right to succeed the natural child and vice versa. Alfeo died intestate and without issue on July 7. The person obliged to reserve is a legitimate ascendant who inherits from a descendant property which proceeds from the same legitimate family. . in determining the persons in whose favor the reservation is established. And it could not be otherwise. "It also treats of legitimate relationship. and to admit it. Francisco died on August 3. the lands passed to his father. says: "Persons in whose favor the reservation is established. Alfeo Deocampo. Alcala (1920) Juliana Nieva. above referred to by Manresa. we have already said. Juliana died intestate on April 19. "It treats of blood relationship… It could not be otherwise. Issue: Whether or not an illegitimate relative within the 3rd degree is entitled to the reserva troncal? Held: Manresa.Reserva Troncal 16 Nieva v. 1915. 1914. because the line from which the properties proceed must be the line of that family and only in favor of that line is the reservation established. Segunda. following the precedents of the foral law. of which marriage was born Jose Deocampo. 1889." Scaevola. the object is to protect the patrimony of the legitimate family. and her son. by operation of law." To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?