RESERVA TRONCAL or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation

Solivio vs. Court of Appeals of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong
Digest Author: FABI to the line from which said property came.”

DOCTRINE: The 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, the reverse of the situation
covered by Article 891.
FACTS:
1) Esteban Jr.’s mother Salustia died leaving all her property to him.
2) Esteban Jr, died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters,
nephews or nieces.
3) His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia,
the spinster half-sister of his mother, Salustia; and (2) the private
respondent, Concordia , sister of his deceased father.
4) Pursuant to an agreement between Concordia and Celedonia, the latter would take
care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation.
5) Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed for a Special
Proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate of Esteban
Javellana, Jr., praying that letters of administration be issued to her; that she be
declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of all claims and rendition
of inventory and accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her.
6) Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo for partition, recovery of possession,
ownership and damages.
7) Celedonia averred that the estate of Esteban Jr. was subject to reserve troncal and
thus it should redound to her as a relative within the 3rd degree on his mother side
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.”
In this case, the property of the deceased, Esteban Jr., is not reservable property, for
Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother 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 Solivio, 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 a 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.
Since the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., died without descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, surviving spouse, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces, what should
apply in the distribution of his estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code.
DISPOSITION: petition is dismissed

ISSUE: W/N the estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal and that it pertains to
her as his only relative within the third degree on his mother’s side.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

The Court find no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the estate of the deceased was
subject to reserva troncal and that it pertains to her as his only relative within the third
degree on his mother’s side.

The reserva troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which reads as follows:

“ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the
latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother

1
 - Denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not originate from
petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by Placido and Dominga.
RESERVA TRONCAL - The properties were bought by Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos in
Mendoza vs. Delos Santos 1931.
Digest Author: FENIS
5. RTC – ruled in favor of Petitioners; CA - reversed
DOCTRINE:

Relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios,
since the law does not recognize them as such. - The right granted by the Civil Code in
[A]rticle 811 [now Article 891] is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit
of the designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of the person from
whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding
degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as
such. x x x [N]evertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are
within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the deceased person
from whom the reservable property came.
FACTS:
1. The properties subject in the case are three parcels of land located in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan.
2. Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido) and Dominga Mendoza
(Dominga).
o Placido and Dominga had four children: Antonio, Exequiel, Apolonio and
Valentin.
o Petitioners Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia, Adoracion, Marcela and Ricardo are
the children of Antonio. Petitioners Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and
Fortunato, are Valentin’s children.
ISSUE:
(1) W/N law on reserve troncal is applicable? NO
(2) W/N petitioners have a right to the subject properties by virtue of the law on
reserve troncal? NO
RULING+RATIO: (1) YES.
LB: There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal. The first transmission is by
gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a
descendant called the prepositus. The second transmission is by operation of law from the
prepositus to the other ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last
transmission is from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives
within the third degree from which the property came.
 The lineal character of the
reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the prepositus received the
property by gratuitous title.
AP: In this case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable.

3. Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and Dominga’s properties
that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel.

Upon prop. passed on. to share share went

leonor Georgia died
Exequiel sps. leonor and went to to
died intestate
's death daugther, georgia Georgia respondent

4. Respondent, who is Leonor’s sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as
the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria.

Petitioner’s contention:
- 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.
LB: The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
Respondent’s contention: 1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant
by lucrative or gratuitous title;

2
2. The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the property;
3.The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property from the
prepositus by operation of law; and
4.The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who
belongs to the (linea o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property
should be reserved by the reservor.
AP: Here, the ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel’s as he is
the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred, or from whom Gregoria inherited
the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in
determining the lineal character of the property.
It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and
Dominga or whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned
the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originally came.
Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from Exequiel by
gratuitous title.
LB: Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the
descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. A transmission is
gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return.
LB: The right granted by Article 891 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive
benefit of the designated persons who are the relatives, within the third degree, of the
person from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the
succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not
recognize them as such.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus the one
at the end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last
revolved by descent.
APP: It is Gregoria in this case. 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.
They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as Article
891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the third degree from
whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized exemption is in the case of
nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the right to represent their ascendants
(fathers and mothers) who are the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the
third degree

Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant DISPOSITION: Dismissed.
(also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant/prepositus. Petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal. First, because Julia, who now holds the
properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil
APP: What was clearly established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned by Code and second, because petitioners are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree.
Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the
properties as inheritance. Julia, however, is not Gregoria’s ascendant; rather, she is
Gregoria’s collateral relative.1

Gregoria’s ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents, great-
grandparents and so on. On the other hand, Gregoria’s descendants, if she had one, would be
her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Not being Gregoria’s ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her collateral
relatives. In determining the collateral line of relationship, ascent is made to the common
ancestor and then descent to the relative from whom the computation is made. Thus, Julia is
Gregoria’s collateral relative within the third degree and not her ascendant. Petitioners as
first cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth degree relatives and cannot be
considered reservees/reservatarios.

(2) No, petitioners cannot be considered reservees/ reservatarios as they are not relatives
within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came.

1 Art. 964 A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but
who come from a common ancestor.

3
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Chua vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, Branch V
Digest Author: FABI
DOCTRINE: For purposes of “reserva troncal”, there is a gratuitous transfer when the
recipient does not give anything in return and it matters not that the property is subject to
prior charges, such as an order of the court imposing the payment of a certain sum owed by
the deceased.
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that property may be impressed with a
reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit:
(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.
FACTS:
ISSUE: W/N the property in question was acquired by Juanito from his father, Jose,
gratuitously or not.
RULING+RATIO: YES.
LB: Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that a property may be impressed
with a reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit:
(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
AP: In the case, all of the requisites are present. Juanito of the second marriage died
intestate in; he died without leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was
acquired by his mother, Consolacion by operation of law. When Consolacion died, Juanito who
died intestate had relatives within the third degree. These relatives are Ignacio and Dominador
and Remedios, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo, who are the
petitioners.

1. In the first marriage of Jose with Patricia, he sired three children, namely: Ignacio, LB: Cabardo v. Villanueva - “The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title
Lorenzo and Manuel. when the recipient does not give anything in return.”

2. When Patricia died, Jose contracted a second marriage with Consolacion with whom AP: It is evident that the transmission of the property in question to Juanito of the
he had a child by the name of Juanito. second marriage upon the death of his father Jose was by means of a hereditary succession
and therefore gratuitous.
3. Manuel died without leaving any issue. Then Jose died intestate leaving his widow
Consolacion and his son Juanito of the second marriage and sons Ignacio and of his
first marriage.

4. In Intestate Proceeding the lower court issued an order adjudicating the one-half
(1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 in favor of Consolacion, the other half in favor of Juanito.

5. Juanito of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his
mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of the subject lot.

6. Then Consolacion died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or
ascending line except her brother and sisters.

7. In the “Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre”, the petitioners filed the

complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly
belonged to Juanito but which passed to Consolacion upon the latter’s death, be
declared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject
to reserva troncal.

4
 RESERVA TRONCAL ISSUE: W/N the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned among
Padura vs. Baldovino the heirs equally.
Digest Author: FABI
RULING+RATIO: NO.
DOCTRINE: The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to thethird degree relatives belonging to the line from which the LB: The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of
property originally came, and avoid its beingdissipated into and by the relatives of the the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
inheriting ascendant (reservista). property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by their relatives of the
inheriting ascendant (reservista).
FACTS:
The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified
relatives of the line of origin. After that, Art. 891 has nothing to do with the relations
1) Agustin contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife
between one reservatario and another of the same degree. Their shares should be foverned
Gervacia, he had one child, Manuel. With the second wife, Benita, he had two
by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. Upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the
children, Fortunato andCandelaria Padura. Agustin died, leaving a last will and
reservable property should pass, not to all reservatarios as a class, but only to those nearest
testament, duly probated, wherein he bequeathed his properties among his
in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those reseravatarios more remote in
three children and his surviving spouse, Benita.
degree.
2) Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried, without
AP: In this case, Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the relatives of
having executed a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were
Fortunato up to the third degree will get the reservable property after his mother dies. The
inherited exclusively by his mother Benita subject to the condition that the
children of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the property by way of right of
properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree
representation. But after applying the rule, the reservatarios and their relationship will be
belonging to the line from which said property came.
considered in determining their shares. The rules on ordinary intestate succession would be
followed after the reservatarios have been determined.
3) Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate children Oppositors-
appellants. Manuel also died, survived by his legitimate children Petitioners-
Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the reservatarios could compel the
appellees.
annotation of their right (over the property) in the registry of property. The reservable
property is no part of the estate of the reservista, who may not dispose them by will so long as
4) Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and Fortunato
there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios are in fact inheriting from the descendant
took possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable properties). prepositus from whom the reservista inherited the property.

