Florentino vs Florentino, 40 Phil 480

FACTS:

In 1890, Apolonio II died leaving a notarial will. He was survived by his ten children and his widow as heirs. Apolonio III received in the partition of the subject property. When Apolonio III died, the said property were inherited by his mother Severina, who latter died, leaving a will instituting her only daughter as her universal heiress. Herein appellants demands from Mercedes to deliver their corresponding share in the reservable property but Mercedes refused.

CFI dismissed the complaint of specific performance.

HELD:REVERSED. Even if Severina left in her will said property together with her own property to her only daughter,nevertheless, this property had not lost their reservable nature in as much as it originated from the common ancestor ofherein appellants. The property was inherited by the son and was transmitted by operation of law to his mother.

Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property while there are living within the 3rd degree relative of the latter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reservable property received. But if afterwards, all of such relative die, the said property become free property by operation of law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of the ascendant heir who can transmit it at his death to his legal succession.

There are seven reservatoris who are entitled to the reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III:(1) 3 children of the 1st marriage;(2) 3 children who are represented by their own children (nephews/ nieces);(3) Mercedes

All of the appellants are the relatives of the posthumous son within the third degree. Hence, they are entiled as reservatarios to the property which came from the common ancestors