You are on page 1of 10

TOPIC: Reserva Troncal CASES: CHUA v.

CFI 78 SCRA 414 Facts: Jose Frias Chua contracted two marriages during his lifetime. His first marriage was with Patricia S. Militar with whom he sired three children, namely: gnacio, !oren"o and Manuel, all surnamed Frias Chua. n his second marriage with Consolacion de la #orre, he had a son named Juanito Frias Chua. Manuel Frias Chua died without lea$ing any issue. n %&'&, Jose Frias Chua died intestate lea$ing his widow Consolacion de la #orre and his son Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage and sons gnacio Frias Chua and !oren"o Frias Chua of his first marriage. n the ntestate Proceeding, the lower court issued an order ad(udicating, among others, the one)half *%+',, -ortion of !ot .o. /&& and the sum of P0,111.11 in fa$or of Consolacion de la #orre, the other half of !ot .o. /&& in fa$or of Juanito Frias Chua, his son in the second marriage2 P/,111.11 in fa$or of !oren"o Frias chua2 and P%,331.11 in fa$or of gnacio Frias, Chua, his sons of the first marriage. 4n Fe5ruary '6, %&3', Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion de la #orre succeeded to his share of !ot .o. /&&. 4n March 3, %&77, Consolacion de la #orre died intestate lea$ing no direct heir either in the descending or in ascending line e8ce-t her 5rother and sisters. n the intestate -roceeding of Consolacion de la #orre9s estate, gnacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage and :ominador and ;emedios Chua, the legitimate children of the deceased !oreno Frias Chua, also of the first marriage filed the com-laint on May %%, %&77 5efore the res-ondent CF of .egros 4ccidental, -raying that the one)half -ortion of !ot .o. /&& which formerly 5elonged to Juanito Frias 5ut which -assed to Consolacion de la #orre u-on the latter<s death, 5e declared as a reser$a5le -ro-erty for the reason that the lot in =uestion was su5(ect to reserval troncal -ursuant to Article 0&% of the .CC, against Susana de la #orre as administratri8 of the estate in =uestion 4n July '&, %&07, the res-ondent Court rendered a decision dismissing the com-laint of -etitioner on the ground that the -ro-erty is not reser$a5le in nature since the -ro-erty in =uestion was not ac=uired 5y Juanito Frias Chua gratuitously 5ut for a consideration from his father Jose Frias Chua as Juanito has the o5ligation of -aying the Standard 4il Co. of .ew >or? the amount of P/, &6%.'1, it 5eing ordered 5y the court in the ntestate Proceeding .o.@0%7 dated January %3, %&/%. Issue: Ahether or not the -ro-erty in =uestion is transferred gratuitously. Ruling: >es, the -ro-erty is transferred gratuitously. #he Su-reme Court ruled that transmission is gratuitous or 5y gratuitous title when the reci-ient does not gi$e anything in return. t matters not whether the -ro-erty

or 5y an act of mere li5erality of the -erson ma?ing it. t is e$ident from the record that the transmission of the -ro-erty in =uestion to Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage u-on the death of his father Jose Frias Chua was 5y means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous.'1 was ordered 5y the lower court during the intestate -roceedings 5ut the Su-reme Court ruled that this does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of the -ro-erty to him. #he o5ligation to -ay Standard 4il Co. #his 5eing the case the lot in =uestion is su5(ect to reser$a troncal under Art.ew >or? the amount of P/.&6%. . without im-osing any o5ligation on the -art of the reci-ient2 and that the -erson recei$ing the -ro-erty gi$es or does nothing in return. of .CC. 0&% of .transmitted 5e or 5e not su5(ect to any -rior charges2 what is essential is that the transmission 5e made gratuitously.