5) CFI declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria to be the rightful reservees,
and entitled to the reservable properties (the original reservees, Candelaria and DISPOSITION: petition is dismissed
Manuel,having predeceased the reservista).

6) The Baldovino heirs filed a petition to have the properties partitioned, such that
one-half be adjudicated to them, and the other half to the appellees, allegedly
on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from their respective
parents, the original reservees.

7) The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all (all 11 of them) be deemed
inheriting in their own right hence, they should have equal shares.

8) CFI rendered judgment declaring them all reservees without distinction and
have equal shares over the properties as co-owners, pro indiviso.

5
 RESERVA TRONCAL RULING+RATIO: NO.
De Papa vs. Camacho
Digest Author: FABI LB: In Padura vs. Baldovino, where the reservatario was survived by eleven
nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and seven of
DOCTRINE: In reserva troncal, the successional rights of the relatives of the praepositus half blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary
within the 3rd degree are determined by, and subject to, the rules of intestate succession; so property in equal shares. The Court declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling, and
as to exclude uncles and aunts of the descendant from the reservable property by his niece or ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that
nephew.— of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil
Code.
FACTS:
AP: In this case, Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on
intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because,
1) Appellees Francisca, Manuel and Nicolas and appellant Dalisay have as a as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from
common ancestor the late Balbino, father of appellees and great grandfather the succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within
of defendant, who had a sister by the name of Romana. the same degree as the latter.

2) During her lifetime, Romana gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece
Toribia (legitimate sister of appellees).
3) When Toribia died, she was survived by her husband, Eustacio, and their
two legitimate children Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay).
To this effect Arts. 1001, 1004, 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code were cited and
applied.
LB: Under the 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the
succession.

4) The 4 parcels of land were left as inheritance of Toribia’s two children in equal pro- Therefore, the defendant-appellant Dalisay TongkoCamacho is entitled to the entirety of the
indiviso shares. reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.

5) They too inherited 3 parcels of land which was supposed to be the inheritance of the DISPOSITION: complaint is dismissed
late Toribia from her father Balbino.

6) However, when Faustino died intestate, single and without issue, the ½ pro-indiviso
share in the 7 parcels of land was left to his father Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir,
who received the said property subject to a reserve troncal.

7) Subsequently, Trinidad died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of
land were inherited by her only legitimate child, appellant Dalisay.

8) Eustacio thereafter died intestated, survived by Dalisay Tongko-Camacho.

9) The lower Court declared that the appellees as well as appellant Dalisay
were entitled as reservatarios to ½ of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in
equal proportions.

ISSUE: W/N 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.

6
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Edroso vs. Sablan.
Digest Author: FABI
DOCTRINE: —The heir of real property who has beyond any doubt the rights of using and
enjoying it, and even of alienating it, is not prevented from himself alone registering the title
to the property he has inherited, merely because to his right of disposal there is annexed a
condition subsequent arising from the expectation of a right, when the reservees who have
that expectation of a right agreed thereto, provided that, in accordance with the law, the
reservable character of such property in their favor be entered in the record.
The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latter’s wish or by operation of
law, requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. All
the attributes of the right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use, enjoyment, disposal
and recovery.
During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by law to
be reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after the right
that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only an expectation, and
therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit that expectation to their heirs.

