XXII.
Article 888
Francisco v. Alfonso
G.R. No. 138774, 08 March 2001
Doctrine: Pursuant to Article 888 of the Civil Code, respondent is entitled to half of
the estate of her father as his only legitimate child. As compulsory heir, she cannot
be deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.
FACTS: Gregorio Francisco owned 2 parcels of residential land in Bocaue,
Bulacan. After he died, respondent Aida, his legitimate daughter, inquired about
the certificates of title from her half-sisters. However, they said that Gregorio had
sold the land to them, evidenced by a deed of absolute sale.
This prompted Aida to file a complaint against petitioners for annulment of sale
with damages. She alleged that the signature of her father on the deed of sale was
a forgery. Meanwhile, petitioners denied the allegation.
The RTC dismissed the complaint and found that the sale was valid. On appeal,
the CA reversed and set aside the decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a legitimate daughter may be deprived of her share in the
estate of her deceased father by a simulated contract.
RULING: No. Even if the deed of sale was not simulated, it still violated the Civil
Code as the transaction affected respondent's legitime. The sale was executed in
1983, when the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the Family Code.
According to Article 888 of the Civil Code, “The legitime of legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the
mother.
"The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half subject to the rights of
illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided."
Gregorio did not own any other property. Thus, if the parcels of land involved were
the only property left by their father, the sale would deprive respondent of her
share in her father's estate. By law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father
as his only legitimate child. As compulsory heir, respondent cannot be deprived of
her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.
Page 1 of 6
XXIII. Article 891
Nieva v. Alcala
G.R. No. L-13386, 27 October 1920
Doctrine: Article 811 of the Civil Code (reserva troncal) applies only to legitimate
relative. To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural
brother, by operation of law, would violate the express provision of the said Article.
FACTS: Juliana Nieva died intestate and her said son, Alfeo, inherited from her
two (2) parcels of land. Subsequently, Alfeo died intestate and without issue. Thus,
the 2 parcels of land passed to his father by intestate succession. Thereafter, his
father married herein defendant Manuela Alcala.
Francisco Deocampo died. Thereupon, his widow and son, the defendants, took
possession of the parcels of land, claiming that said son (a minor) had inherited
the same from his deceased father.
Later, plaintiff Segunda Nieva, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of
Juliana Nieva, filed an action to recover the parcels of land from the defendants
and invoked Article 811 of the Civil Code.
The lower court held that plaintiff was not entitled to the parcels of land because an
illegitimate relative has no right to the reserva troncal Article 811 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate relative within the third degree is entitled to
reserve troncal.
RULING: No. Article 811 of the Civil Code applies only to legitimate relative.
Reservation is established in favor of the parents who are within the 3rd degree
and belong to the line from which the properties came.
It treats of blood relationship. It could not be otherwise, because to admit
relationship by affinity would favor the transmission of the properties of the family
of one spouse to that of the other, which is 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. 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.
Thus, to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the property left by her natural brother,
by operation of law, would violate the express provision of the said Article.

Florentino v. Florentino
G.R. No. 14856, 15 November 1919
Doctrine: When there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the
right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property which the
reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him, excludes
that of the one more remote. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding
degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not
recognize them as such.
FACTS: Apolonio II was the owner of the subject property in this case. He had 11
children; 9 from his first marriage and 2 from his second. The children with the
second wife are Mercedes and Apolonio III. When Apolonio II died, his estate was
accordingly disposed of and distributed to his hers, some of which passed his son
Apolonio III.
When Apolonio III died, his properties passed to his mother, Severina. When she
died, the properties passed to her daughter, Mercedes. Thereafter, several
children of Apolonio II from his first marriage, some in their own right, and some by
right of representation, filed an action to recover their share of the properties from
Mercedes. They claimed the application of Reserva Troncal, being the relatives
within the third degree of Apolonio III (their half-brother) from the line from which
the property came (the reservatarios).
