4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty.

Batungbakal

Legitime (In General)

Raymundo v. Vda De Suarez, G.R. No. 149017, November 28, 2008 [compulsory
succession defined]
Compulsory Heirs
Lapuz v. Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177 (1972) [when legal separation is pending]
Baritua v. CA, 183 SCRA 565 (1990) [estrangement not a legal ground for
disqualification]
Raymundo v. Vda De Suarez, G.R. No. 149017, November 28, 2008 [primary
compulsory heirs and secondary compulsory heirs]
Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. 39537, March 19, 1985 [natural and spurious children]
Reserva Troncal
Padura v. Baldovino, G.R. No. L-11960, December 1958 (unreported); See 104 Phil
1065
Gonzales v. CFI Manila, G.R.No. L-34395, May 19, 1981 [purpose]
Edroso v. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295 [purpose]
Gonzales v. CFI Manila, G.R. No. L-34395, May 1981 [persons involved]
Florentino v. Florentino, 40 Phill 480 (4th civil degree excluded; cannot inherit
the reserved property)
Nieva v. Alcala, 41 Phil. 915 (1920) [reserve troncal applies only to legitimate
family]
Sumaya v. IAC, G.R. Nos. 68843-44, September 2, 1991 [upon the death of the
reservista]
Carillo v. De Paz, G.R. No. L-22601, October 28, 1966 [prescriptive period]
Computation of Legitime
Pagkatipunan v. IAC, G.R. No. 70722, July 3, 1991 [manner of computation]
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunata Doronio, G.R. No. 169454,
December 27, 2007 [manner of computation]

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

certain heirs, or group of heirs, or combination of heirs, prevailing

over all kinds of succession. The portion that is so reserved is the
Raymundo v. Vda De Suarez
legitime. Article 886 of the Civil Code defines legitime as that
G.R. No. 149017, November 28, 2008
part of the testators property which he cannot dispose of because
[compulsory succession defined]
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called
compulsory heirs. Herein respondents are primary compulsory
Facts:
heirs, excluding secondary compulsory heirs, and preferred over
Spouses Marcelo and Teofista Suarez had five children concurring compulsory heirs in the distribution of the decedents
namely Danilo, Eufrocina, Marcelo Jr, Evelyn and Reggineo.estate.
Spouses acquired several properties including a parcel of land in
Pasig, a property in Pinagbuhatan Pasig and Lots 5,6 and 7. When
Marcelo Sr. died, Teofista, together with the other respondents,
and Elpidio Suarez executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate.
Despite the said partition, the properties remained under the
name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administer and
manage said properties.
In a case against Valente Raymundo and others, the
court ordered Teofista and Rizal Realty Coporation to pay
Raymundo P70,000.00 for damages. The subject properties were
levied to satisfy the judgment. Before the expiration of the Compulsory Heir
redemption period, herein respondents filed a revindicatory
Lapuz v. Eufemio
action against Valente fof the annulment of the auction sale.
G.R. No. L-30977 January 31, 1972
Meanwhile, RTC ordered Teofista to vacate the premises and leave
[when legal separation is pending]
Valente in peaceful possession thereof.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration whichFacts:
was denied. They then filed a patition for certiorari before the
On August 1953, Carmen Lapuz Sy filed a petition for
Court of Appeals which also dismissed the said petition.
legal separation against Eufemio S. Eufemio on the ground that
In another litigation, a writ of preliminary injuction was she found out that her husband abandoned her and cohabitated
issued by the RTC of Pasig enjoining petitioner Valente from with a Chinese woman Go Hiok. The spouses do not have a child.
transferring to third persons the levied properties based on its
In his amended answer, Eufemio alleged affirmative
preliminary findings that the auctioned properties are co-owned and special defenses. He also filed a counter-claim for the
by Teofista and the respondents.
declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage with Carmen on the
Valente now contends that the respondents must firstground of his prior and subsisting marriage with Go Hiol alias
be declared as heirs before they can file an action to annul the Ngo Hiok in accordance with Chinese law and cutoms.
judicial sale.
Before the trial can be completed, Carmen died in a
Legitime (In General)

vehicular accident. Eufemio then mobbed to dismiss the petition

fro legal separation saying that the petition was filed beyond the
Whether the properties in question can be subject of one-year period provided in Article 102 of the Civil Code and that
levy.
the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation.
Counsel of Carmen moved to substitute the deceased
Held:
by her father Macario Lapuz. Eufemio opposed the motion. The
No, the properties in question cannot be subject of levy lower court dismissed the case stating that the motion to dismiss
to satisfy the judgment against Teofista Suarez.
and the motion for substitution had to be resolved on the question
Petitioner Valente, along with Violeta, Virginia and of whether the plaintiffs cause of action has survived which was
Maria Concepcion, became owners of the subject properties only ruled in the negative.
by virtue of an execution sale to recover Teofistas judgment
Petitioners then filed a review by certiorari before the
obligation. This judgment obligation is solely Teofistas, and Supreme Court. Hence this appeal.
payment therefor cannot be made through an execution sale of
properties not absolutely owned by her. These properties were Issue:
evidently conjugal properties and were, in fact, even titled in the
Whether the death of the plaintiff, before final decree in
name of Marcelo, Sr. married to Teofista. Thus, upon Marcelo Sr.s an action for legal separation, abate the action and will it also
death, by virtue of compulsory succession, Marcelo Sr.s share in apply if the action involved property rights.
the conjugal partnership was transmitted by operation of law to
his compulsory heirs.
Held:
Compulsory succession is a distinct kind of succession,
Yes, the death of the plaintiff before the final decree in
albeit not categorized as such in Article 778 of the Civil Code. Itan action for legal separation abate the action.
reserves a portion of the net estate of the decedent in favor of
An action for legal separation which involves nothing
Issue:

