BEATRIZ L. GONZALES v.

CFI OF MANILA
G.R. No. L-34395, May 19,1981
Alexand Rhea M. Villahermosa

Reservable property left, through a will or otherwise, 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, for the reason that, as said property
continued to be reservable, the heir receiving the same as an inheritance from his ascendant has
the strict obligation of its delivery to the relatives, within the third degree, of the predecessor in
interest (prepositus), without prejudicing the right of the heir to an aliquot part of the property,
if he has at the same time the right of a reservatario (reserves). In this case, the reservation
could have been extinguished only by the absence of reservees at the time of Mrs. Legarda's
death. Since at the time of her death, there were (and still are) reservees belonging to the
second and third degrees, the disputed properties did not lose their reservable character. The
disposition of the said properties should be made in accordance with article 891 or the rule on
reserve troncal and not in accordance with the reservor's holographic will. The said properties
did not form part of Mrs. Legarda's estate.

DE PAPA ET. AL v. CAMACHO ET. AL

G.R. NO. L-28032, September 24, 1986
Alexand Rhea M. Villahermosa

In reserva troncal, the successional rights of the relatives of the praepositus within the 3rd
degree are determined by, and subject to, the rules of intestate succession; so as to exclude
uncles and aunts of the descendant from the reservable property by his niece or nephew.
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the
plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because, as aunts and uncles,
respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his
niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the
latter. The defendant-appellant ,Dalisay Tongko-Camacho, is entitled to the entirety of the
reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.

SIENES, ET AL. v. ESPARCIA, ET AL.

G.R. NO. L-12957, March 24, 1961
Alexand Rhea M. Villahermosa

In reserva troncal the reservor has the legal title and dominion over the reservable property but
subject to a resolutory condition. He may alienate the same but subject to the reservation, i.e.,
the rights acquired by the transferee are revoked upon the survival of reservees at the time of
death of the reservor. Upon the death of the reservor, there being a surviving reservee, the
reservable property passes in exclusive ownership to the latter. In the present case, inasmuch as
when the reservista, Andrea Gutang died, CiprianaYaeso was still alive, the conclusion becomes
inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in favor of appellants became of no legal
effect and the reservable property passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
 MARIA MENDOZA et.al. v. JULIA POLlCARPIO DELOS SANTOS
G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013
Alexand Rhea M. Villahermosa

Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a reservable property
to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant. The persons
involved in reserva troncal are: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an
ascendant or from a 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 (4)
that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property
came. 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 reservatarios.While it may
appear that the properties are reservable in character, petitioners cannot benefit from
reservatroncal. First, because Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other
ascendant within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because petitioners
are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree.

DEL ROSARIO v. CONANAN

G.R. No. L-37903, March 30, 1977
Alexand Rhea M. Villahermosa

Where the nearest surviving relatives of the deceased are his parents, spouse and an adopted
child, Article 343 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 1000 should apply in resolving their
hereditary rights. Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving with legitimate parents of the
deceased adopter, has the same successional rights as an acknowledged natural child, which is
comprehended in the term "illegitimate children". Consequently, the respective shares of the
surviving spouse, ascendant and adopted child should be determined by Article 1000 of the New
Civil Code. It is most unfair to accord more successional rights to the adopted, who is only
related artificially by fiction of law to the deceased, than those who are naturally related to him
by blood in the direct ascending line. The applicability of Article 343 does not exclude the
surviving parent of the deceased adopter. In this case, Petitioner Dorotea del Rosario, as the
legitimate mother of deceased adopted child Marilou, is entitled to an inheritance from her.