Seines v.

Esparcia
CONSTANCIO
SIENES,
ET
vs.
FIDEL ESPARCIA, ET AL., defendants-appellee

AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

Doctrine:
The reserva creates a double resolutory condition: (1) the death of the reservor, and (2)
the survival of the reservee at the time of the death of the reservor. While the decision refers to
the first as a resolutory condition, it would seem more likely that the same is a term. In any
event, the case confirms that either the reservor or any of the reservees may alienate the
reservable property, and the final outcome of the sales will be determined by the timeliness or
untimeliness of the death of the seller. It is important to distinguish the sales referred to herein
from the concept of a double sale which is regulated in Article 1544 of the Civil Code.
The subject matter of the two sales referred to herein must be clarified. It would seem
fairly clear that the reservor sold the reservable land in question, since at the time of the said sale,
she was the registered owner of the property and in fact in possession thereof. The sale executed
by the reservees may be viewed from a different perspective. Since the reservor was still alive at
the time of the said sale, it would seem that the reservees could not have validly sold the same
parcel of land, which obviously was not theirs. If the said sale were to refer to the parcel of land,
then the sale should properly be construed as a conditional sale - the condition being the survival
of the seller-reservees upon the death of the reservor. Upon the other hand, it is also possible to
construed this sale of the reservees as a sale of their inchoate right to acquire the property. Hence
the subject matter of the sale would not be the reservable land, but the rights of the reservees
thereto, which is conditional.

Teresa

Sps. Esparcia

Saturnino

Agaton
Fernando
Paulina
Cipriana

Andrea

Francisco

Sps. Sienes

FACTS:
1. Lot 3368 originally belonged to SaturninoYaeso (origin). With his first wife, Teresa Reales,
he had 4 children, named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana.
2. With his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named Francisco (propositus).
3. Upon Yaesos death, said lot was left to Francisco and title was issued in his name. Because
Francisco was then a minor, his mother administered the property for him and declared it in her
name for taxation purposes.
4. When Francisco died, single and without any descendant, his mother, Andrea Gutang
(reservista) as sole heir, executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale of the property in favor of
the Sps. ConstancioSienes and GenovevaSilay (Sps. Sienes).
5. Thereafter, the Sps. Sienes demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband, Jose Esparcia, the
surrender of the original certificate of title (which was in their possession). The latter refused.
6. Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso (reservatorios), the surviving half-sisters of Francisco as such,
declared the property in their name and subsequently executed a deed of sale in favor of the Sps.
Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes (Sps. Esparcia), who in turn, declared it in their name for tax
purposes and thereafter secured title in their name.
7. ConstancioSienes then filed an action asking for the nullification of the sale executed by
Paulina and Cipriana, the reconveyance of the lot and damages and cost of suit.
8. Fidel Esparcia countered that they did not know any information regarding the sale by Andrea
Gutang in favor of the Sps. Sienes, and that if such sale was made, the same was void since
Andrea had no right to dispose of the property.
9. The trial court declared that the sale of Andrea Gutang to Sps. Sienes was void and that the
sale by Paulina and CiprianaYaeso to the Sps. Esparcia was also void. The land in question was
reservable property and therefore, the reservista Andrea Gutang, was 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.
10. The records show that the lone reserve surviving was CiprianaYaeso.
ISSUE:
WON the lot in question is reservable property and if so, whether the reservoir or the reserve can
alienate the same
HELD: Yes, the lot is reservable property.

1. On Franciscos death, unmarried and without descendants, the property was inherited by his
mother, Andrea Gutang, who was 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.
2. Being reservable property, the reserve creates two resolutory conditions:
a.

the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and

b.
the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging
to the line from which the property came.
In connection with this, the court has held that the reservista (reservor) has the legal title and
dominion to the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. Hence, he may
alienate the same but subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the revocable and
conditional ownership of the reservista, the right acquired by the transferee being revoked or
resolved by the survival of reservatorios (reserves) at the time of the death of the reservista .
3. In the present case, inasmuch as when the reservista, Andrea Gutang died, CiprianaYaeso 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 passed in exclusive
ownership to Cipriana.
4. On the other hand, the sale executed by the sisters, Paulina and CiprianaYaeso, in favor of the
Sps. Esparcia was subject to a similar resolutory condition. While it may be true that the sale
was made by Cipriana and her sister prior to the death of Andrea, it became effective because of
the occurrence of the resolutory condition.