Art 886.

Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs.
The Philippines follows a system of legitime. The legitime is a part of a testatorsproperty
which he cannot give to anybody else because the law provides who are the persons he can give it
to. The legitime is reserved only to his heirs, also known as compulsory heirs.

The purpose of providing for legitimes is to protect the compulsory heirs of the testator because
the testator by his passion, prejudice might just omit his compulsory heirs. Thus the legitime cannot
be impaired.

As an exception to that rule that the legitime cannot be impaired, when it comes to foreigners, the
intrinsic validity of the will shall be governed by the national law of the decedent. So, if in their
country there is no system of legitime, the will is still valid even if he did not allocate any legitime.

Art 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2;
neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit
from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.
The present article enumerates the compulsory heirs of the testators. However, this article
has already been amended by the Family Code because the Family code does not mention
acknowledged natural children or natural children by legal fiction. Now, we only have legitimate
children and illegitimate children.

The word compulsory means that the testator cannot deprive the heir of their share but the heir has
the liberty of whether or not to accept the inheritance. In other words, it is not compulsory upon
the heirs to accept but is compulsory upon the testator to provide something for his heirs.

The primary compulsory heirs are as follows, the legitimate children, widow or widower, and
illegitimate children. They inherit all at the same time. They concur with each other.
On the other hand, legitimate parents are secondary compulsory heirs. In the absence of legitimate
children, it is when the ascendants or parents inherit. It is either the legitimate children or
descendants, parents or ascendants. They will not concur unlike the primary compulsory heirs.

As to illegitimate children, they concur with legitimate children. They concur with the parents or
ascendants. And they concur with the surviving spouse. Thus, illegitimate children are also called
as concurring compulsory heirs. As to brothers and sisters, they are not compulsory heirs

Art 888. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the
hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate
children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.
The legitime of legitimate children is of the net hereditary estate, in other words one half
of the total estate of the testator is the legitime reserved to the children.

The legitime of the surviving spouse and illegitimate children shall be taken from the free portion.
After the legitime has been given to the compulsory heirs, what remains is the free portion that can
be freely disposed of by the testator.

To avoid confusion in the computation of the legitime, the author suggests that the legitime of the
children should be computed first before the spouse. This presupposes that there are 2 or more
legitimate children.

Art 889. The legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of one-half of the
hereditary estates of their children and descendants.
The children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half, subject to the rights of
illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.
The present article provides that the legitime of legitimate parents is of the net hereditary
estate. The legitime of legitimate parents and that of legitimate children is the same because
legitimate parents inherit in the absence of legitimate children.

The rule is that, in the presence of legitimate children, the legimate parents are excluded in the
legitime. Legitimate parents concur with illegitimate children.

But if the parents or ascendants are illegitimate, they are excluded in the distribution of the
legitime even by the presence of illegitimate children or descendants.

Art 890. The legitime reserved for the legitimate parents shall be divided between them
equally; if one of the parents should have died, the whole shall pass to the survivor.
If the testator leaves neither father nor mother, but is survived by ascendants of equal degree
of the paternal and maternal lines, the legitime shall be divided equally between both lines.
If the ascendants should be of different degrees, it shall pertain entirely to the ones nearest
in degree of either line.
This article speaks of the inheritance of the parents or ascendants. It provides that the
legitime of the legitimate parents shall be divided equally between them. It further states that in
case one of the parents die, the whole legitime shall pass to the surviving parents.

In case the testator leaves neither a father nor a mother, the rule on proximity should be observed.
The rule on proximity postulates that the nearer relatives exclude those relatives who are farther
in degree in the distribution of the legitime.

Also it is important to note that we can infer from the present provision that in the ascending line,
there is no right of representation

Finally, when dividing the legitime in case the testator leaves neither a father nor a mother to
always remember to divide equally the legitime between the nearer relatives of the testator in the
maternal side and the paternal side.

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 or sister, is obliged
to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property
came.
Article 891 talks about Reserva Troncal. What is Reserva Troncal? The idea of reserva
troncal is to return the property from where it originally came from. The purpose of this principle
is to prevent the property of one family from falling into the hands of another family. reserva
troncal is actually a burden or restriction or a charge on the legitime of the ascendant.