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

more than the bed-and-board separation of the spouses is purely

The lower court dismissed the complaint saying that
personal. The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes this in its the payment by the petitioners to the widow and her child, who
Article 100, by allowing only the innocent spouse to claim legal are the preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased
separation; and in its Article 108, by providing that the spouses extinguished any claims against the petitioners. The Court of
can, by their reconciliation, stop or abate the proceedings and Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. It said that the
even rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered. Being release executed by Alicia did not discharge the liability of the
personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the petitioners because the case was instituted by the respondents in
action causes the death of the action itself actio personalis their own capacity as heirs, representatives, successors and
moritur cum persona.
assigns of Alicia and that Alicia could not have validly waived the
This also applied if the action involved property rights. damages prayed for since she was not the one who suffered these
A review of the resulting changes in property relations damages.
between spouses shows that they are solely the effect of the
decree of legal separation; hence, they can not survive the death Issue:
of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree.
Whether the release executed by Alicia discharged the
The loss of right by the offending spouse to any share of liability of the petitioners.
the profits earned by the partnership or community, or his
disqualification to inherit by intestacy from the innocent spouse Held:
Yes, the petitioners are discharged from the liability by
as well as the revocation of testamentary provisions in favor of the
offending spouse made by the innocent one, are all rights and virtue of the release executed by Alicia.
Obligations are extinguished by various modes among
disabilities that, by the very terms of the Civil Code article, are
vested exclusively in the persons of the spouses; and by their them being by payment. There is no denying that the petitioners
nature and intent, such claims and disabilities are difficult to had paid their obligation petition arising from the accident. The
conceive as assignable or transmissible. Hence, a claim to said only question now is whether or not Alicia, the spouse and the
rights is not a claim that "is not thereby extinguished" after a one who received the petitioners' payment, is entitled to it.
There can be no question that Alicia and her son with
party dies, under Section 17, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, to
warrant continuation of the action through a substitute of thethe deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the
persons authorized to receive payment.
deceased party.
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased
succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate
descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs
with all classes of heirs. As it has been established that Bienvenido
was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private
respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are
not compulsory heirs. The petitioners therefore acted correctly in
settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido
Baritua v. CA
G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990
and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if
[estrangement not a legal ground for disqualification]
Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is
not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse
Facts:
as an heir of the deceased spouse.
A tricycle driven by Bienvenido Nacario collided with a
JB Bus driven by Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by Jose
Baritua. As a result of the accident, Bienvenido and his passenger
died.
An extra-judicial settlement was executed by herein
petitioners and Philippine First Insurance Company, Inc. and
Alicia Nacario, Bienvenidos widow. In consideration of the
amount she received, Alicia executed a release of claim in favor
of petitioners and PFICI. She also executed an affidavit of
desistance.
About a year after the accident, the parents of
Bienvenido filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners.
They alleged that in accordance with the extra-judicial settlement
Raymundo v. Vda De Suarez,
G.R. No. 149017, November 28, 2008
that they executed, the petitioners promised to indemnify them
for the death of there son, for the funeral expenses they incurred [primary compulsory heirs and secondary compulsory heirs]
and for the damage of the tricycle, the purchase price of which
was loaned by them in favor of their son. However, instead of Facts:
Spouses Marcelo and Teofista Suarez had five children
indemnifying them, the petitioners negotiated with the longnamely Danilo, Eufrocina, Marcelo Jr, Evelyn and Reggineo.
estranged wife of their late son.

