Aglibot v. Manalac

4 S 1030

Facts:

Spouses Anacleto Manalac and Maria Aglibot owned a parcel of land in Zambales. The

spouses bore one child, Julia Manalac. On October 2, 1906, Maria Aglibot died, leaving

Anacleto and Julia as heirs. Subsequently, Anacleto married Andrea Acay. The marriage bore 6

children, the respondents in the case. On October 22, 1920, Julia died leaving his father and half-

siblings as heirs. Anacleto died on June 2, 1942. Upon death of Anacleto, the Zambales farm

passed on to his heirs Andrea Acay and their children. Leona and Evarista Aglibot, the sisters of

Maria Aglibot, filed a petition in court to retrieve the share of Julia to the Zambales property.

They claim that being the third degree relatives of Julia, they should inherit the property upon the

death of Anacleto, who was holding said property as reservista with regard to the share of Julia

inherited from her mother.

Issue:

Whether or not the share inherited by Julia from her mother to the parcel of land is

covered by reserva troncal and should be returned to Leona and Evarista Aglibot.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that based upon the facts of the case, the property in question is

a reservable property as provided for in Article 811 of the Spanish Civil Code. The entire

property belonged to the conjugal property of the spouses. That upon the death of the latter on

October 2, 1906, their only daughter, Juliana Mañalac, inherited one-half of the property, the

other pertaining to her father as his share in the conjugal partnership; that upon the death of

Juliana Mañalac on October 2, 1920 without leaving any descendant, her father inherited her

one-half portion of said property. In accordance with law, therefore, Anacleto Mañalac was

obliged to reserve the portion he had thus inherited from his daughter, for the benefit of

appellees, Leona and Evarista Aglibot, aunts of Juliana on the maternal side and who are,

therefore, her relative within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property

came.

Solivio v. CA

182 S 121

Facts:

Esteban Javellana Jr. is a Filipino Novelist. He was the sole child of Esteban Javellana Sr.

and Salustia Solvio. Upon the death of his parents, he was the sole heir of their property and in

due time all property was named to him. Unfortunately, Esteban Jr. died a bachelor, leaving

behind as relatives his Paternal Aunt Concordia Javellana-Villanueva and Maternal Aunt

Celedonia Solvio. Prior to his death, Esteban Jr. communicated with Celedonia his intention to

establish a foundation in the name of her mother, which would provide college education to poor

but deserving students. He was not able to establish the foundation prior to his death.

Concordia and Celedonia then agreed to establish the foundation from the estate of

Esteban, they have entered into an agreement whereby after all the necessary liabilities have

been settled, and the estate of Esteban Jr. will be used to establish the foundation. Concordia

subsequently filed before the courts a petition to assign her as the sole heir and administrator of

the estate. Upon having knowledge that Concordia was declared as sole heir and administrator

Celedonia filed a petition to set aside such order and to have her included as administrator and

heir of the estate. Concordia now argues that the estate of Esteban Jr. is covered by reserva

troncal and that Esteban Jr. is only a reservista with regard to the property he inherited from her

mother.

Issue:

Whether or not Esteban Jr. is a reservista and the estate is covered by reserva troncal?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no merit to Concordia’s argument that the estate is

covered by reserva troncal. The reserva troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article

891 which reads as follows: The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which

the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is

obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of

relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property

came.

The persons involved in reserva troncal are:

1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista)—the ascendant who inherits by

operation of law property from his descendants.

2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reservees (reservatarios)—

relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant (propositus), and belonging to the

line from which the property came.

3. The propositus—the descendant who received by gratuitous title and died without issue,

making his other ascendant inherit by operation of law.

Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was

not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia, from whom he inherited the

properties in question. 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. The

reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it

from another ascendant or brother or sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a

descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891.

Nieva v. Alcala

41 P 915

Facts:

Juliana Nieva and Francisco De Ocampo were married and had a child, Alfeo De

Ocampo. Juliana Nieva owned several parcels of land that Alfeo inherited upon her death.

Subsequently, Alfeo died and the parcels of land were inherited by his father, Francisco De

Ocampo. Francisco later married Marvela Alcala, they had a child Jose De Ocampo. Francisco

subsequently died and the property of Francisco was inherited by Marvela and Jose.

Segunda Maria Nieva is a natural child of Juliana and half-blood sibling of Alfeo, she is

now claiming that the parcels of land inherited by Marvela and Jose are reservable property and

that upon the death of Francisco, the same should be returned to her, being a relative in the third

degree of Alfeo and that Francisco was holding the property as a reservista.