Who are the parties involved in Reserva Troncal? They are as follows:
1. Origin of the property
2. Propositus
3 Reservor or reservista
4. Reservees or reservatorios
Let us now discuss each of these parties and what are their specific roles in a reserva troncal.
The first is the origin of the property. The origin must be a legitimate relative, either the legitimate
mother or father or ascendant or legitimate half-brother or half-sister. Full blood brothers and
sisters cannot be origins because there would be no distinction as to the line. And lastly, the
property transferred from the origin to the propositus must be owned by the origin

The next party in a reserva troncal is the propositus. A prospitus must be a descendant of the
origin or of the half brother or half sister. The transfer from the origin to the propositus should be
by gratuitous title. In such case the transfer should either through a donation or the propositus
acquired the property from the origin by way of inheritance.
The rule is that a propositus has no obligation to preserve the property, which is why he can just
dispose the property to anybody. He can even use the property or he can destroy the property. That
is why the propositus is called the arbiter of the reserve because it is within the hands of the
propositus ifwhether or not the reserve will arise.

In other words, if the propositus will destroy the property, then reserva troncal cannot arise. On
the other hand, If the propositus preserves the property until his death, then reserva troncal may
arise. And if the propositus has children of his own, then reserve troncal cannot arise because his
children will inherit the said property.

In case the propositus preserves the property, then upon his death of the, the obligation to reserve
will now arise. When a propositus died with no children, then, the same property received from
the origin is transferred to the reservor (ascendant) by operation of law.

If however, when the propositus died with a will, what is transferred by operation of law is the
portion corresponding to the legitime of the reservor. And if there is no will, the entire property is
transmitted to the reservor by operation of law. The very same property received by the propositus
from the origin must be the same property transferred to the reservoir.

Take note that If the origin left an insurance policy where the propositus was the beneficiary, there
is no reserve because the cash received by the propositus was inherited from the proceeds of an
insurance policy and were not received by the propositus from the origin but from the insurance
company.

The third party in a reserva troncal is the reservoir. A reservoir is not merely a usufructuary, but
rather he has full ownership of the property. Therefore, he ca do acts of dominion like alienate,
donate or pledge the property. He owns the property but his ownership is subject to a resolutory
condion, that is upon the happening of the resolutory condition, the ownership of the reservor will
be extinguished.

The resolutory condition is that upon the death of the reservor, there must be reservees or relatives
of the descendant propositus who are living and within the 3rd degree of consanguinity from the
descendant propositus. Upon the happening of this resolutory condition, the ownership of the
reservor is extinguished.

What happens now if the property has been disposed of or has been sold by the reservor before the
happening of the resolutory condition? The following rules shall apply:

1. The dispositionis also subject to the resolutory condition that upon the death of the reservor
(ascendant), if there are living reservees, then the effect of the alienation to third persons
becomes ineffective.
2. If the reservor sold the property to a third person, the obligation of the reservor, if it is a
personal property, is not to return the said property but the estate of the reservor must pay
the value of the said property to the reservees.
 3. If what was sold was a real property, and the 3rd party is not innocent purchaser, that is he
knows that the property is subject to the reserva troncal, then that 3rd party is obliged to
return the properties to the reservees.
4. But if the 3rd party is an innocent purchaser or innocent mortgagor, then the right of the
reservees consists of demanding payment from the estate of the reservor or demanding
payment from the Assurance Fund under the Land Registration Authority.

What are the obligations of the reservor during the subsistence of the reserve? They are as
follows:

1. The reservor must make an inventory of the property received by operation of law from the
descendant;

2. He must register the inventory with the Registry of Property;

3. If the property received from the descendant is real property, then the reservor has the obligation
to furnish a bond, mortgage or security to insure the safe delivery of the property to the reservees
who might be living at the time of the death of the reservor;

4. If the real property is already registered, then the reservor is obliged to annotate the reserve. He
must do this within 90 days from the time he received the property from the descendant or from
the time the court makes a decision that the reservor is entitled to receive the property. If the
reservor does not make the annotation, then the reservees have the right to file an action to compel
the reservor to make the annotation but they must wait after the lapse of 90 days. The annotation
itself is sufficient protection or if there is no annotation, bond, security, or mortgage must be
furnished.

5. The reservor also must not substitute the property with another. The same property received
from the origin and from the descendant must be same properties to be given to the reservees:
except if:
A. If the property is sold to the innocent purchaser for value, in effect the obligation of the
reservor is substituted with the obligation to pay money to reserve;

B. If the property is lost or destroyed without the fault of the reservor, then the obligation
is extinguished.

C.The reservees may intervene in the land registration proceeding not for the purpose of
opposing the registration but for the purpose of having their claim to the reserva being
annotated to the title

D. If the reservees did not intervene in the said proceedings, within 1 year, they can file for
a review of decree of registration so that they can cause the annotation thereof. But they
can no longer do so beyond the 1-year period if the purchaser is innocent. If the purchaser
is not innocent, the 1-year period does not apply. The purchaser may still be obliged to
return the property because knowledge is equivalent to registration.
Finally the last party to a reserva troncal is the reservee. Reservees are 3rd degree relatives of the
propositus. Upon the death of the reservor, if there are still relatives within the 3rd degree of the
propositus who are still living, then the ownership of the reservor is extinguished and the property
will now go to the reservees.