single and without issue on Fe5ruary '%. to her only son. de Corcino. An action was instituted 5y . she is entitled. Jaco5a Mar5e5e filed an answer in inter$ention alleging that she is a half sister of Juan Mar5e5e who died intestate. as half sister of Juan Mar5e5e. in accordance with the order -rescri5ed for intestate succession. in the a5sence of other sisters or 5rothers.icardo et al. . Patria. the court rendered (udgment for the inter$enor. or of children of 5rothers or sisters.AC!R"A v. Faustino. Juan Mar5e5e.amona. loilo. and -ursuant to which a sister. and that his cousins. Bonifacia !acerna. as his half sister. !eonor. Arsenio and Feli-e. . C-on her death in %&/'. After due trial. #$a. which is not a fact. Issue: Ahether Jaco5a Mar5e5e. this a--eal 5y the -laintiffs. u-on the ground that said lands 5elonged to the deceased Juan Mar5e5e. . Juan Mar5e5e who was. e8cludes all other collateral relati$es. 5y an ascendant from a descendant. Ruling: >es. #he said -ro$ision of the law does not a--ly to the -resent case. situated in the munici-ality of Maasin. from an ascendant. 5y succession. the sister of Bonifacia !acerna for the reco$ery of three -arcels of unregistered lands. ta?en to Culion where he died intestate. lea$ing neither ascendants nor descendants. #he transmission of the aforementioned lands. 5y inheritance.icardo. is his sole heir. %! CORCI"O 1 SCRA 1&&' Facts: #he lands in$ol$ed in this case are originally owned 5y Bonifacia !acerna. Patrocinia. under the conditions therein set forth. his mother. Hence. they -assed.. for the lands in dis-ute were inherited 5y a descendant. all surnamed !acerna. regardless of whether or not the latter 5elong to the line from which the -ro-erty of the deceased came. e$en if only a half)sister. are his sole heirs. #he Su-reme Court ruled that the main flaw in a--ellants< theory is that it assumes that said -ro-erties are su5(ect to reser$a troncal. %&@/. to the -ro-erties in dis-ute. su5se=uently. for Article 0&% of the Ci$il Code a--lies only to -ro-erties inherited. was -ro-erly determined 5y the #rial Judge. 5y succession. Asuncion. Emiliana. against Agatona Dda. and that.

-alay. n January %6 and Fe5ruary %/. sa5el. lea$ing a will instituting as her uni$ersal heir her only li$ing daughter. in one of the -aragra-hs of said will that all his -ro-erty should 5e di$ided among all of his children of 5oth marriages. A-olonio died. is nothing 5ut a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reser$a5le -ro-erty recei$ed. %&10. including the -ro-erty. Se$erina Fa" de !eon died on . . %0&1. in which case said reser$a5le -ro-erty losses such character. Ruling: . n %&0%. Ahen Antonia died. claimed that they should also 5e entitled to their res-ecti$e shares on the -osthumous A-olonio9s -ro-erty since it is reser$a5le in character. Es-irita. Juan. sur$i$ed 5y his second wife Se$erina Fa" de !eon and the ten children first a5o$e mentioned and his ele$enth son. the -osthumos A-olonio and his widow Se$erina Fa" de !eon2 he declared. Jose. succeeded to all his -ro-erty descri5ed in the com-laint. Issue: Ahether or not the reser$a5le character of the -ro-erty in =uestion was lost 5ecause of its inclusion in a will. therefore it does not form -art of his own -ro-erty nor 5ecome the legitimate of his forced heirs. the a5solute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and recei$es same from his descendant. he ga$e to A-olonio Florentino . Ea5riel. t was stressed that the reser$a5le -ro-erty neither comes. some -ersonal -ro-erty and other o5(ects mentioned in the com-laint. was 5orn on the following March @. %0&1. Mercedes too? -ossession of all the -ro-erty left at the death of her mother.F OR!"TI"O v. Encarnacion et al. #he Court further stated that any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any -ro-erty. n Fe5ruary %/. li$estoc?. -ieces of gold. After Se$erina9s death. he married Se$erina Fa" de !eon with whom he had two children. the -osthumos A-olonio. within the third degree. with whom he 5egot nine children named. nor falls under. t 5ecomes his own -ro-erty only in case that all the relati$es of his descendant shall ha$e died *reser$ista. of sil$er and of ta5le ser$ice. Maria. descri5ed in the com-laint as reser$a5le -ro-erty. A-olonio e8ecuted a will 5efore the notary -u5lic of locos Sur. n the -artition of A-olonio Fs estate. #he Su-reme Court ruled that the reser$a5le character of the -ro-erty was not lost since the reser$a5le -ro-erty does not form -art of the estate of the reser$ista. Encarnacion. Pedro. Mercedes and A-olonio . Being the only heir.o$em5er %0. a gold rosary. #he first was with Antonia Fa" de !eon. the -osthumos son of the second marriage died and so his mother.o. 48( Facts: A-olonio sa5elo Florentino contracted two marriages while he was ali$e. while there are li$ing. and Magdalena. %0&1. instituting as his uni$ersal heirs his aforementioned ten children. relati$es of the latter. Mercedes Florentino. A-olonio . Se$erina Fa" de !eon. which Se$erina inherited from her deceased son. his -osthumos son. claiming that the reser$a5le nature of the -ro-erty was e8tinguished the moment her mother included it in her will. Mercedes refused to share. A-olonio . F OR!"TI"O 4( P)il.