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

Spouses acquired several properties including a parcel of land in that portion could have been, and was actually, levied upon and
Pasig, a property in Pinagbuhatan Pasig and Lots 5,6 and 7. Whensold on auction by the provincial sheriff of Rizal. Thus, a separate
Marcelo Sr. died, Teofista, together with the other respondents, declaration of heirship by herein respondents is not necessary to
and Elpidio Suarez executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. annul the judicial sale of their share in the subject properties.
Despite the said partition, the properties remained under the
name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administer and
manage said properties.
In a case against Valente Raymundo and others, the
court ordered Teofista and Rizal Realty Coporation to pay
Raymundo P70,000.00 for damages. The subject properties were
levied to satisfy the judgment. Before the expiration of the
redemption period, herein respondents filed a revindicatory
action against Valente fof the annulment of the auction sale.
Reyes v. CA
G.R. No. L- 39537, March 19, 1985
Meanwhile, RTC ordered Teofista to vacate the premises and leave
[natural and spurious children]
Valente in peaceful possession thereof.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was denied. They then filed a patition for certiorari before the Facts:
Placida Delgado, together with the other private
Court of Appeals which also dismissed the said petition.
In another litigation, a writ of preliminary injuction was respondents, filed a complaint before the CFI of Batangas praying
issued by the RTC of Pasig enjoining petitioner Valente from that Irene Delgado (alias Irene Reyes and Irene Ramero) be
transferring to third persons the levied properties based on its ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance in favor of Placido,
preliminary findings that the auctioned properties are co-owned Domingo and Paula, all surnamed Delgado respondents over five
parcels of land in Quezon and another deed of reconveyance in
by Teofista and the respondents.
Valente now contends that the respondents must firstfavor of Maximo Delgado over three parcels of land in Batangas.
Herein respondents alleged that Irene was able to
be declared as heirs before they can file an action to annul the
register the lands under her name by lying that she was the sole
judicial sale.
child of Francisco Delgado and thus entitled to inherit the parcels
of land.
Issue:
Irene filed an answer saying that she is the illegitimate
What are the rights of a primary compulsory heir and a
daughter of Genoveva Ramero and deceased Francisco Delgado.
secondary compulsory heir?
After her mother and Justino Reyes separated, her mother
cohabitated with Francisco Delgado. Irene also filed a counterHeld:
Compulsory succession is a distinct kind of succession, claim averring that as the illegitimate daughter of Francisco, she
albeit not categorized as such in Article 778 of the Civil Code. Ithas the right to represent her father to the inheritance left by her
reserves a portion of the net estate of the decedent in favor of grandmother, Benigna Castillo.
The CFI of Batangas dismissed the action for
certain heirs, or group of heirs, or combination of heirs, prevailing
over all kinds of succession. The portion that is so reserved is the reconveyance and declared Irene Delgado as the lawful owner of
legitime. Article 886 of the Civil Code defines legitime as that the parcels of land. However, the counterclaim of Irene was
part of the testators property which he cannot dispose of because dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Both parties appealed to
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the lower
compulsory heirs. Herein respondents are primary compulsory
heirs, excluding secondary compulsory heirs, and preferred over court. It said that the self-adjudication executed by Irene is null
concurring compulsory heirs in the distribution of the decedents and void. The transfer certificates of title issued in the name of
Irene were cancelled and the titles covering the parcels of land
estate.
Even without delving into the Extrajudicial Settlement were reinstated in the name of Francisco. The Court of Appeals
of Marcelo Sr.s estate in 1957, it must be stressed that herein said that although Irene was the spurious daughter of Francisco,
respondents rights to the succession vested from the moment of she cannot inherit because she was not recognized wither
their fathers death. Herein respondents ownership of the subject voluntarily or by court action. Furthermore, the titles of the lots
properties is no longer inchoate; it became absolute upon cannot be executed in favor of herein respondents because in
Marcelos death, although their respective shares therein doing so it will be in effect a recognition by the court that herein
remained pro indiviso. Ineluctably, at the time the subject respondents are the only heirs of Francisco to the prejudice of
properties were sold on execution sale to answer for Teofistas other possible heirs or creditors of the deceased.
judgment obligation, the inclusion of herein respondents share
Issue:
therein was null and void.
Whether Irene Delgado could inherit the lot.
In fine, Teofistas ownership over the subject properties is
not absolute. Significantly, petitioner Valente does not even
attempt to dispute the conjugal nature of the subject properties. Held:
The doctrine that for an illegitimate child other than
Since Teofista owns only a portion of the subject properties, only

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

natural to inherit must be first recognized voluntarily or by court

action is well settled in our jurisprudence. There is no reason to
overturn this doctrine.
Though the Civil Code is silent with respect to spurious
children as to their recognition, this Court, in applying the rules
of recognition, applicable to natural children, to said spurious
children, declared that the considerations of fairness and justice
that underlie the time limit fixed in Article 285 of the Civil Code
for actions seeking compulsory acknowledgment of natural
children are fully applicable, if not more, to actions to investigate
and declare the paternity of illegitimate children that are not
natural.
There are two (2) general classifications of illegitimate
children or those who are conceived and born out of wedlock.
They may be either natural (actually or by fiction) or spurious (the
incestuous, adulterous or illicit). Natural children are defined as
those born outside of wedlock of parents, who at the time of
conception of the former, were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other (Article 269, New Civil Code).
On the other hand, spurious children are those born of parents,
who at the time of their conception, are disqualified to marry each
other on account of certain impediment. Because of this basic
distinction between these children, it is not legally possible to
classify unrecognized natural children under the class of spurious
children. Besides, commentators construe the phrase "illegitimate
children other than natural" as excluding from the grants of rights
under Article 287 of the New Civil Code those children who are
natural child proper by birth and who have not secured voluntary
or compulsory recognition. They fag within the scope of the
definition of natural children enumerated in Article 269, New
Civil Code Lastly, to follow petitioners' contention win not be in
accordance with the consistent pronouncements of this Court. It is
an elementary and basic principle under the old and new Civil
Code, that an unrecognized natural child has no rights
whatsoever against his parent or his estate. His rights spring not
from the filiation itself, but from the child's acknowledgment by
the natural parent.
Gonzales v. CFI Manila
G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981
[purpose]

Reserva Troncal
Padura v. Baldovino
G.R. No. L-11960, December 1958
Facts:

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

Facts:

Benito D. Legarda (II) predeceased his father Benito T.