The reservees inherit from the propositus, not from the reservor. The reservor is actually a
conditional heir of the propositus. In other words, reservees already have rights to the property but
their inheritance is subject to the condition that they must be living at the time of the death of the
reservor. Reservees have the power, during the lifetime of the reservoir, to compel the reservor to
furnish bond, security, mortgage or to annotate the reserve because they already inherit such
property although conditional.

However, the right of action of the reservees commences only from the death of the reservor. As
long as the reservor is alive, if the reservor sells the property to the 3rd person, the reservees cannot
impugn the sale made by the reservor. Reservees only have the right to demand that the reservor
annotate the reserva or that the reservor give security, bond or mortgage.

While it is true that the right of action of the reservees commences only from the dearth of the
reservor, reservees can sell the property themselves even if the reservor is still alive. Such is not a
case of future inheritance because the reservees inherit not from the reservor but from the
propositus. In such instance there is only a sale of future property or emptio rei speratae. The sale
of future property is valid subject to the condition that the property should exist. This is based on
article 1461 of the New Civil code which provides that Things having a potential existence may
be the object of the contract of sale. The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is
deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence.The sale of a vain hope or
expectancy is void.

Always keep in mind that reserva troncal determines only a class of relatives who would be entitled
to the property after the death of the testator. But as to who will specifically be entitled to the
property, follow the rules on legal or intestate succession In legal or intestate succession, following
the rule on proximity, the nearer relatives exclude the farther. Those who are in the descending
line are favored than those who are in the ascending line. And those who are in the direct line are
favored other than those who are in the collateral line.

Upon the death of the reservor, and in case the property subject to reserve truncal deteriorates, the
reservors estate has the obligation to reimburse the reservees for the value of the deterioration
from the security furnished by the reservor; or claim reimbursement from the estate of the reservor.

It also important to know that there are two theories with respect to the value of the reserva and
these theories are called reserva maxima and reserva minima.

Under the theory of Reserva Maxima, all that can be embraced or included in the legitime shall be
considered as reservable property. Meanwhile, under the theory of Reserva Minima, only half of
the property received from the origin to the descendant is transferred to the ascendant reservor as
legitime.
The reserva maxima theory is more in line with Article 891. On the other hand reserva minima is
more in keeping with equity and justice. Thus, as a rule what is followed is reserva minima. If
there is no will the entire property which came from the other ascendant is reservable because the
entire property was transferred to the ascendant by operation of law because there is no will. When
there is a will, only that part which corresponds to the legitime is transferred by operation of law.

And now that we have discussed about what is reserva troncal and who are the parties to it, the
final issue to be tackled would be how is reserva maxima extinguished? The means to extinguish
reserva troncal are as follows:

1. Upon the death of reservoir

2. Upon the death of ALL the would-be reservees ahead of the reservoir

3. Upon the loss of the reservable properties without the fault or negligence of the reservoir

4. Upon prescription Adverse possession as against reservees by the reservoir or a

stranger of the reservable property as free from reserva for 30 years if it is a real property
and 8 years if it is a personal property. In order for prescription to run, the fact that the
reservor repudiates or hold the property free from the reserva must be communicated to the
reservees, the reservees must know that the reservor is holding the property as free from
the reserva otherwise there will be no prescription.

5. Upon registration under the Torrens System as free from the reservation.

6. Upon renunciation or waiver by ALL reservees after the death of the reservoir

N.B. What is Delayed Intestacy Theory?

This is the theory that is applied in Reserva Troncal. In Reserva Troncal, the reservor inherits from
the propositus. The reserve also inherit from the propositus. However, the inheritance by the
reservee from the propositus is delayed and given only until after the death of the reservor.

The inheritance of the reservee from the propositus is by virtue of legal or intestate succession.
Even if the propositus dies testate or with a will, that only refers to the inheritance of the reservor.
But, with respect to the reservee, what governs is the law on legal or intestate succession.

That is the concept of Delayed Intestacy, that when the resolutory condition of the reservor is
fulfilled, the properties are distributed to the reservees as if they are inheriting from the propositus
at the time of the fulfillment of the condition. Since there is no will, then, the reservees inherit by
virtue of intestate succession, the decedent being the propositus. The inheritance of the reservees
are delayed.

