Reserva Troncal 1.

Apolonio II died Feb 1890 testate,he had two wills, one of w/c stated that his
14856 – Florentino vs Florentino properties should be divided equally among his children in both marriage,
Torres, J his estate was partitioned as such
2. In the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio III,
Reservable property is received by the reservista’s sole heir who is only one of the his posthumos son, a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of table
resevatarios. Question is w/c should prevail, the duty of the reservist or the legitime of her service, livestock, palay, some personal property and other objects.
heir? The Court ruled that the reservable property is not really part of the legitime of the heir 3. Apolonio III, died in 1891; that his mother, Severina, succeeded to all his
reservist, since the latter does not really own it but acts only as usufructuary or fiduciary in property;
favor of the reservatarios. 4. died on November 18, 1908, leaving a will instituting as her universal
heiress her only living daughter, Mercedes;
5. Mercedes daughter took possession of all the property left at the death of
DOCTRINE her mother,
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the 6. That the properties Severina inherited from her son Apolonio III are
ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant, therefore it does reservable property with Severina as a reservist, meaning she could not
not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced heirs. It have instituted Mercedes as sole heir, but should’ve respected the
becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have reservation in favor of complainants and that Mercedes should be similarly
died (reservista) in which case said reservable property losses such character. situated a reservatario only, they seek their respective share of the
properties and its fruits
Parties: 2. Defendants demurred. CFI granted and upon appeal CA dismissed the case entirely.
 Apolonio Florentino II died, married 2 women is his life, one after the death of the 1. Lower court ruled: (important, since the SC will ultimately meet this issues
other, he dies testate, his properties were partitioned among his heirs, living heirs point by point and overturn the lower court)
wife 2, 9 children w/ wife 1 and 2 w/ his wife 2 (looking at the wives maiden 1. that reservation provisions under the Code are inapplicable;
names, magkapatid sila?) 2. that Mercedes, being the only daughter of Severina, is her forced
heiress;
 Apoonio III, one of the 2 children w/ wife 2 was born a month after his father died
3. that when she inherited the property left at the death of her mother,
but nevertheless he got his share from his father’s will, he died, his properties are
together with that which came from her deceased brother Apolonio
now being claimed as reserved properties
III, the fundamental object of article 8111 of the Code was
 Severina is wife 2 of Apolinio II, Apolonio III’s mother, she inherited Apolonio III’s
complied with, since the danger that the property coming from the
properties, plaintiffs claim her to be a reservista, she died and left a will making a
same line might fall into the hands of strangers had been avoided;
sole heir her daughter Mercedes
4. and that the expectation on the part of the plaintiffs of the right to
 Mercedes is Apolonio III’s full blood sister acquire the property of the deceased Apolonio III never did come
W1: Antonia Faz De Leon, w/ Apolonio II W2: Severina Faz De Leon w/ whom into existence because there is a forced heiress who is entitled to
begot 9 children, (plaintiffs) ApolonioII begot 2 children such property.
1. Encarnacion 1. Mercedes (defendant in this 5. It is also founded on the theory that article 811 of the Civil Code
case w/ her husband) does not destroy the system of legitimate succession and that the
2. Gabriel 2. Apolonio III- posthumously born applying the reservable right to would reduce and impair the
3. Magdalena forced legitime in violation of the precept of article 813 which
4. Jose- deceased represented by provides that the testator cannot deprive his heirs of their legitime,
5 children except in the cases expressly determined by law.
5. Espirita- deceased represented 1. Neither can he impose upon it any burden, condition, or
by 4 children substitution of any kind whatsoever, saving the
6. Pedro- deceased represented by provisions concerning the usufruct of the surviving
2 children spouse, citing the decision of the Supreme Court of
7. The other died w/o issue- Juan, Spain of January 4, 1911.
Maria, Isabel
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. whether they property left at the death of Apolonio III, the posthumos son of
FACTS Apolonio II, was or was not invested with the character of reservable property
1. Plaintiffs file a case against Mercedes Florentino and her husband, alleging the ff: when it was received by his mother, Severina Faz de Leon- YES

1
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property acquired by the latter gratuitously from some other ascendant, or from a brother or sister,
is obliged to reserve such of the property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the
line from which such property came.

1
 1. SC: subject property without a doubt is from the common ancestor 5. Prayer for damages denied, but for fruits or rents of land granted.
Apolonio II, and when, on the death of Apolonio III without issue the
same passed by operation of law into the hands of his legitimate DISPOSITIVE PORTION
mother, Severina, it became reservable property, in accordance with Judgment reversed. SC ruled ifo plaintiff-pets
the provision of article 811 of the Code, with the object that the same
should not fall into the possession of persons other than those
comprehended within the order of person other than those
comprehended within the order of succession traced by the law from
Apolonio Isabelo II, the source of said property.
1. Severina who inherited same from her son Apolonio III, did
not thereby acquire the dominion or right of ownership but
only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary with the necessary
obligation to preserve and to deliver or return it as such
reservable property to her deceased son's relatives within the
third degree, among whom is her daughter, Mercedes
Florentino.
2. Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion
of the ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant,
therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become the
legitimate of his forced heirs. It becomes his own property only in case that all
the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista) in which case said
reservable property losses such character.
1. With full right Severina could have disposed in her will of all her
own property in favor of her only living daughter, Mercedes, as
forced heiress. But whatever provision there is in her will
concerning the reservable property received from her son
Apolonio III, or rather, whatever provision will reduce the rights of
the other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of her
daughter Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said
property is not her own and she has only the right of usufruct or
of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve and to deliver same to
the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes
Florentino.
2. If said property did not come to be the legitimate and exclusive property
of Severina Faz de Leon, her only legitimate and forced heiress, the
defendant Mercedes, could not inherit all by operation of law and in
accordance with the order of legitimate succession, because the other
relatives of the deceased Apolonio III, within the third degree, as well as
herself are entitled to such reservable property.
3. There is therefore no reduction or impairment of Mercedes’s legitime.
(kasi nga di naman kay absolutely owned ni Severina yung props)
3. Just because Severina has a forced heiress, with a right to her inheritance, does
not relieve Severina of her obligation to reserve the property which she received
from her deceased son, nor did same lose the character of reservable property,
held before the reservatarios received same.
4. It is true that when Mercedes Florentino, the heiress of the reservista Severina,
took possession of the property in question, same did not pass into the hands of
strangers. But it is likewise true that the said Mercedes is not the only
reservataria. And there is no reason founded upon law and upon the principle of
justice why the other reservatarios, the other brothers and nephews, relatives
within the third degree in accordance with the precept of article 811 of the Civil
Code, should be deprived of portions of the property which, as reservable
property, pertain to them.