The trial court dismissed the action and held that reserva does not apply as its
purpose to prevent the subject property from falling into the hands of strangers had
been avoided because it was inherited by the sister of the decedent. Thus, to apply
reserva troncal would impair the legitimate Mercedes is entitled to.
ISSUE: Whether or not reserva troncal applies such that the plaintiffs are entitled
to their share.
RULING: Yes. Reserva troncal applies and the plaintiffs are entitled to their share
as they are relatives of the prepositus within the third degree; some in their own
right and some by representation. All of them are entitled as reservatarios to the
property. The reservista has no right to choose which of the reservatarios should
inherit.
When there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the right of the
nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property which the reservista (person
holding it subject to reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one
more remote. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can
never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as
such.
In short, there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within
the third degree, as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom
the reservable property came. These reservatarios have the right to represent their
ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said deceased
Page 2 of 6
person and relatives within the third degree.
Solivio v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 83484, 12 February 1990
Doctrine: Reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a
descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister. It does
not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant.
FACTS: Salustia Javellana died leaving all her property, including a house and lot
to her son Esteban. Later, Esteban died a bachelor. His only relatives were his
maternal aunt Celedonia (half-sister of his mother) and Concordia (sister of his
deceased father).
Subsequently, Celedonia filed for a Special Proceeding for her appointment as
special administratrix of the estate of Esteban, praying that she be declared sole
heir of the deceased and that the estate be adjudicated to her.
Meanwhile, Concordia filed an action for partition, recovery of possession,
ownership and damages. Celedonia contended that the estate of Esteban was
subject to reserve troncal and thus it should redound to her as a relative within the
third degree on his mother side.
ISSUE: Whether or not decedent’s properties were subject to reserva troncal in
favor of Celedonia, his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side from
whom he had inherited them.
RULING: No. Reserva troncal does not apply to property inherited by a
descendant from his ascendant. In this case, there was no second transmission.
The property of the Esteban is not reservable property, for he was not an
ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, from whom he inherited the same.
Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his
aunt, Celedonia, who is his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side.
Reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant
who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister. Thus, for there to be
a reserve, the two transfers or transmissions are required.
 Sumaya v. Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. Nos. 68843-44, 02 September 1991
Doctrine: In reserva troncal, the reservor (the ascendant who inherited from a
descendant property which the latter inherited from another ascendant) has the
duty to reserve and therefore, the duty to annotate also. The failure of the Register
of Deeds to annotate the reservable character of the property in the certificate of
title cannot be attributed to the reservor.
FACTS: Raul Balantakbo inherited from his father and his maternal grandmother
the 2 real properties subject of this case.
Raul died intestate. His mother Consuelo was the sole surviving heir to subject
properties. Accordingly, Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the same. Thereafter,
she sold the properties to petitioner Mariquita Sumaya who in turn sold to Villa
Honorio Development Corporation, Inc.
Villa Honorio transferred and assigned its rights over the property in favor of Agro-
Industrial and the corresponding certificates of titles were issued. However, the
certificates of titles do not contain any annotation of its reservable character.
When Consuelo died, the brothers in “full blood”, nieces, and nephews of Raul filed
the civil cases to recover the subject properties, claiming that these were subject to
a reserva troncal in their favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication is sufficient annotation of
the reservable nature of the same.
RULING: No. The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the reservable
character of the property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo,
the reservor. Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal, the obligation to reserve
and the duty to annotate rests upon the reservor.
In this case, the subject properties are already covered by a Torrens title. Thus,
unless the registration of the limitation is effected (either actual or constructive), no
third persons shall be prejudiced thereby.
Page 3 of 6
De Papa v. Camacho
G.R. No. L-28032, 24 September 1986
Doctrine: Under the laws of succession, a decedent's uncles and aunts may not
succeed ab intestato although they are related to the former within the same
degree and so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing
and qualified to succeed.
FACTS: Plaintiffs are defendant Dalisay’s grandaunt and granduncles. They have
as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco, father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant. Balbino had a sister named Romana Tioco.