Art 892. If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or
widower shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate. In case of a legal separation,
the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same.
If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be
entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.
In both cases, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be taken from the portion that can
be freely disposed of by the testator. (834a)
Art 892 contem plates of two situations, one where there is only one legitimate child and
the other where there are two or more legitimate children.

In the first case, where there is only one legitimate child, the legitime of the surviving spouse
would be of the net hereditary estate to be taken from the free portion. Meanwhile, the second
case provided for under this article is a situation where there are twp or more legitimate children,
the surviving spouse can inherit from the deceased even if there was legal separation and the
deceased spouse gave cause for the legal separation. The common denominator of these two
scenarios, is that the legitime of the spouse shall be taken from the free portion.

And lastly this provision, also mandates that he guilty spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting
from the innocent spouse but the innocent spouse can still inherit from the guilty spouse.

ARTICLE 893. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but leaves legitimate
ascendants, the surviving spouse shall have a right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate.
This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the estate. (836a)
The present article deals with a situation where there are no legitimate children. In here,
the surviving spouse concurs with the legitimate ascendants.

This article provides that the share of the legitimate ascendant is one half. While, the share of the
surviving spouse is only one fourth of the hereditary estate which is to be taken from the free
portion

Art 894. If the testator leaves illegitimate children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to
one-third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate children to another
third. The remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator.
Art 894 contemplates of a situation where there are no legitimate children and the survivors
are the spouse and the illegitimate children. In this situation, the share of the spouse and the
illegitimate children would be 1/3 of the hereditary estate each. The remaining 1/3 would be the
free portion.
The legitimes of the legitimate children and the legitimate parents would always be . Further,the
legitimes of the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children may vary.

Art 895. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural
children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate
children or descendants.
The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural, nor a natural
child by legal fiction, shall be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an
acknowledged natural child.
The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the portion of the estate at the
free disposal of the testator, provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such
illegitimate children exceed that free portion, and that the legitime of the surviving spouse
must first be fully satisfied. (840a)
Under the Family Code, there are no longer acknowledged natural, natural child by legal
fiction. We only have legitimate or illegitimate children. With respect to illegitimate children, they
are entitled to one-half of the share of one legitimate child

As a rule, in the distribution of legitimes, you first have to satisfy the legitime of legitimate children
and then, the surviving spouse which should be taken from the free portion. Whatever remains, it
must be divided equally among the illegitimate children

ARTICLE 896. Illegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants
of the deceased shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken from the
portion at the free disposal of the testator. (841a)
The present article contemplates of a scenario whre the illegitimate children survive with
the legitimate parents of the testator,

In such a situation, the legitime will be divided by the parents and the illegitimate children. There
are as follow; to the parents and to the illegitimate children

Take note that Illegitimate children DO NOT exclude the legitimate parents or ascendants whereas
legitimate children excludes legitimate parents or ascendants

Art 897. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and
acknowledged natural children, or natural children by legal fiction, such surviving spouse
shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children which
must be taken from that part of the estate which the testator can freely dispose of.
Under this article the widow or the surviving spouse concur with legitimate children and
illegitimate children
The pertinent rules to follow under this article are as follows
1. If there is only 1 legitimate children, the surviving spouse gets

2.If there are 2 or more legitimate children, the spouse shall be entitled to a share which is
equivalent to a share of one of the legitimate child

3. For the illegitimate children, the share would be of the share of 1 legitimate child
Art 898. If the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and with
illegitimate children other than acknowledged natural, or natural children by legal fiction,
the share of the surviving spouse shall be the same as that provided in the preceding article.

Art. 899. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and
with illegitimate children, such surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-eighth of the
hereditary estate of the deceased which must be taken from the free portion, and the
illegitimate children shall be entitled to one-fourth of the estate which shall be taken also
from the disposable portion. The testator may freely dispose of the remaining one-eighth of
the estate. (n)
Under this article, the survivors here are the legitimate parents, illegitimate children and the
spouse.

The share of the heirs under the present article are as follows
1. To the legitimate parents ,
2. To the illegitimate children to be taken from the free portion and
3. To the surviving spouse 1/8 to be taken from the free portion.

Art. 900. If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half
of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose of the
other half.
If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo
mortis, and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage, the legitime
of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate, except
when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. In the latter case,
the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph. (n)
The present article presents a situation where the only survivor is the spouse. As a general
rule, the spouse shall be entitled to of the net hereditary estate if he/she is the only survivor.