Issue:

Whether or not Segunda, an illegitimate relative within the third degree is entitled to the

reserva troncal provided for by article 811 of the Civil Code?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court provided that based on the facts of the case, Segunda will inherit by

way of reserva troncal if she is a legitimate relative. However, Article 811 of the Spanish Civil

Code. The legislators used the generic terms “ascendant, descendant and relatives” without

specifying whether or not they have to be legitimate. The question has not been resolved 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 now before us, and are unanimous

in the opinion that the provision of article 811 of the Civil Code apply only to legitimate relative.

Articles 809 and 810 themselves speak only of ascendants. Can it in any way be maintained that

they refer to legitimate as well as to natural ascendants? They evidently establish the legitime of

the legitimate ascendants included as forced heirs in number 2 of article 807. And article 811, —

and as we will see also article 812, — continues to treat of this same legitime. The right of the

natural parents and children in the testamentary succession in wholly included in the eighth

section and is limited to the parents, other ascendants of such class being excluded in articles

807, No. 3, and 846. Therefore, the place which article 811 occupies in the Code of proof that it

refers only to legitimate ascendants. And if there were any doubt, it disappears upon considering

the text of article 938, which states that the provisions of article 811 applies to intestate

succession, which is just established in favor of the legitimate direct ascending line, the text of

articles 939 to 945, which treat of intestate succession of natural parents, as well as that of

articles 840 to 847, treating of their testamentary succession, which do not allude directly or

indirectly to that provision.

Lastly, the principle which underlies the exception which article 811 creates in the right to

succeed neither admits of any other interpretation. Whether the provision is due to the desire that

the properties should not pass, by reason of new marriage, out of the family to which they

belonged, or is directly derived from the system of the so-called "reserva troncal," and whether

the idea of reservation or that of lineal rights predominate the patrimony which is intended to be

preserved is that of the legitimate family. Only to legitimate ascendants and descendants do

article 968 et seq. of the Code refer, arising as they do from the danger of second or subsequent

marriage; only to legitimate parents do the special laws of Navarra, Aragon, Vizcaya and

Cataluña concede the right to succeed with respect to lineal properties (bienes troncales); only to

the legitimate ascendants does article 811 impose the duty to reserve.

The convenience of amplifying the precept to natural parents and ascendants may be raised just

as the question whether it would be preferable to suppress it altogether may be raised; but in the

realm of the statute law there is no remedy but to admit that article 811, the interpretation of

which should on the other hand be strict was drafted by the legislator with respect only to

legitimate ascendants.

Tioco v. Camacho

144 S 281

Facts:

The plaintiffs are the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant, Dalisay. They have as

a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister named Romana Tioco), father of the

plaintiffs and great grandfather of Dalisay. During the lifetime of Romana, she gratuitously

donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs). The

latter died intestate survived by her husband Estacio Dizon and their two (2) legitimate children,

Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay) and leaving the said four (4) parcels of land as the

inheritance of the children in equal pro-indiviso shares. Subsequently, Balbino died intestate,

survived by his legitimate children and bu his wife (among the plaintiffs) and legitimate

grandchildren, Faustino and Trinidad. In the partition of his estate, three (3) parcels of land were

adjudicated as the inheritance of Toribia but as she had predeceased her father, the said three (3)

parcesl of land devolved upon her two legitimate children, Faustino and Trinidad in equal pro-

inidiviso shares. Faustino died intestate, singled and without issue, leaving his one-half (1/2) pro-

indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land to his father, Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir,

who reserved the said property subject to a reserva troncal. When Trinidad died intestate, her

rights and interests in the land were inherited by her only child, Dalisay and not long after,

Eustacio died intestate survived also by his only legitimate child, Dalisay. Dalisay now owns

one-half (1/2) of all the seven (7) parcels of land as her inheritance from Trinidad. Dalisay also

claims the other half of the said parcels of land by virtue of reserva troncal imposed thereon upon

the death of Faustino but the plaintiffs opposed such claim because they claim three-fourths (3/4)

of the one-half pro-indiviso interst in said parcel of land, which was inherited by Eustacio from

Faustino, or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels of land, by virtue of their being also third

degree relatives of Faustino. The lower court declared that the parties are entitled to one-half

(1/2) of the seven (7) parcels of land in dispute, as reservatarios, in equal proportions. Not

satisfied, the defendant appealed.

Issues:

Whether or not all the relatives of the prepositus within the third degree in the appropriate

line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista?

Ruling:

The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have

acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve

such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are

within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came.

The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property

should be returned, but within that group, the individual right to the property should be decided

by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Article 891 does not specify

otherwise. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an

exceptional case, its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the

purpose of the law.

Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on instestate succession, the

plaintiffs must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of

Faustino, they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant, although they are

related to him within the same degree as the latter. Had the reversionary property passed directly

from the propositus, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs would have been excluded by the

defendant under the rules of intestate succession. There is no reason why a different result should

obtain simply because “the transmission of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the

reserva,” i.e., the property took a “detour” through an ascendant thereby giving rise to the

reservation before its transmission to the reservatario.

Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion

of the plaintiffs.

Sumaya v. IAC

201 S 178

Facts:

Raul Balantakbo inherited several parcels of property from his father and from his

maternal grandmother. He died intestate leaving his mother, Consuelo Balantakbo as sole

inheritor. Having inherited the property, she adjudicated herself as lone ascendant and have

registered the parcels of land on her behalf. Consuelo sold the properties to Mariquita Sumaya,

who sold the same to Villa Honorio Development Corporation which subsequently transferred its

right over the property in favor of Laguna Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative. Certificates of

title were issued in Agro’s name. The sold properties were not annotated as covered by reserva

troncal. Two years after Consuelo’s death, brothers, sisters, nephew and nieces of Raul filed a

civil case for the recovery of the parcels of land sold to Agro alleging that such is subject of

reserva troncal. Court a quo ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding Agro as not innocent purchasers

for value. The CA affirmed the lower court’s decision and ruled that there is no need to annotate

the reservable interest of reserves in property covered by the certificate of title.

Issue:

Whether there is a need to annotate the reservable character of the property subject of

reserva troncal?

Ruling:

Yes. In a ruling decided by the Court, the reservable character of a property may be lost

to innocent purchasers for value and hence, the obligation is imposed on a widowed spouse to

annotate the reservable character of a property subject of reserva troncal. Such requirement is in

order to protect the reservatarios of the said property.

Gonzales v CFI

104 S 179

Facts:

Benito Legarda Jr. is married to Filomena Races, their marriage bore 11 children namely:

Benito III, Alejandro, Jose, Filomena, Beatriz, Rosario, and Teresa. Benito Jr. died intestate

leaving his widow and children as heirs. Filomena Legarda subsequently died leaving behind her

mother Filomena Races as sole heir. Filomena Races inherited several parcels of land, shares of

stock and a savings deposit account from her daughter. Filomena Races in her will reserved the

property she inherited from her daughter in favor of her grandchildren from Benito III, Alejandro

and Jose. She subsequently died and her will was submitted for probate.

Beatriz Legarda now contests the will of her mother for being violative of reserve troncal,

she argues that the provisions of the will giving the reservable property to the third degree

relatives is violative of the rights of the second degree relatives as reservatarios.

Issue:

Whether the reservable property be given to the third degree reservatarios in exclusion of

the second degree reservatarios?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court provided that in reserva troncal, the person from whom the degree

should be reckoned is the descendant, or the one from the end of the line from which the

property came and upon whom the property last resolved descent up to the third degree. The

nearest relatives exclude the more remote subject to the rule of representation but the

representative should be in the third degree from the prepositus. Reserva troncal does not extend

to the relatives up to the fourth degree, it only covers those within the third civil degree and the

rule on proximity applies. In the instant case, the reservatarios provided for in the will of

Filomena Races are the third degree relatives of the prepositus, however there are the presence of

second degree relatives which are the defendants. Therefore the provision giving the property to

the grandchildren could not be given effect. The proper reservatarios who shall inherit the

property are the siblings of Filomena Legarda.

Edroso v Sablan

25 P 285

Facts:

Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan are married; they had a son named Pedro. On

September 22, 1882, Victoriano Sablan died leaving two parcels of land to Pedro. On July 15,

1902, Pedro died leaving his mother Marcelina as the sole heir. Marcelina is now petitioning to

transfer the property on her name. The brothers of Victoriano Sablan are opposing the

registration claiming that the parcels of land are reservable property and that the registration

must be denied or the deeds be annotated to show that said property are reservable.

Marcelina argues that the properties were not inherited by operation of law and that only

properties inherited by operation of law are covered by reserve troncal.

Issue:

Whether or not the properties subjects of the application for registration are reservable

property?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the Victoriano inherited the property from his ascendants

and that the same was inherited by his son, Pedro by operation of law. The property was

inherited by Marcelina as reservista in behalf of the brothers of Victoriano, she is therefore

required by law to hold the property and return the same to the third degree relatives of her son,

Pedro. The application for registration of the property in her name must also show that the

property is reserved.