FACTS:
DISPOSITION: complaint is dismissed
1. Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death. In this marriage they had a
son named Pedro who at his father’s death inherited the two said parcels.

2. Pedro also died, unmarried and without issue and by this decease the two parcels of land
passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso.

3. Hence the hereditary title is based the application for registration of her ownership.

4. Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan — that is, two uncles german of Pedro Sablan —
appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things: Either that the
registration be denied, “or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the opponents be
recorded in the registration of each parcel.”

5. The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.

6. Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in question partake
of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and that in such a
case application could only be presented jointly in the names of the mother and the said two
uncles of Pedro Sablan.

ISSUE: W/N the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the reservable
properties by reservista, Edroso.

RULING+RATIO: YES.

The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land
which are the subject matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the right
required by the law to be reserved to either or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and
Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.

The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he can use, enjoy, dispose of and
recover it; and if, in addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner and can
alienate it, although under a condition.

7
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Cano vs. Director
Digest Author: Fabi
DOCTRINE: —
GR: Once an original certificate of title by virtue of the final decree of the land court was
duly issued in the name of the reservista, subject to reserva, troncal, and subsequently the
latter died, the registration court, in view of the said recorded reserva has authority under
Sec. 112 of Act 496 to order the reservatario; for the reason that the death of the reservista
vested the ownership of the property in the sole reservatario troncal.
EXCEPTION.—Where, however, the registration decree merely specifies the reservable
character of the property, without determining the identity of the reservatario (as in the case
of Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil., 279) or where several reservatories dispute the
property among themselves, further proceedings would be unavoidable.
The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the reservee are (1) the
death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista.
FACTS:
1. CFI decreed that the two parcels of land be registered in the name of Maria Cano (reservista),
with the understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the right of reservation in favor of
Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Code.
2. The decision being final, the decree and the Certificate of Title were issued in the
name of Maria Cano, subject to reserva troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero.
3. Counsel for the Guerrero filed a motion, alleging the death of the original registered
owner and reservista, Maria Cano, and praying that the OCT be ordered cancelled
and a new one issued in favor of movant Eustaquia Guerrero.
4. This was opposed by the sons of the reservista, who contended that the application
and operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary contentious
proceeding, and that the Registration Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the
motion.
5. The lower court granted the petition for the reason that the death of the reservista
vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole reservatario
troncal.
6. The oppositors, heirs of the reservista Maria Cano, duly appealed from the order,
insisting that the ownership of the reservatario can not be decreed in a mere
proceeding under sec. 112 of Act 496, but requires a judicial administration
proceedings.
7. appellants argue that the reversion in favor of the reservatario requires the
declaration of the existence of the following facts:
a) The property was received by a descendant by gratuitous title from an ascendant or
from a brother or sister .
b) Said descendant dies without issue;
c) The property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
d) The existence of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
said property came.
ISSUE: W/N Guerrero being the reservatorio is entitled to the said property.
RULING+RATIO: YES.
The requisites enumerated by appellants have already been declared to exist by the decree of
registration wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were expressly
recognized.
Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the applicant Maria Cano by inheritance from her deceased
daughter, Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn, inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero
and, hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code
Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest of kin, excludes all the other private oppositors, whose
degree of relationship to the decedent is remoter.
This decree having become final, all persons are barred thereby from contesting the existence
of the constituent elements of the reserva.
LB: The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee are: (1)
the death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista
It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario
nearest to the prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes, automatically and by
operation of law, the owner of the reservable property.
It is equally well settled that the reservable property can not be transmitted by a reservista
to her or his own successors mortis causa, (like appellants herein) so long as a reservatorio
within the third degree from the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property
came, is in existence when the reservista dies.
AP: ustaquia Guerrero have been expressly recognized, and it is nowhere claimed that there
are other reservatarios of equal or nearer degree. It is thus apparent that the heirs of the
reservista are merely endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the reservable property to
the detriment of the party lawfully entitled thereto.
8
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Gonzales vs. CFI
Digest Author: FENIS
DOCTRINE: The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property and holds title subject
to a resolutory condition. - The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor
predeceased the reservee.
The reservee has only an inchoate right. He cannot impugn a conveyance made by the
reservor.—On the other hand, the reservee has only an inchoate, expectant or contingent
right. His expectant right would disappear if he predeceased the reservor. It would become
absolute should the reservor predecease the reservee. The reservee cannot impugn any
conveyance made by the reservor but he can require that the reservable character of the
property be recognized by the purchaser.
Florentino case doctrine: As long as during the reservor’s lifetime and upon his death there are
relatives within the third degree of the prepositus, regardless of whether those reservees are
common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant from whom the property came, the
property retains its reservable character. The property should go to the nearest reservees. The
reservor cannot, by means of his will, choose the reservee to whom the reservable property
should be awarded.
FACTS:
1. Benito Legarda y De la Paz, son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, was survived by his widow,
Filomena Roces, and their seven children: 4 daughters - Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and
Filomena; 3 sons- Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
2. The real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in three equal
portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito.
3. Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena
Roces Vda. de Legarda.
4. Mrs. Legarda executed affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which
she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda.
5. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased
daughter Filomena Legarda as co- owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other
six children.
6. Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the
properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of her 16 grandchildren.
7. Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the
one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in
representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.
8. Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will.
9. Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix, filed motion to exclude from the
inventory of her mother’s estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased
daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which
should be inherited by Filomena Legarda’s three sisters and three brothers and not by
the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
10. Mrs. Gonzales filed an ordinary civil action for the purpose of securing a declaration that
the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath in
her holographic will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her three daughters and her
three sons. – dismissed
ISSUE: W/N Mrs. Legarda, as reservor, could convey the reservable properties by will or
mortis causa to the reservees within the third degree (her sixteen grandchildren) to the
exclusion of the reservees in the second degree, her three daughters and three sons?
RULING+RATIO: NO, because the reservable properties did not form part of her estate.
LB: The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long
as the reservees survived the reservor. In the Cano and Padura cases, the reservees inherit
the reservable properties from the prepositus, not from the reservor.
APP: Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the
nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the six
children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property
should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein.
LB: The doctrine of the Florentino case means that as long as during the reservor’s lifetime
and upon his death there are relatives within the third degree of the prepositus, regardless
of whether those reservees are common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant
from whom the property came, the property retains its reservable character. The property
should go to the nearest reservees. The reservor cannot, by means of his will, choose the
reservee to whom the reservable property should be awarded.
APP: Applying that doctrine to this case, it results that Mrs. Legarda could not dispose of in
her will the properties in question even if the disposition is in favor of the relatives within
the third degree from Filomena Legarda. The said properties, by operation of Article 891,
should go to Mrs. Legarda’s six children as reservees within the second degree from Filomena
Legarda.
DISPOSITION: Lower court’s decision is reversed and set aside.
9
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Florentino v. Florentino
Digest Author: Fenis
DOCTRINE: — 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 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, without prejudicing the right of the heir to
an aliquot part of property, if he has at the same time the right of a reservatario.
FACTS:
1. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married the first time Antonia Faz de Leon and had 9
children.
2. On becoming a widower he married the second time Severina Faz de Leon with whom he
had two children.
3. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II died and was survived by his second wife Severina Faz de
Leon and the ten children his eleventh son, Apolonio III, was born a month after he died.
4. Apolonio Isabelo Florentino executed a will before the notary public of Ilocos Sur,
instituting as his universal heirs his aforementioned 10 children, the posthumos Apolonio
III and his widow Severina Faz de Leon. It is said that all his property should be divided
among all of his children of both marriages.
5. In the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio Florentino III: a
gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver, and of table service, livestock, palay, some personal
property and other objects mentioned in the complaint.
6. Apolonio Florentino III died and all his property were succeeded by his mother, Severina
Faz de Leon.
7. Severina died. As a universal heiress in a will, properties went to her only living daughter,
Mercedes. Among the properties was the property inherited by Severina from Apolonio
III, as reservable property.
8. Plaintiffs asked the defendants, to deliver the corresponding part of the reservable
property but the latter refused to do so.
Petitioner’s contention:
For nine years Mercedes Florentino has been receiving, as rent for the lands mentioned, 360
bundles of palay at fifty pesos per bundle and 90 bundles of corn at f our pesos per bundle;
that thereby the plaintiffs have suffered damages.
9. Trial court ruled in favor of the defendants.
ISSUE: W/N accordance with the provision of the Civil Code in article 891, Severina Faz de
Leon had the obligation to preserve and reserve same for the relatives, within the third degree,
of her deceased son?
RULING+RATIO: YES.
LB: According to the provisions of law, ascendants do not inherit the reservable property, but
its enjoyment, use or trust, merely for the reason that said law imposes the obligation to
reserve and preserve same for certain designated persons who, on the death of the said
ascendants reservists, acquire the ownership of said property in fact and by operation of law
in the same manner as forced heirs—said property reverts to said line as long as the
aforementioned persons who, from the death of the ascendant reservists, acquire in fact the
right of reservatarios (persons for whom property is reserved), and are relatives, within the
third degree, of the descendant from whom the reservable property came.
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property, while there are living, within
the third degree, relatives of the latter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the
reservable property received. He is, however, the legitimate owner of his own property which
is not reservable property and which constitutes his legitime. But if, afterwards, all of the
relatives, within the third degree, of the descendant (from whom came the reservable
property) die or disappear, the said property becomes 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 legitimate successors or testamentary heirs. This property has now lost its nature of
reservable property, pertaining thereto at the death of the relatives, called reservatarios, who
belonged within the third degree to the line from which such property came.
GR: The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claming same as a reservatario
of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third degree belonging to the
line from which such property came.
EXC: Nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came have the
right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said
deceased person and relatives within the third degree.
APP: In this case, plaintiffs, there are then seven "reservatarios" who are entitled to the
reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III;
o the posthumos son of' the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo II, to wit, his three
children of his first marriage— Encarnacion, Gabriel, Magdalena;
o his three children, Jose, Espirita and Pedro who are represented by their own twelve
children respectively;
o and Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by a second marriage.
All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased posthumos son, Apolonio Florentino III,
within the third degree (four of whom being his halfbrothers and the remaining twelve being
his nephews as they are the children of his three half- brothers). As the first four are his
relatives within the third degree in their own right and the other twelve are such by
representation, all of them are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the property which
came from the common ancestor, Apolonio Isabelo, to Apolonio Florentino III by inheritance
10
during his life-time, and in turn by inheritance to his legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon,
widow of the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II.