Legarda (I). Benito (II) was survived by his widow, Filomena
Races Vda. de Legarda (I), and their seven children namely
Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Filomena (II), Benito (III), Alejandro and
Jose.
When Benito T. Legarda (I) died, his real properties
were divided in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo
and Rita and the heirs of his deceased son Benito (II) who were
represented by Benito F. Legarda (III).
Filomena R. Legarda (II), died intestate and without
issue. Her sole heir was her mother, Filomena Races Vda. de
Legarda. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating
extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from
her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda (II). As a result of the
affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Races (I) succeeded her
deceased daughter Filomena Legarda (II) as co-owner of the

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

properties held proindiviso by her other six children.

indubitably reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. Legarda.
In 1953, Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservation became a
identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives
which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her sixteen within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were
grandchildren, the children of her three sons, Benito (III), living or they survived Mrs. Legarda.
Alejandro and Jose. From July 1958 to February 1959, Mrs.
So, the ultimate issue in this case is whether Mrs.
Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties Legarda, as reservor, could convey the reservable properties by
consisting of the 1/3 share in the estate of Benito T. Legarda (I) will or mortis causa to the reservees within the third degree (her
which the children inherited in representation of their father, sixteen grandchildren) to the exclusion of the reservees in the
Benito D. Legarda (II).
second degree, her three daughters and three sons.
Mrs. Legarda died in 1967 and left a holographic will.
We hold that Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her
The said will was admitted to probate. In the testate proceeding, holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable
Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of Mrs. Legarda filed a properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena
motion to exclude from the inventory of her mothers estate thebecause the reservable properties did not form part of her estate.
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the
Filomena (II), on the ground that said properties are reservable reservable properties as long as the reservees survived the
properties which should be inherited by Filomenas (II) three reservor.
sisters and three brother and not by the children of Benito,
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable
Alejandro and Jose. The motion was opposed by the properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within
administrator Benito F. Legarda (III).
the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the six
Before the court could issue a resolution, Beatrizchildren of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to
Gonzales filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers, whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the
sisters, nephews and nieces and her mothers estate for the other reservees of their share therein.
purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are
To allow the reservor in this case to make a
reservable properties.
testamentary disposition of the reservable properties in favor of
The lower court dismissed the action of Beatrizthe reservees in the third degree and, consequently, to ignore the
Gonzales. Hence this appeal.
reservees in the second degree would be a glaring violation of
article 891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed
Issue:
What is the purpose of reverva troncal?
Edroso v. Sablan
GR No. 6878, September 13, 1913
Held:
[Purpose Reserva Troncal]
The rationale of reserve troncal is to avoid "the risk that
assets possessed by a family pass for centuries suddenly
gratuitously to foreign hands by random links and prematureFacts:
Victoriano Sablan and Marcelina Edroso were married
deaths or impeder that for a random strange people vide a family
and had a son, Pedro Sablan. Upon the death of his father, Pedro
to acquire property without that would have been therein.
In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquiredinherited two parcels of land in Laguna. These parcels of land
by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother were acquired by Victoriano by inheritance from his ascendants,
or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, they having been
or is acquired by him by operation of law from the saidadjudicated to him in the partition of hereditary property
descendant, and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said between him and his brothers. On July 1902, Pedro died
property for the benefit of relatives who are within the third unmarried and without any child. The two parcels of land passed
degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belongthrough inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso. Marcelina
then applied for the registration and issuance of title of the two
to the line from which the said property came.
So, three transmissions are involved: (I) a firstlots.
Pablo and Basilio Sablan, the legitimate brother of
transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an
ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant; (2) a Victoriano, opposed the registration of the lots. They claimed that
posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession wither the registration be denied or if granted to Marcelina, the
or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve)right reserved by law to them be recorded in the registration of
in favor of another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which twoeach parcel.
The Court of Land Registration denied the registration
transmissions precede the reservation, and (3) a third
transmissions of the same property (in consequence of the holding that the land in question partake of the nature of
reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or theproperty required by law to be reserved and that in such a case
relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant application could only be presented jointly in the names of
belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the Marcelina Edroso and Pablo and Basilio Sablan.
Hence this appeal.
deceased descendant.
In the instant case, the properties in question were

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Filomena (II), Benito (III), Alejandro and

Whether the two parcels of land is in the nature of a Jose.
reservable property.
When Benito T. Legarda (I) died, his real properties
were divided in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo
Held:
and Rita and the heirs of his deceased son Benito (II) who were
Yes, the parcels of land are reservable properties.
represented by Benito F. Legarda (III).
A very definite conclusions of law is that the hereditary
Filomena R. Legarda (II), died intestate and without
title is one without a valuable consideration (gratuitous tile), and issue. Her sole heir was her mother, Filomena Races Vda. de
it is so characterized in Article 968 of the Civil Code, for he who Legarda. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating
acquires by inheritance gives nothing in return for what he extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from
receives; and a very definite conclusion of law also is that the her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda (II). As a result of the
uncles are within the third degree of blood relationship.
affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Races (I) succeeded her
Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his deceased daughter Filomena Legarda (II) as co-owner of the
descendant property which the latter acquired without a valuableproperties held proindiviso by her other six children.
consideration from another descendant, or form a brother or
In 1953, Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten
sister, is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired by identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties
operation of law for the relatives who are within the third degree which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her sixteen
and belong to the line where the property proceeded.
grandchildren, the children of her three sons, Benito (III),
Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited Alejandro and Jose. From July 1958 to February 1959, Mrs.
from him the two parcels of land which he had acquired without Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties
a valuable consideration that is, by inheritance from another consisting of the 1/3 share in the estate of Benito T. Legarda (I)
ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquire them by which the children inherited in representation of their father,
operation of law, she is obligated to relatives within the third Benito D. Legarda (II).
degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita
Mrs. Legarda died in 1967 and left a holographic will.
Fernandez (parents of Victoriano), where the lands proceeded. The said will was admitted to probate. In the testate proceeding,
The trial courts ruling that they partake of the nature property Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of Mrs. Legarda filed a
required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with the motion to exclude from the inventory of her mothers estate the
law.
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter,
The conclusion is that the person required by Article Filomena (II), on the ground that said properties are reservable
811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at all, the rights to properties which should be inherited by Filomenas (II) three
use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal title and dominion, sisters and three brother and not by the children of Benito,
although under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has under anAlejandro and Jose. The motion was opposed by the
express provision of the law the right to dispose of the property administrator Benito F. Legarda (III).
reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a
Before the court could issue a resolution, Beatriz
condition. He has the right to recover it, because he is the oneGonzales filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers,
who possesses or should possess it and have title to it, although a sisters, nephews and nieces and her mothers estate for the
limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title and dominion, purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are
even though under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After reservable properties.
the right required by law to be reserved has been assured, he can
The lower court dismissed the action of Beatriz
do anything that a genuine owner can do.
Gonzales. Hence this appeal.
On the other hadnt, the relatives within the third
degree in whose favor of the right is reserved cannot dispose of Issue:
the property, first because it is no way, either actually or
Who are the persons involved in reserva troncal?
constructively or formally, in their possession; and moreover,
because they have no title of ownership or of the fee simple which Held:
they can transmit to another, on the hypothesis that only when
The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the
the person who must reserve the right should die before them ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was
will they acquire it.
received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title, (2) the
descendant or prepositus (prepositus) who received the property, (3)
the reservor (reservista) the other ascendant who obtained the
Gonzales v. CFI Manila
property from the (prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the
G.R. No. L-34395, May 1981
reserves (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the
[persons involved]
prepositus and who belongs to the (line o tronco) from which the
property came and for whom the property should be reserved by
Facts:
the reservor.
Benito D. Legarda (II) predeceased his father Benito T.
The reservees may be half-brothers and sisters. Fourth
Legarda (I). Benito (II) was survived by his widow, Filomena degree relatives are not included.
Races Vda. de Legarda (I), and their seven children namely
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned
Issue:

