Segunda Maria Nieva v.

Manuela Alcala
G.R. No. L-13386, October 27, 1920

FACTS:

Juliana Nieva, the alleged natural mother of the plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva, married
Francisco Deocampo. Of said marriage Alfeo De Ocampo was born. Juliana Nieva died
intestate on April 19, 1889, and her said son, Alfeo De Ocampo, inherited from her, ab
intestate, parcels of land. AlfeoDeocampo died intestate and the parcels of land passed
to his father, Francisco De Ocampo, by intestate succession. Thereafter Francisco
Deocampo married Manuela Alcala, of which marriage was born Jose De Ocampo.
Francisco De Ocampo died on August 15, 1914, whereupon his widow and son,
the defendants herein, took possession of the parcels of land in question, under the
claim that Jose De Ocampo (a minor) had inherited the same, ab intestate, from
his deceased father. Segunda, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the
said Juliana Nieva, instituted the present action for the purposes of recovering from
the defendants the parcels of land in question invoking reservatroncal. The lower court
held that, even granting, without deciding, that the plaintiff was an acknowledged
natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, she was not entitled to the property here in
question because, in its opinion, an illegitimate relative has no right to the
reservatroncal.

ISSUE:

Is an illegitimate relative within the third degree entitled to reservatroncal?

RULING:

No. In Article 811 (ReservaTroncal) the legislator uses the generic terms “ascendant,”
“descendant,” and “relatives,” without specifying whether or not they have to be
legitimate. Does the legislator, then, refer to legitimate as well as to
illegitimate relatives?

This question has not been decided before by any court or tribunal.
However, eminent commentators on the Spanish Civil Code, who have devoted their
lives to the study and solution of the intricate and difficult problems that may arise
under the provisions of that Code, have dealt with the very question in this case, and
are unanimous in the opinion that the provision of Article 811 of the Civil
Code apply only to legitimate relative.

Manresa, one of the eminent commentators, in determining the persons in whose favor

the reservation is established, says: Persons in whose favor the reservation is established
— This is one of the most delicate points in the interpretation of article 811. According to
this article, 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.
It treats of blood relationship, which is applicable to questions on succession, according
to articles 915 to 920. It could not be otherwise, because relationship by affinity is
established between each spouse and the family of the other, by marriage, and to admit
it, would be to favor the transmission of the properties of the family of one spouse to
that of the other, which is just what the article intends to prevent.

It also treats of legitimate relationship. The person obliged to reserve it is

a legitimate ascendant who inherits from a descendant property which proceeds from
the same legitimate family, and this being true, there can be no question, 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.

To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother, Alfeo
Deocampo, by operation of law, would be a fragrant violate of the express provision of
the foregoing article.

Case Digest: Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Case Digest: Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66574, February 21, 1990

Doctrine: Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda  (what is generally spoken shall be

generally understood)

Facts:
It is undisputed:
1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together
with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate child of the spouses Felipe Pamuti
and Petronila Asuncion;
2) that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother
of Pablo Santero;
3) that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents;
4) that Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in
1976;
5) that Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona
Santero and his six minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz
and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.

Issue:
Who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa Pamuti-
Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)?
Held:
Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court
did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the
late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The term relatives, although used many times in the Code, is not defined by it. In
accordance therefore with the canons of statutory interpretation, it should be understood
to have a general and inclusive scope, inasmuch as the term is a general
one. Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda. That the law does not make a
distinction prevents us from making one: Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera
debemus.

The term relatives in “Article 992 of New Civil Code” in more restrictive sense than it is
used and intended; is not warranted by any rule of interpretation. Besides, when the law
intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word
collateral, as in Articles 1003 and 1009 of the New Civil Code.