LB: 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.

APP: In this case, whatever provision there is in Severina Faz de leon’s 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.

DISPOSITION: Order reversed.

11
 RESERVA TRONCAL
Sienes v. Esparcia
Digest Author: FABI
DOCTRINE: — 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.
AP: The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, subject to the
condition that the vendees would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation,
only if the vendor died without being survived by any person entitled to the reservable
property. Inasmuch as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso 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 subject matter thereof
passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.

The reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the
line from which the reservable property came constitutes a real right which the reservee may
alienate and dispose of, although conditionally, the condition being that the alienation
would transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the
reservoir.
FACTS:
1. The case involves a lot which originally belonged to Saturnino. According to the cadastral
records, upon Saturnino’s death, he left the aid land to Franisco, his only son with his
second wife, Andrea. Because Francisco was a minor that time, his mother administered
the property for him and declared it in her name.
2. Fracisco died at the age of 20, singe and without any descendant, his mother, as his sole
heir, sold the property to the appellant Sienes.
It is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in
favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory
condition.
LB: The reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to
the line from which the reservable property came, constitutes a real right which the reservee
may alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being that the alienation
shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person
obliged to reserve.
AP: In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea
Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died, Thus the former became the absolute owner of
the reservable property upon Andrea's death.
DISPOSITION: Order reversed.

3. Cipriana and Paulina, surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who had declared the
questioned property in their name, sold it in favor of spouses Fidel and Paulina.

4. RTC declared both sale as void and that the property be reverted to the estate of Cipriana,
the lone surviving relating and heir of Francisco at the death of Andrea.