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

is the descendant, or the one at the end of the line from which the also contended that Article 811 of the Civil Code is not applicable
property came and upon whom the property last revolved by in this case because when she, by operation of law, entered into
descent. He is called the prepositus.
and succeeded to the possession of the property, said property
The reservatario receives the property as a conditionalhad, while in the possession of her mother, lost the character of
heir of the descendant (prepositus) said property merely revertingreservable property there being a legitimate daughter of
to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and Severina with the right to succeed her in all her rights, property
accidentally stayed during the reservista's lifetime. The authoritiesand actions. Mercedes alleged that there is no property reserved
are all agreed that there being reservatarios that survive thefor Encarnacion and others since there is a forced heiress entitled
reservists, the latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more to the property left by the death of Severina.
than a than interest in the reservable property.
The CFI of Ilocos Sur dismissed the complaint and
ordered herein petitioners to pay the costs. The judgment was
affirmed on appeal.
Florentino v. Florentino
40 Phill 480
(4th civil degree excluded; cannot inherit the reserved
Issue:
property)
Who has the right to inherit the property?
Facts:

Held:
Apolonio Isabelo Floretino II married Antonia Faz de
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
Leon. They had nine children namely Jose, Juan, Maria, property acquired by the latter gratuitously from some other
Encarnacion, Isabel, Espirita, Gabriel, Pedro and Magdalena.ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such of
When Antonia died, Apolonio married Severina Faz de Leon.the property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the
They had two children namely Mercedes and Apolonio III. Whenbenefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line
Apolonio II died, he was survived by his second wife Severina from which such property came.
and his ten children. His youngest son, Apolonio III was born a
Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate
month after he died.
succession, when there are relatives of the descendant within the
Apolonios children, Juan, Maria and Isabel died single third degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario,
without any ascendants or descendants. Jose, one of Apoloniosover the property which the reservista (person holding it subject
children had three sons named Ramon, Miguel and Victorino and to reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one
a daughter named Rosario. Espirita married Eugenio Singson andmore remote. The right of representation cannot be alleged when
was blessed with five children namely Emilia, Jesus, Lourdes, the one claiming same as a reservatario of the reservable property
Caridad and Dolores. Pedro had two children named Jose and is not among the relatives within the third degree belonging to
Asuncion.
the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the right
Before Apolonio II died, he executed a will before the granted by the Civil Code in article 811 is in the highest degree
notary public instituting as his universal heirs his ten children, his personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons who
to be born son Apolinio III, and Severina. He also said that his are the relatives, within the third degree, of the person from
property should be divided among all of his children in both whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the
marriages.
fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as
Apolonio III predeceased his mother Severina. Severinareservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
then succeeded to all his property. When Severina died, he left a
There are then seven reservatarios who are entitled to
will instituting as her universal heir his only living daughter the reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III; the
Mercedes. Mercedes then took possession of all the property posthumos son of the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo II, to wit,
including the property which Severina inherited from her son his three children of his first marriage Encarnacion, Gabriel,
Apolonio III. The subject property is said to be a reservableMagdalena; his three children, Jose, Espirita and Pedro who are
property held by Severina in favor of her son Apolonio III.
represented by their own twelve children respectively; and
Encarnacion Florentino, daughter of Apolinio II from Mercedes Florentino, his daughter by a second marriage. All of
the first marriage, together with the herein petitioners, asked the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased posthumos son,
Mercedes to deliver their corresponding part of the reservable Apolonio Florentino III, within the third degree (four of whom
property. However despite several demands, Mercedes refuse to being his half-brothers and the remaining twelve being his
deliver the property or pay its value to Encarnacion. Thus, nephews as they are the children of his three half-brothers). As
Encarnacion together with the other petitioners filed a complaint the first four are his relatives within the third degree in their own
in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. They prayed that the right and the other twelve are such by representation, all of them
subject property be declared as a reservable property and are indisputably entitled as reservatarios to the property which
Mercedes and her husband be ordered to deliver to them their came from the common ancestor, Apolonio Isabelo, to Apolonio
share of the property in question.
Florentino III by inheritance during his life-time, and in turn by
Mercedes contended that she inherited the propertyinheritance to his legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon, widow
inherited by Severina from her son Apolonio III. This being the of the aforementioned Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II.
case, the property did not pass into the hands of strangers. She
The property inherited by Severina from her son