to the e8clusion of the reser$ees in the second degree. Ale(andro. !egarda. !egarda. which she inherited from her daughter.aces. !egarda. !egarda could not con$ey in her hologra-hic will to her %7 grandchildren the reser$a5le -ro-erties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena 5ecause the reser$a5le -ro-erties did not form -art of her estate. and Jose. the real -ro-erties left 5y Benito !egarda y #uason were -artitioned in three e=ual -ortions 5y his daughters. . %&/&. Mrs. %&76. Benito F. !egarda. 4n July %'. in fa$or of the children of her sons *%7 grandchildren. sisters. n the testate -roceeding. Mrs. Filomena !egarda y . de !egarda so the latter 5ecame a co)owner of the -ro-erties held pro indiviso 5y her other si8 children. Filomena. #he Su-reme Court held that Mrs. a daughter of the testatri8. Benito. %&3/ e8ecuted two handwritten identical documents wherein she dis-osed of the -ro-erties. the son of Benito !egarda y #uason. Ruling: . Beatri" !egarda Eon"ales. %&@/. Filomena . . filed a motion to e8clude from the in$entory of her mother<s estate the -ro-erties which she inherited from her deceased daughter.aces died intestate and without issue on March %&. Ale(andro and Jose. #eresa. all surnamed !egarda. She could not select the reser$ees to whom the reser$a5le -ro-erty should 5e gi$en and de-ri$e the other reser$ees of their share therein. died on June %6. Her will was admitted to. Eon"ales Issue: Ahether Mrs. #he reser$or cannot ma?e a dis-osition mortis causa of the reser$a5le -ro-erties as long as the reser$ees sur$i$ed the reser$or. as reser$or. Article 0&% clearly indicates that the reser$a5le -ro-erties should 5e inherited 5y all the nearest relati$es within the third degree from the propositus who in this case are the si8 children of Mrs. Her sole heiress was her mother. on the ground that said -ro-erties are reservable -ro-erties which should 5e inherited 5y Filomena !egarda<s three sisters and three 5rothers and not 5y the children of Benito. He was sur$i$ed 5y his widow. her three daughters and three sons. ne-hews and nieces and her mother<s estate for the -ur-ose of securing a declaration that the said -ro-erties are reser$a5le -ro-erties which Mrs. Filomena.ita. !egarda on March 7. %&70 an ordinary ci$il action against her 5rothers. !egarda died on Se-tem5er ''. CFI 1(4 SCRA 481 Facts: Benito !egarda y :e la Pa". !egarda could not 5e=ueath in her hologra-hic will to her grandchildren to the e8clusion of her three daughters and her three sons. %&//.osario. Mrs.o. and the heirs of his deceased son Benito !egarda y :e la Pa" who were re-resented 5y Benito F. #he lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. Filomena ..*O"+A !S v. Eon"ales filed on June '1. #hat motion was o--osed 5y the administrator. Consuelo and . and their se$en children named Beatri". could con$ey the reser$a5le -ro-erties 5y will or mortis causa to the reser$ees within the third degree *%7 grandchildren.aces Dda.