Romana gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece Toribia, the
legitimate sister of plaintiffs. When Toribia died, she was survived by her husband,
Eustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children, Faustino and Trinidad (mother of
defendant). Toribia left the 4 parcels of land as the inheritance of her two children
in equal pro-indiviso shares. When Balbino died, they likewise inherited 3 parcels
of land.
When Faustino Dizon died, his 1/2 pro-indiviso share in the 7 parcels of land was
left to his father, Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir, who received the same
subject to a reserva troncal.
When Trinidad died, her rights and interests in the parcels of land were inherited
by her only legitimate child, defendant Dalisay, subject to the usufructuary right of
her surviving husband. Later, Eustacio died and he was survived by defendant
Dalisay as his only legitimate descendant.
The parties agree that defendant Dalisay now owns ½ of all the 7 parcels of land
as her inheritance from her mother Trinidad. However, defendant Dalisay also
claims the other half of the land by virtue of reserva troncal, which the plaintiffs
opposed.
The lower court held that plaintiffs and defendant are entitled as reservatarios to ½
of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in equal proportions.
ISSUE: Whether or not all relatives of the prepositus (Faustino) within the third
degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable
property upon the death of the reservista.
RULING: No. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on
intestate succession, the plaintiffs must be held without any right thereto because,
as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), they are
excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant, although they are
related to him within the same degree as the latter.
Under our laws of succession, 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. Thus, defendant Dalisay is entitled to the entirety of the
reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs.
Mendoza v. Policarpio
G.R. No. 176422, 20 March 2013 (also under Article 1003)
Doctrine: Article 891 requires that the property should have been acquired by the
descendant/prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. The
person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant of the
descendant/prepositus. First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth
degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/ reservatarios.
FACTS: The 3 subject parcels of land in this case was in the name of respondent
but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought ½ of the property from petitioner
Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners who are grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza alleged that
the properties were part of the latter’s properties that were subject of an oral
partition and subsequently adjudicated to their son Exequiel. When Exequiel died,
it passed on to his spouse Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. When Leonor died,
it went to Gregoria. When Gregoria died, respondent, who is Leonor’s sister,
adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor
and Gregoria.
Petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in
their behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the Civil
Code on reserva troncal. The RTC granted the same. On appeal, the CA reversed
the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are not reservable properties,
coming as they do from the family line of the petitioners Mendozas.
RULING: No. Article 891 on reserva troncal does not apply in this case.
There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal: (1) by gratuitous title,
from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus, (2) by
operation of law from the prepositus to the other ascendant or reservor/reservista,
and (3) from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives
within the third degree from which the property came.
The ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel’s as he is
the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred. After his death, Gregoria
(descendant/prepositus) acquired the properties as inheritance.
Page 4 of 6
Under Article 891, the person obliged to reserve the property should be an
ascendant of the descendant/prepositus. Petitioners cannot be considered
reservees/reservatarios as they are not relatives within the third degree of
Gregoria. First cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not
reservees or reservatarios.
XXIV. Article 908 in relation to Article 992
Llorente v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 3339, 26 March 1908
Doctrine: The right of an acknowledged natural son is direct and immediate in
relation to the father or mother who acknowledged him. It cannot be indirect by
representing them in the succession to their ascendants to whom he is not related
in any manner, because he is not among the legitimate family of which said
ascendants are the head.
FACTS: Martina Avalle, widow of Llorente, had during her marriage four (4)
legitimate children named Jacinta, Julio, Martin, and Francisco. In her will, she
instituted as her sole and general heirs Jacinta, Julio, and Martin, and the children
of the late Francisco, named Soledad and Adela.
When Jacinta predeceased Martina, she left several legitimate children with the
surname of Rodriguez y Llorente, and besides them, a natural daughter named
Rosa Llorente.
Rosa, the natural daughter of Jacinta, wanted to participate in the probate of the
will of Martina, but the legitimate children of Jacinta objected on the ground that
they were the sole and exclusive heirs of their mother, Jacinta.