ISSUE: W/N the sale by Andrea is valid although at the time of her death, there are still
surviving relatives within the 3rd degree belonging to the line from which the property came.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

The land was reservable property. Francisco inherited it by operation of law from his father
Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death, unmarried and without descendants, it was inherited,
in turn, by his mother, Andrea.

The latter was, therefore, under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives within the
third degree belonging to the line from which said property came, if any survived her.

LB: In connection with. reservable property, the weight of opinion is that the reserve creates
two resolutory conditions, namely,
(1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and
(2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which the property came

12
 DISINHERITANCE
Pecson v. Mediavillo
Digest Author: FABI
DOCTRINE: — Disinheritance of a lawful heir can only be made for one of the causes
expressly fixed by law. (Arts. 848, 756, 853, and 849, Civil Code.) Such disinheritance can only
be effected by a will in which shall be mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such
disinheritance. Article 850 of the Civil Code provides that the reason for the disinheritance
shall be established by the heirs of the testator. In other words, if the person disinherited
shall deny the truthfulness of the cause of disinheritance, he may be permitted to support
his allegations by proof. (Art. 851, Civil Code.) In accordance with the foregoing provisions of
the Civil Code, courts may inquire into the justice of a disinheritance, and if they find that the
disinheritance was without cause, that part of the will may be pronounced null and void.
FACTS:
1. The last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court for probate.
2. Respondent’s lawyer opposed the legalization of the will on the ground that it had not
been authorized nor signed by the deceased. – Trial court denied.
3. Respondent’s lawyer assail that:
o Respondents, Rosario and Joaquin Mediavillo (represented by his father Basiliso) are
grandchildren of the deceased and that Rosario was disinherited by the testator
because she failed to show him due respect and on a certain occasion raised her
hand against him.
o Rosario did not commit such an act, and if perhaps she did, it was due to the
derangement of her mental faculties which occurred a long time ago and from which
she now suffers in periodical attacks.
4. Respondents prays that the disinheritance clause shall be annulled and to make them
participants in the estate of their grandfather.
5. Trial court ruled in favor of the respondents.
ISSUE:
(1) W/N the courts, may inquire into the cause of the disinheritance and decide that
there was or was not ground for such disinheritance? YES
(2) W/N the disinheritance clause in the will is contrary to law? NO
RULING+RATIO:
(1) YES.
LB: Civil Code provides that the disinheritance can only be effected by the testament, in which
shall be mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance. If it is true that heirs
can be disinherited only by will, and for causes mentioned in the Civil Code, it would seem to
follow that the courts might properly inquire whether the disinheritance has been made
properly and for the causes provided for by law. 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. Then article 850 provides that:
The proof' of the truthfulness of the reason for disinheritance shall be established by
the heirs of the testator, should the disinherited person deny it.
It would appear then that if the person disinherited should deny the truthfulness of the cause
of disinheritance, he might be permitted to support his allegation by proof.
Then Article 851 provides that:
"Disinheritance made without statement of the reason, or for a cause the truth of
which, if contradicted, should not be proven * * * shall annul the designation of
heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person disinherited."
APP: From the above-quoted provisions, that the courts may inquire into the justice of a
disinheritance such as was attempted in the present case, and if they find that the
disinheritance was without cause, that part of the testament or will may be pronounced null
and void.
(2) The court supports the conclusion of the lower court.
It appears from the record that:
- when Rosario Mediavillo was about 14 years of age, she had received some attentions
from a young man—that she had received a letter from him—and that her grandfather,
took occasion to talk to her about the relations between her and the said young man
- That it was upon that occasion when, it is alleged, the disobedience and disrespect were
shown to her grandfather, and that was the cause for her disinheritance by her
grandfather
- Soon after said event she lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never
regained them, except for very brief periods, up to the present time
The lower court, taking into consideration her tender years, and the fact that she very soon
thereafter lost the use of her mental faculties, reached the conclusion that she was probably
not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfather
DISPOSITION: Nuillification of disinheritance clause is affirmed.
13