they claim. 4n A-ril '7. allegedly on the 5asis that they inherited 5y right of re-resentation from their res-ecti$e -arents. he died single. #he Baldo$ino heirs filed a -etition see?ing to ha$e the -ro-erties -artitioned. #he Court ruled that the ne-hews of the whole 5lood should ta?e a share twice as large as that of the ne-hews of the half 5lood. Aith his first wife Eer$acia !andig. But from this time on. %&10. there is no further occasion for its a--lication. to whom the -ro-erty should 5e returned2 5ut within that grou-. 4n May '0. the -arcels of land were inherited e8clusi$ely 5y his mother Benita. 4n 4cto5er 7. %&3'. sur$i$ed 5y his legitimate children :ionisia. lea$ing as her heirs her four legitimate children:Cristeta. Benita Earing. Agustin died lea$ing a last will and testament. each should ha$e an e=ual share. %&/@. under which. on 4cto5er %3. 4n August '7. and Pa5lo Baldo$ino. n conclusion.o. #he court also held that reser$a troncal is a s-ecial rule designed -rimarily to assure the return of the reser$a5le -ro-erty to the third degree relati$es 5elonging to the line from which the -ro-erty originally came. Anicia. Juana. . and the other half to the a--ellees. such that one)half 5e ad(udicated to them. he had one child. Fortunato was ad(udicated four -arcels of land. #he -ur-ose of the reser$a troncal is accom-lished once the -ro-erty has de$ol$ed to the s-ecified relati$es of the line of origin. Benita Earing. intestate.of relati$es *reser$atarios. CF !aguna declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria to 5e the rightful reser$ees. %&@1. Ruling: . there is no call for a--lying Art 0&% any longer2 the res-ecti$e share of each in the re$ersionary -ro-erty should 5e go$erned 5y the ordinary rules of interstate succession. Aith the second wife. wherein he 5e=ueathed his -ro-erties among his three children and his sur$i$ing s-ouse. Felisa. %&10. Padura heirs o--osed. C-on the death of Benita *the reser$ista.. the heirs too? -ossession of the reser$a5le -ro-erties. Manuel Padura. Melania.PA%URA v. and as such.Flora. Cornelio. duly -ro5ated.the original reser$ees. the . maintaining that they should all 5e deemed as inheriting in their own right. and a$oid its 5eing dissi-ated into and 5y the relati$es of the inheriting ascendant *reser$ista. he had two children. Francisco. Issue: Ahether or not the reser$ed -ro-erties should 5e distri5uted among the heirs e=ually. and Se$erino Padura.A %O#I"O 1(4 SCRA 1('Facts: Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. Manuel also died. and not ha$ing any issue. entitled to the reser$a5le -ro-erties. Candelaria died. n the relations 5etween one reser$atario and another of the same degree. Fortunato and Candelaria Padura. reser$a troncal merely determines the grou.

since Art 0&% does not s-ecify otherwise.indi$idual right to the -ro-erty should 5e decided 5y the a--lica5le rules of ordinary intestate succession. .