Sienes v Esparcia

1 S 750

Facts:

Saturnino Yaeso was married to Teresa Ruales, the marriage bore four children namely:

Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriano, all surnamed Yaeso. Upon the death of Teresa,

Saturnino married Andrea Gutang, they had a son named Francisco Yaeso. Saturnino Yaeso died

leaving behind parcels of land to his children, the property were divided as follows: Lot 3375

given to Agaton, Lot 3367 given to Fernando, Lot 3377 given to Paulina, Lot 3366 given to

Cipriano, and Lot 3368 given to Francisco. Francisco was a minor and the property was

administered by his mother Andrea Gutang. At age 20, Francisco died, leaving Andrea his sole

heir. Andrea Gutang subsequently sold the property to Constancio Sienes, who is now

demanding the delivery of title which was possessed by Paulina and Cipriano. Paulina and

Cipriano on the other hand declared the property in question to their names and sold the property

to Fidel Esparcia. Sienes is now petitioning to declare the sale and transfer of property from

Yaeso siblings to Esparcia as void, and the delivery of deed of title to him. Esparcia contends on

the other hand, that the property is a reservable property and that the sale by Andrea to Sienes is

void.

Issue:

Whether or not Lot 3368 is a reservable property and the sale by Andrea Gutang to

Sienes is void?

Ruling:

Yes, the property was inherited by Andrea Gutang from his son, Francisco, who in turn

inherited the same from Saturnino. Andrea, the ascendant who inherited from a descendant in a

reservista of the said property and cannot therefore alienate, dispose or donate the property she is

holding as a reservista. The property being reservable in nature must be returned by the reservista

to the reservatarios. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of

Constancio Sienes is void. The sale made by Cipriano in favor of Fidel Espacio is valid, subject

to resolutory conditions, that in the case that the reservable property is returned to them at the

demise of the reservista, the same shall pass to the buyers. In the instant case, if the return of the

reservable property occurs after the death of Cipriano, the vendor is his estate.

Chua v CFI

78 S 412

Facts:

Jose Frias Chua was married to Patricia Militar. The marriage bore 3 children, Ignacio,

Lorenzo and Manuel. Patricia Militar died and Jose Chua married Consolacion Dela Torre, to

which a son was born, Juanito Frias. Manuel died without issue, and subsequently Jose died

leaving behind several parcels of land to Ignacio, Lorenzo, Juanito and to his widow

Consolacion. Based on the settlement, Juanito inherited lot 399 from his father. Later Juanito

died leaving his mother as sole inheritor of his estate. Lot 399 was registered in the name of

Consolacion who later died leaving no ascendants or descendants, only her siblings.

Ignacio and Remedios Chua, in representation of his father Lorenzo, are now petitioning

to recover ½ of Lot 399 from the estate of Consolacion, arguing that the portion is a reservable

property. Susana Dela Torre, the sister of Consolacion argues that the property can no longer be

recovered since the claim was only filed after the death of Consolacion and therefore the

property is no longer reservable in favor of Ignacio and Remedios.

Issue:

Whether or not the right of Reserva Troncal over the subject property was waived

because the claim was made after the death of the Consolacion?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court provided that the property in the instant case is still covered by

Reserva Troncal, the claim filed by Ignacio Frias Chua is timely because such return of the

reservable property is at the time of death of the reservista, there was no waiver of right by the

reservatarios even if the claim over the reservable property was not made during the lifetime of

the reservista.

Rabadilla v. CA

29 June 2000

Facts:

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, inherited by way of a codicil appended to the Last Will and

Testament of Aleja Belleza, 511,855 square meters of parcel of land located in Bacolod. It is

provided in the codicil that Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and subsequently his heirs, is required to deliver

100 piculs of Sugar to the Maria Marlina yearly until her death. That failure to abide with the

same will forfeit the devise. She further commanded in her will that in the event the property is

to be sold, leased, or mortgaged, the same can only be done with the near descendants and sister

of the Testatrix.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla subsequently died leaving his widow and children as heirs. On

August 21, 1989, Maria Marlina filed a complaint before the courts for the violation of the

conditions of the will by the heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. She contended that the heirs of

Rabadilla mortgaged the property to Philippine National Bank and not to the near descendants of

the Testatrix; she further contended that the Heirs of Rabadilla failed to comply with the delivery

of 100 piculs of Sugar for the crop year of 1985 up to the filing of the complaint. She prays that

the failure to comply with the conditions of the will renders the codicil invalid and that the

property be returned to the estate of Belleza.

Issue:

Whether or no failure to comply with the conditions of the Codicil will render the devise

void?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the conditions imposed upon by Belleza to Dr. Rabadilla

were transmitted upon his death to the heirs. The obligations of Dr. Rabadilla over the devised

property were transmitted to his forced heirs by operation of law, without need of further

proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death of

the decedent.

The obligations imposed that there must be a delivery of 100 piculs of sugar and that in

order to sell, lease, or mortgage the said property to the nearest descendants and/or sister of

Belleza is also transmitted to the forced heirs.

The failure of the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla to comply with the obligations imposed upon

them mandates the reconveyance of the property to the estate of Belleza.