ISSUE: Whether or not the hereditary portion which Martina left in her will to her
legitimate daughter Jacinta, and which the latter had not been able to possess
because of her death before that of the testatrix, should also pass to her natural
daughter, Rosa.
RULING: No. The right of an acknowledged natural son is direct and immediate in
relation to the father or mother who acknowledged him. It cannot be indirect by
representing them in the succession to their ascendants to whom he is not related
in any manner, because he is not among the legitimate family of which said
ascendants are the head.
If Jacinta Llorente had survived her mother, Martina, she would have inherited
from her, and in what she inherited from her mother, her natural daughter, Rosa,
would have participated, because of her own right to inherit from her mother.
However, from the facts of the case, Rosa has no right of representation as there
is no legal provision establishing such a doctrine.
XXV. Article 916
Ching v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 192828, 28 November 2011
Doctrine: Under Article 916 of the Civil Code, disinheritance can be effected only
through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. While the
respondents sought the disinheritance of Ramon, there was no will or any
instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate. Hence, despite
the prayer for disinheritance, it does not partake of the nature of a special
proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited
jurisdiction.
FACTS: Respondents filed a Complaint against petitioners for disinheritance of
Ramon Ching, wherein they alleged that they are the heirs of Antonio Ching and
that Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonio's son when in fact, he was adopted
and his birth certificate was merely simulated. Moreover, respondents argue that
since Ramon is a prime suspect of a murder case, then he is prohibited from
receiving any share from Antonio’s estate.
On the other hand, petitioners argued that the action is a special proceeding and
not an ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Hence, the probate court has
jurisdiction and not the RTC, which is an ordinary court.
ISSUE: Whether or not there can be disinheritance in intestate succession.
RULING: Yes. Article 916 of the Civil Code provides that disinheritance can be
effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified.
While the respondents sought the disinheritance of Ramon, there was no will or
any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate.
Despite the prayer for disinheritance, it does not partake of the nature of a special
proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited
jurisdiction. Hence, even without the necessity of being declared as heirs of
Antonio, respondents have the standing to seek for the nullification of the
instruments.
Page 5 of 6
XXVI. Article 919
Pecson v. Mediavillo
G.R. No. 7890, 29 September 1914
Doctrine: The right of the courts to inquire into the causes and the sufficient cause
for the disinheritance is supported by express provisions of the Civil Code. If they
find that the disinheritance was without cause, that part of the testament or will
may be pronounced null and void.
FACTS: In 1910, the last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to
the CFI for probate. Defendant Rosario Mediavillo opposed the same, alleging that
it had not been authorized nor signed by the deceased. The CFI denied the
opposition and found that the will had been signed and executed in accordance
with the provisions of law.
Paragraph 3 of the will disinherited Florencio’s granddaughter, Rosario, from his
deceased daughter, Teresa, because Rosario was grossly disrespectful to him.
The will made no provision for Teresa, but all of the other children were named as
heirs in the same. It appears that before the making of the will, Teresa died, thus
leaving her husband Basiliso Mediavillo and two children, Joaquin and Rosario, as
heirs. When Joaquin died prior to his grandfather, Florencio, Basilio and Rosario
were left as the only heirs.
The lower court found Rosario was only 14 years old when she disrespected
Florencio, thus she was not responsible for her acts and should not have been
disinherited. Hence, that part of the will was nullified.
ISSUE: Whether or not the courts, when a parent disinherits his children, may
inquire into the cause of the disinheritance and decide that there was or was not
ground for such disinheritance.
RULING: Yes. Article 848 of the Civil Code provides that disinheritance shall only
take place for one of the causes expressly fixed by law. Article 849 provides that
the disinheritance can only be effected by the testament, in which shall be
mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance.

The right of the courts to inquire into the causes and whether there was sufficient
cause for the disinheritance or not seems to be supported by express provisions of
the Civil Code. If they find that the disinheritance was without cause, that part of
the testament or will may be pronounced null and void.

In this case, the lower court is correct that taking into consideration Rosario’s
tender years, then she is not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience
shown to her grandfather.

Page 6 of 6