Bal5ino #ioco died intestate. who recei$ed the said -ro-erty su5(ect to a reser$a troncal.%! PAPA v. n %&/6. #ong?o)Camacho. single and without issue. and lea$ing the afore)mentioned four *@. -ro)indi$iso share in the se$en *6. and legitimate grandchildren Faustino :i"on and #rinidad :i"on.. Francisco #ioco de Pa-a. entitled. #rinidad :i"on)#ong?o. arguing that they are also relati$es within the third degree of the -ro-ositus.e$ersion of the reser$a5le -ro-erty 5eing go$erned 5y the rules on intestate succession. the defendant)a--ellant. as his sole intestate heir. -arcels of land 5y $irtue of the reser$a troncal im-osed thereon u-on the death of Faustino :i"on and under the laws on intestate succession. Ruling: . sur$i$ed 5y his legitimate children 5y his wife Marciana Feli8 *among them -laintiffs. who during her lifetime gratuitously donated four *@. she still claimed for the other half of the said se$en *6. #ori5ia #ioco died intestate. as aunt and uncles. the -laintiffs)a--ellees must 5e held without any right thereto 5ecause. so they are entitled to their res-ecti$e share. e8cluding those reser$atarios of more remote degree. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. Faustino :i"on and #rinidad :i"on *mother of defendant :alisay :. :alisay :. and her rights and interests in the -arcels of land a5o$ementioned were inherited 5y her only legitimate child.. Faustino :i"on died intestate. %&73. in e=ual -ro-ortions. as well as the defendant :alisay #ong?o)Camacho. -arcels of land a5o$ementioned as her inheritance from her mother. lea$ing his one) half *%+'.ACHO 144 SCRA &81 Facts: #he defendant :alisay :. and their two legitimate children. Manuel #ioco and . Bal5ino #ioco has a sister named . CA. . -arcels of land as the inheritance of her said two children in e=ual -ro)indi$iso shares. n %&'0.icolas #ioco ha$e as a common ancestor the late Bal5ino #ioco) father of -laintiffs and great grandfather of defendant. howe$er. n %&/& #rinidad :i"on)#ong?o died intestate. of all the se$en *6. the defendant)a--ellant :alisay #ong?o)Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the re$ersionary -ro-erty to the e8clusion of the -laintiffs)a--ellees. #he Su-reme Court. #herefore. #ong?o)Camacho. Eustacio :i"on.o. sur$i$ed 5y her hus5and.icolas #ioco. res-ecti$ely.omana #ioco. #ong?o)Camacho owned one)half *%+'. citing se$eral (uris-rudence. ruled that the reser$a5le -ro-erty should -ass. -arcels of land a5o$e)mentioned to his father. Eustacio :i"on died intestate. su5(ect to the usufructuary right of her sur$i$ing hus5and.. not to all the reser$atarios as a class 5ut only to those nearest in degree to the descendant *-ro-ositus. as reser$atarios. Issue: Ahether or not all the relati$es of the -ro-ositus within the third degree shall inherit from him. Manuel #ioco and . to one)half of the se$en -arcels of land in dis-ute. they are e8cluded from the succession 5y his niece. #he -laintiffs o--osed :alisay9s claim. #ong?o)Camacho and the -laintiffs. defendant :alisay :. of Faustino :i"on *the -ro-ositus. defendant Primo #ong?o. -arcels of land to her niece #ori5ia #ioco *legitimate sister of -laintiffs. . n June %@. defendant :alisay :. #ong?o)Camacho. Eustacio :i"on. n l&l3. sur$i$ed his only legitimate descendant. #he lower Court declared the -laintiffs Francisco #ioco.

the -etition is deemed to relate 5ac? to the time when the will was deli$ered.odrigue" 5e a--ointed as S-ecial Administratri8 of the estate. and issued the corres-onding notices conforma5ly to what is -rescri5ed 5y section /. %&7/. %&7/.ule 6/ of . and died without lea$ing a will and -raying that Maria . and the domicile of the testator only affects the $enue 5ut not the (urisdiction of the Court. 5ecause u-on the will 5eing de-osited the court could.ules of Court. . aforementioned -etitioners filed 5efore the CF of .OR/A Facts: Fr.4C. ta?e the stand that the CF of Bulacan ac=uired (urisdiction o$er the case u-on deli$ery 5y them of the will to the Cler? of Court on March @. Celestino .M. the same was withdrawn. on March %'. %&7/ in the City of Manila. . Issue: Ahether or not the CF of Bulacan ac=uired (urisdiction o$er the settlement of the estate of Fr. and that the case in this Court therefore has -recedence o$er the case filed in .e$ised . #he estate -roceedings ha$ing 5een initiated in the Bulacan Court of First nstance ahead of any other.odrigue" was a resident of ParaGa=ue. the latter Court has no (urisdiction to entertain the -etition for -ro5ate. #he -etitioners Pangilinan and Jacalan.odrigue". e$en if no -etition for its allowance was filed until later. . that court is entitled to assume (urisdiction to the e8clusion of all other courts.i"al on March %'. e$en if it were a case of wrong $enue 5y e8-ress -ro$isions of . through counsel filed a -etition for lea$e of court to allow them to e8amine the alleged will 5ut on March %%. %&7/. motu proprio.odrigue" was su5mitted and deli$ered to the Court of Bulacan on March @. .ule 67. Ruling: >es. #he . %&7/ 5efore the Court could act on the -etition.i"al only on March %'.TOPIC: Intestate Succession CASES: RO%RI*U!+ v. Since the testament of Fr. 4n March @. while -etitioners initiated intestate -roceedings in the Court of First nstance of .odrigue". %&7/ while the -etition for -ro5ate was filed in the CF of Bulacan at %%:11 A. . #he Su-reme Court held that the (urisdiction of the CF of Bulacan 5ecame $ested u-on the deli$ery thereto of the will of the late Father . among other things.odrigue" on March @. t was also held that the -ower to settle decedents< estates is conferred 5y law u-on all courts of first instance. . on the other hand. 4n March %'. A-olonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan deli$ered to the Cler? of Court of Bulacan a -ur-orted last will and testament of Fr. %&7/. .i"al was filed at 0:11 A. of the .odrigue". 4n March 0.M. 4n March %'.i"al.i"al a -etition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. Furthermore the Court stated that where the -etition for -ro5ate is made after the de-osit of the will. that Fr. the -recedence and e8clusi$e (urisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontesta5le. %&7/. Maria .odrigue" and Angela . on the same date.odrigue" alleging.odrigue"es contend that since the intestate -roceedings in the CF of .odrigue" died on Fe5ruary %'. %&7/. ha$e ta?en ste-s to fi8 the time and -lace for -ro$ing the will. eight days later. . . %&7/ A-olonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan filed a -etition in t CF of Bulacan for the -ro5ation of the will deli$ered 5y them on March @. %&7/.