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

Apolonio Florentino III, is reservable property. Encarnacion, et al. land in question. Reserva troncal applies only to legitimate family.
being relatives of the deceased Apolonio III within the third
According to Manresa, persons in whose favor the
degree, are entitled to six-sevenths of said reservable property. reservation is established is one of the most delicate points in the
Mercedes is entitled to the remaining seventh part thereof.
interpretation of Article 811. According to the said article, the
reservation is established in favor of parents who are within the
third degree and belong to the line from which the properties
came.
Reserva troncal treats of blood, relationship. It could not
be otherwise, because relationship by affinity is established
between each spouse and the family of the other, by marriage, and
to admit it, would be to favor the transmission of the properties of
the family of one spouse to that of the other, which is just what
this article intends to prevent.
Reserva troncal also treats of legitimate relationship. The
person obliged to reserve it a legitimate ascendant who inherits
from a descendant property which proceeds from the same
legitimate family, and this being true, there can be no question,
because 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. Furthermore, we have already said, the object is to
protect the patrimony of the legitimate family, following the
precedents of the foral law. And it could not be otherwise. Article
943 denies to legitimate parents the right to succeed the natural
child and viceversa, from which it must be deduced that natural
parents neither have the right to inhering from legitimate ones;
the law in the article cited established a barrier between the two
families; properties of the legitimate family shall never pass by
operation of law to the natural family.
Nieva v. Alcala
G.R. No. L-13386 October 27, 1920
[reserva troncal applies only to legitimate family]
Facts:
Francisco Deocampo married Juliana Nieva. They had a
child named Alfeo Deocampo. Juliana is the alleged natural
mother of Segunda Maria Nieva. In 1889, Juliana died intestate
and Alfeo inherited two parcels of land. In 1890, Alfeo Deocampo
also died intestate and without issue. The two parcels of land
which Alfeo inherited from his mother passed to his father
Francisco by intestate succession.
Francisco later married Manuela Alcala. They had a
child named Jose Deocampo. Francisco died in 1914. Manuela and
Jose Deocampo took possession of the parcels of land in question.
A year after, Segunda Maria Nieva, claiming to be an
Sumaya v. IAC
acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, filed an action
G.R. Nos. 68843-44, September 2, 1991
to recover the parcels of land before the Court of First Instance of
[upon the death of the reservista]
Tayabas. The CFI held that, even granting, that Segunda was an
acknowledged daughter if Juliana, she was not entitled to the Facts:
property because an illegitimate relative has no right to the
Jose Balantakbo Sr. married Consuelo Joaquin. They
reserva troncal under the provisions of Article 811 of the Civilwere blessed with seven children namely Amadeo, Sancho,
Code.
Donato, Luis, Erasto, Jose, Jr. and Raul.
Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different
ascendants two sets of properties. He inherited 1/3 interest over
Whether Segunda Maria Nieva has a right over thea parcel of land in Liliw Laguna from his father, Jose Sr. He also
parcels of land.
inherited a 1/7 interest over ten parcels of land from his maternal
grandmother, Luisa Bautista.
Held:
Raul died intestate, single, without any issue. He was
No, Segunda does not have a right over the parcels of survived by his mother Consuelo. Consuelo adjudicated unto
Issue:

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

herself the subject properties. She then sold the property which
Raul inherited from his father to Mariquita Sumaya. Sumaya then
sold the property to Villa Honorio Development Corporation, Inc.
Villa Honorio Development Corporation transferred and assigned
its rights over the property in favor of Agro-Industrial Coconut
Cooperative, Inc.
Consuelo sold the other property to Villa Honorio
Carillo v. De Paz
G.R. No. L-22601, October 28, 1966
Development Corporation, Inc. The latter then transferred and
[prescriptive period]
assigned all its rights to the properties to Laguna Agro-Industrial
Coconut Cooperative, Inc. Both certificate of titles covering the
subject properties do not contain any annotation of its reservable Facts:
Spouses Severino Salak and Petra Garcia owned Lot No.
character.
When Consuelo died, Amadeo and his brothers 221 located in Tarlac. They mortgaged the said property for the
together with Luisa, Jose and Dolores, children of their deceased sum of P 1,200.00 to spouses Pedro Magat and Filomena Silva.
brother Jose Jr., filed a complaint before the CFI of Laguna to Said mortgage was registered. Later on, spouses Magat assigned
recover the properties claiming that such were subject to a reserva their mortgaged rights to Honaria Salak for P 1,632.00 with the
consent of the surviving debtor, Severino.
troncal in their favor.
In 1943, Severino transferred of his interest in the
The CFI of Laguna ordered Laguna Agro-Industrial
Coconut Cooperative to convey the properties to Amadeo et al. property to Honaria Salak for P 162.00. This transaction and
assignment of the mortgage credit were not registered in the office
The Court of Appeals affirmed said decision.
of the Register of Deeds nor annotated in the title.
An intestate proceedung was instituted for the
Issue:
Whether the property in question should be returned to settlement of the estate of Severino Salak and Petra Garcia. The
said proceeding included Lot No. 221. Said lot was adjudicated to
herein respondents.
Ernesto Bautista, Aurea Sahagun, Rita Sahagun and Francisca
Salak. Francisca Salak then acquired the shares of the other heirs
Held:
Yes, the property should be returned to the respondents by virtue of which TCT No. 970 covering Lot No. 221 was issued
as it is subject to reserva troncal. Moreover, herein petitionersin her name. Meanwhile, Honaria Salak died single living as sole
heir Agustina de Guzman.
cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value.
A lease was executed by Francisca in favor of Gabino de
Upon the death of the propositus, Raul Balantakbo, the
reservista, Consuelo caused the registration of an affidavit of self- Leon and Asuncion Reyes covering Lot No. 221. A mortgage was
adjudication of the estate of Raul, wherein it was clearly statedalso executed thereon by the lessees in favor of the Rehabilitation
that the properties were inherited by Raul from his father Jose, Sr., Finance Corporation.
Agustina de Guzman then filed an action against
and from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista. The said
affidavit was, in its form, declaration and substance, a recording Francisca in the CFI of Tarlac seeking the reconveyance to
with the Registry of Deeds of the reservable character of the Agustina of portion of Lot No. 221. The lower court dismissed
properties. In Spanish language, the affidavit clearly stated that the complaint saying that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the affiant, Consuelo, was a lone-ascendant and heir to Raul any collateral attack in the present action against the proceedings
Balantakbo, her son, who died leaving properties previously taken in the probate proceedings covering Lot No. 221.
inherited from other ascendants and which properties were
Issue:
inventoried in the said affidavit.
Whether the action had already prescribed.
However, the Supreme Court did not agree with the
disposition of the appellate court that there is no need to register
the reservable character of the property, if only for the protection Held:
No, the action had not yet prescribed. The lower court
of the reservees, against innocent third persons. In one of the
cases decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that the reservable erred in dismissing the complaint.
While the Court admits that the sale made by Severino
character of a property may be lost to innocent purchasers for
value. Additionally, it was ruled therein that the obligation Salak of his undivided interest in the property to Honoria
imposed on a widowed spouse to annotate the reservableSalak, predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, has not been
character of a property subject of reserva viudal is applicable toregistered in the office of the Register of Deeds, nor annotated on
the Torrens Title covering it, such technical deficiency does not
reserva troncal.
But herein petitioners cannot be considered as innocent render the transaction ineffective, nor does it convert it into a
purchasers for value. This is evidenced by the affidavit executed mere monetary obligation. But it simply renders the transaction
by Consuelo and by other proofs showing that petitioners knewnot binding against a third person because, being a registered
land, the operative act to bind the land is the act of registration.
of the reservable character of the properties.
Said transaction however is valid and binding between the parties
and can serve as basis to compel the register of deeds to make the
necessary registration. Such being the case, it is error to say that

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

10

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

plaintiff should have filed her claim in the intestate proceedings ofproperty was subdivided and assigned by Canta in favor of her 13
the late Severino Salak if she wanted to protect her interest in the children. The 13 children caused the issuance of separate free
land for, the transaction being binding between the parties, the patent titles in their favor covering the subdivided lots.
same can be invoked against them or their privies. This means
Another property, which is the West Avenue property is
that plaintiff can still press her claim against the heirs of the a residential lot purchased on installments by spouses Jose Sr. and
deceased Severino Salak who were made parties-defendants inCanuta. When Jose Sr. died Canuta shouldered the payment of
this case. These heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of this the remaining installment until the property was paid in full. A
transaction because they have inherited the property subject to deed of absolute sale conveying the house was issued in favor of
the liability affecting their common ancestor. The fact that Canuta.
Francisca Salak bought the shares of her co-heirs in said property
The lower court ruled in favor of herein respondents. It
is of no moment because in so far as the portion of the land declared the sale of the lots in Laguna in favor of Moises and
acquired by Honoria Salak is concerned, Francisca Salak can Magdalena null and void. The deeds of assignments executed by
recoup what she has parted with from her co-heirs when the timeCanuta in favor of her children were also declared null and void.
for read judgment comes. This matter can be threshed out when The house and lot in West Avenue was also ordered to be divided
the case is decided on the merits. For the present suffice it to state among Canuta and her children and Jose Sr.s heirs from his first
that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for the marriage. The ruling was appealed before the Intermediate
reasons set forth in its order subject of the present appeal.
Appellate Court. The IAC affirmed the decision of the trial court
with the modification that the entire house and lot in West
Avenue be divided into two value to Canuta and the 13
children to the extent of their respective proportional
contributions and the other half value to the second conjugal
partnership of Jose Velasquez, Sr. and Canuta Pagkatipunan to be
partitioned one-fourth to the wife and the other one-fourth
appertaining to the deceased Jose Sr. to be divided equally among
Computation of Legitime
his heirs.
Pagkatipunan v. IAC
G.R. No. 70722, July 3, 1991
[manner of computation]
Facts:

Issue:
How should legitime be computed?
Held:

It is a basic rule that before any conclusion about the

Jose Velasquez, Sr. was married to Victorina Real. They legal share due to the heirs may be reached, it is necessary that
had five children. When Victorina died, no dissolution of conjugal certain steps be taken first. In the assailed decision, the
property was made. Jose Sr. enjoyed full possession, use, usufructrespondent court affirmed the trial court's ruling, that Jose
and administration of the whole conjugal property. Jose Sr. then Velasquez, Sr. had already disposed of and exhausted his
married his second wife, Canuta Pagkatipunan with whom hecorresponding share in the conjugal partnership owned by him
had 13 children.
and Victorina Real, so that his heirs have nothing more to inherit
Jose Sr. died intestate and was survived by his second from him, and that accordingly, whatever remaining portion of
wife Canuta Pagkatipunan and their 13 children and his two the conjugal property must necessarily appertain only to the
children Jose Jr. and Lourdes from his first marriage. His other private respondents as heirs of the deceased Victorina Real. The
three children were Amelia, Guillermo and Lutgarda. Amelia pertinent provisions of the Civil Code provide:
died without ant issue. Guillermo was survived by his five
Art. 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the
children and Lutgarda was survived by her six children.
property left at the death of the testator shall be considered,
Herein private respondents filed a complaint againstdeducting all debts and charges, which shall not include those
the petitioners for accion reinvindicatoria, annulment of deeds of imposed in the will.
sale, partition and damages.
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added
`The trial court appointed two sets of commissions one for the the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to
purpose of making an inventory of the estate of Jose Velasquez, collation, at the time he made them.
Sr., and the other, to determine which of the parcels of land listed
Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with
in such inventory submitted by the first set of commissioners other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any
belong to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage or to the property or right which he may have received from the decedent,
conjugal partnership of the second marriage.
during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other
It was found out that after the death of Jose Sr., Canuta gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
Pagkatipunan acquired full possession of two parcels of land in determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of
Bagumbayan, Laguna among other properties. The said parcels of the partition.
land were sold by Canuta to Spouses Moises Santos and
It is undeniable that numerous donations inter vivos
Magdalena. The spouses later resold the same property to Canuta were made by Jose Velasquez, Sr. in favor of some of his
Pagkatipunan. During the pendency of this suit, the subject compulsory heirs.

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

11

4th Set of Cases Wills & Succession (AY 2012-2013) Atty. Batungbakal

It appears that there was no determination whatsoever

The heirs of Marcelino then filed before the RTC of
of the gross value of the conjugal properties of Jose Velasquez, Sr.Pangasinan a petition for the Registration of a Private Deed of
and Victorina Real. Obviously it is impossible to determine theDonation. No respondents were named in the said petition.
conjugal share of Jose Velasquez, Sr. from the said property During the hearing, no one interposed an objection. The petition
relationship. Likewise, no collation of the donations he executed was granted. The OCT was cancelled and a TCT covering the
during his lifetime was undertaken by the trial court. Thus, it entire property was issued in the name of Marcelino and
would be extremely difficult to ascertain whether or not suchVeronica.
donations trenched on the heirs' legitime so that the same may be
The heirs of Fortunato then filed a petition for the
considered subject to reduction for being inofficious.
reconsideration of the ruling issued by the RTC ordering the
Article 909 of the Civil Code provides:
registration of the subject deed of donation. The petition was
Art. 909. Donations given to children shall be charged dismissed. The heirs of Fortunato then filed an action for
to their legitime.
reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to thatagainst the heirs of Marcelino.
part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his
RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of Marcelino
last will.
Doronio. It concluded that the parties admitted the identity of the
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed theland which they all occupy; that a title once registered under the
disposable portion, they shall be reduced according to the rules torrens system cannot be defeated by adverse, open and notorious
established by this Code.
possession or by prescription and that the deed of donation in
consideration of the marriage of the parents of petitioners is valid.
The case was brought before the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. It ruled
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio, that the intention to donate half of the disputed property to
appellees predecessors can be gleaned from the disparity of
G.R. No. 169454, December 27, 2007
technical descriptions appearing in the title. It likewise ruled that
[manner of computation]
the donation of the entire property in favor of petitioners
predecessors is invalid on the ground that it impairs the legitime
Facts:
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante were the of respondents predecessor, Fortunato Doronio.

registered owners of a parcel of land in Pangasinan. They had

several children, two of which were Marcelino Doronio and Issue:
Whether the legitime of Fortunato Doronio was
Fortunato Doronio.
In 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptias wasimpaired.
executed by Simeon and Cornelia in favor of Marcelino and his
wife Veronica Pico. One of the properties subject of said deed of Held:
No, the legitime of Fortunato was not impaired.
donation is a residential lot in Cabalitian. The lot was described in
Before any conclusion about the legal share due to a
the deed of donation as bound in the east by Fortunato Doronio.
However, it appears that the property described wascompulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that certain steps
previously covered by OCT No. 352. According to the OCT the be taken first. The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained,
adjacent lot in the east was owned by Zacarias and Alejandro by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value
Najorda but according to the deed of donation, the property was of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death;
then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With
owned by Fortunato Doronio.
The heirs of Marcelino and the heirs of Fortunato have the partible estate thus determined, the legitime of the
been occupying the subject land for several decades. Hereincompulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only then can it
petitioners, the heirs of Marcelino, contend that they are the be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the
owners of the entire property in view of the private deed of legitimes.
donation propter nuptias in favor of Marcelino and Veronica. On
the other hand, herein respondents, the heirs of Fortunato claim
that only half of the property was actually incorporated in the
said deed of donation because it said that Fortunato, instead of
Zacarias and Alejandro, is the owner of the adjacent property at
the eastern side.

Shalako R. Sta. Maria SBCA-SOL

12