MAGIN RIOSA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

PABLO ROCHA, MARCELINA CASAS, MARIA CORRAL and

CONSOLACION R. DE CALLEJA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:

 Private defendant Maria and Mariano was married and had three (3) children named Santiago,
Jose and Severina. Severina died during infancy.
 Santiago, now deceased, married Francisca, with whom he had two (2) children named Magin and
Consolacion.
 Jose, also deceased, married Marcelina and they had one (1) child who died before the father.
 Mariano Riosa, the father, left a will dividing his property between his two (2) children, giving Jose
the eleven (11) parcels of land. Upon the death of Jose, he left a will in which he named his wife
as his only heir.
 In May 1917, the will of Jose was filed for probate, leaving Marcelina as the only heir named but
there was a preterition of Maria, the legitimate heir. However, Macelina and Maria entered into a
contract by which they divided the property between themselves.
 In October 1920, Maria sold the eight (8) parcels of land to Marcelina for 20K Php.
 In November 1920, Marcelina sold these eight (8) parcels of land to Pablo for 60K Php.
 In September 1921, Pablo returned the six (6) parcels of land to Maria stating that these parcels of
land had been erroneously included in the sale made by Maria to Marcelina.
 It appears that the eleven parcels of land described in the complaint were acquired by Jose, by
lucrative title, from his father Mariano and that after the death of Jose, by operation of law, they
passed to his mother. By virtue of article 811 of the Civil Code these eleven parcels of land are
reservable property.
 It appears that Magin and Consolacion are the nearest relatives within the third degree of the line
from which this property came. This action was brought by Magin Riosa, for whom the property
should have been reserved, against Maria Corral, whose duty it was to reserve it, and against
Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha as purchasers.

RULING of the CFI:

 Denied the probate of the will of Jose.

ISSUE:

 Whether it is required for the reservor to secure the reservation with a mortgage or bond as to the
real property. –NO!

RULING:

The law does not require the reservoir, the notation of the reservation in the registry of property is
sufficient.

This security for the value of the real property, which is required by the law, in case it is sold before
acquiring the reservable character, in a reservation by the widowed spouse, is not applicable to "reserva
troncal" (reservation by ascendant)

In the instant case, which is a testate succession, the heirs made an extrajudicial partition of the
estate and at the same time instituted proceeding for the probate of the will and the administration of the
estate. When the time came for making the partition, they submitted to the court the extrajudicial partition
previously made by them, which the court approved. That for the purposes of the reservation and the rights
and obligations created thereby, in connection with the relatives benefited, the property must not be deemed
transmitted to the heirs from the time the extrajudicial partition was made, but from the time said partition
was approved by the court. In support of the legality of the extrajudicial partition between Maria Corral and
Marcelina Casas the provision of section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked, which authorizes
the heirs of a person dying without a will to make a partition without the intervention of the courts whenever
the heirs are all of age and the deceased has left no debts. But this legal provision refers expressly to
intestate estates and, of course, excludes testate estates.