%&/3. is an heir of the decedent. %&77. Eertrudes :e los Santos. 4n August '@. #he Court held that 5eing a mere grandniece of Pelagia de la Cru". Pelagia de la Cru" died intestate and without issue. as -ro$ided for in the aforementioned e8tra(udicial -artition agreement. %&73. on the other hand is the grandniece of the said Pelagia de la Cru". n its decision dated . for the reason that the -laintiff was not an heir of Pelagia de la Cru". %! A CRU+ Facts: Ma8imo :e la Cru" is the ne-hew of the deceased Pelagia de la Cru". :e !os Santos. deceased owner of the -ro-erty. was esto--ed from raising in issue the right of the -laintiff to inherit from the decedent Pelagia de la Cru"2 hence. #he defendant filed a Motion for . and was included in the e8tra(udicial -artition agreement 5y mista?e. she could not inherit from the latter 5y right of re-resentation. and that the said Marciana de la Cru" died on Se-tem5er ''. :e los Santos is not an heir of Pelagia de la Cru". %&7'. t was further stated that the relati$es nearest in degree to Pelagia de la Cru" are her ne-hews and nieces.o$em5er /. :e los Santos not 5eing such an heir. n e8ecuting the -artition agreement. 5eing a -arty to the e8tra(udicial -artition agreement. 4cto5er %7. the -arties thereto were la5oring under the erroneous 5elief that :e los Santos was one of the legal heirs of Pelagia de la Cru". %&7/. Hence. Marciana de la Cru" is the mother of the -laintiff and the niece of the said Pelagia de la Cru".ew #rial 5ut the same was denied. -ursuant to Article %%13 of the Ci$il Code. the lower court held that the defendant. Ruling: . this a--eal. . :e los Santos.ecessarily. Issue: Ahether or not the -laintiff)a--ellee. Ma8imo was a--ointed as Administrator and n)charge of the de$elo-ment and su5di$ision of the land in =uestion. a grandniece is e8cluded 5y law from the inheritance. he must a5ide 5y the terms of the agreement. . the -artition is $oid with res-ect to her. Ma8imo set u.the affirmati$e defenses that the -laintiff had no cause of action against him 5ecause the said agreement was $oid with res-ect to her. one of whom is Ma8imo.%! OS SA"TOS v.o. the -arties e8ecuted an E8tra)Judicial Partition Agreement for distri5uting -ortions of the land owned 5y Pelagia de la Cru". who was the owner and -redecessor in interest of the land which was the su5(ect matter of the e8tra)(udicial -artition agreement in this case. Ma8imo failed to com-ly with his o5ligation so de los Santos filed a com-laint for s-ecific -erformance against him on May '%.