However, there are exceptions to the said rule, that is the spouse shall be entitled to 1/3 if:
1. The marriage was celebrated in articulo mortis and
2. the other spouse died within 3 months from the celebration of the marriage

Take note that the spouse who is at the point of death during the marriage must be the one who
.should die. The cause of death must be the very same reason why the marriage was in articulo
mortis.

The exception to the exception is that the surviving spouse gets 1/2 even if the testator or the
testatrix died within 3 months from time of celebration of marriage wherein the couple had been
living previously as husband and wife for more than 5 years
N.B. This provision is only true with respect to testate succession. When it comes to intestate or
legal succession, this provision does not apply.

Art. 901. When the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs,
such illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the hereditary estate of the
deceased.
The other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator.
The only survivors here are the illegitimate children. They are entitled to of the estate.
The other half is considered as the free portion, thus it can be disposed of by the testator freely.

Art. 902. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted
upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. (843a)
The present article provides that If the illegitimate child died ahead of his parents and he
also has his own children legitimate or illegitimate, all of these children will inherit by Right of
Representation. They will get whatever rights their parents have.

The right of an illegitimate child passes to his children whether legitimate or illegitimate. In the
case of a legitimate child, his own illegitimate child cannot represent.

Art. 903. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child, when such child leaves
neither legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate children, is one-half
of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. If only legitimate or illegitimate children
are left, the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. If only the widow or widower
survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the
hereditary estate of the child, and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of the estate.
The parents under this article are the illegitimate parents (parents of an illegitimate child)
The presence of legitimate children will exclude the legitimate parents. But legitimate parents, in
the absence of legitimate children, will concur with theillegitimate children.

With respect to the illegitimate parents of the testator, they are excluded by the presence of the
children of the testator whether his children are legitimate or illegitimate.

The illegitimate parents are only secondary compulsory heirs because they inherit their legitimes
only in the absence of the legitimate or illegitimate children or descendants of the decedent
Article 903 refers to only to illegitimate parents and not to other ascendants like the parents of the
illegitimate parents.

Thus, the rule here is different from the case of the grandparents of a legitimate child, for they may
inherit in default of both legitimate parents
Art. 904. The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases
expressly specified by law.
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution
of any kind whatsoever.
The present article provides that even without the will of the testator, the compulsory heirs
are always entitled to their legitimes. The only way to deprive the compulsory heirs of their
legitime is by expressly disinheriting them in a will, wherein the legal cause therefore shall be
specified.

Only the Free portion of the estate that the testator can give away is subject to certain condition,
substitution or burden.But the law states except in cases expressly specified by law.

The burdens that the testator may impose on the legitime in accordance with law are as follows:
1. A prohibition to partition the legitime is valid for a period not exceeding 20 years
2. Reserva Troncal is also a burden insofar as the legitime of the reservor or reservista is concerned.

Art. 905. Every renunciation or compromise as regards a future legitime between the person
owing it and his compulsory heirs is void, and the latter may claim the same upon the death
of the former; but they must bring to collation whatever they may have received by virtue of
the renunciation or compromise. (816)
During the lifetime of the testator, the heirs only have inchoate right over the properties of
the testator as well as to their legitime. The right to their legitime only becomes vested when the
testator dies

There can be no renunciation or compromise that can be made based upon a right that is yet an
expectancy or an inchoate right. Even if the compromise is made among the compulsory heirs
themselves, such compromise would still not be valid.There can be renunciation of or compromise
on present legitime because the subject matter is no longer a future inheritance.

To reconcile with a waiver of a hereditary right,a waiver of hereditary right is executed after
thedeath of the testator. Hereditary right means your right to the inheritance. But in Article 905,
we are talking here of future inheritance or future legitime executed during the lifetime of the
testator.

You can waive your right to the inheritance and that can be executed because from the moment of
death of the testator, the right of heirs to the estate already becomes vested even if there is still no
distribution.
Art. 906. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime
belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied. (815)
Article 906 talks about completion of legitime In this case, a compulsory heir has been
given his legitime by means of donation, condonation, remission, devise, legacy as long as the
giving of the title is gratuitous.

Part of the estate is given to the compulsory heirs although the amount is equivalent to the legitime
but less than the legitime.

Art. 907. Testamentary dispositions that impair or diminish the legitime of the compulsory
heirs shall be reduced on petition of the same, insofar as they may be inofficious or excessive.
Article 907 talks about testamentary disposition that impair or diminish the legitime of
compulsory heirs. By analogy, this article applies to donation inter vivos. Donations which impair
(donation inter vivos) the legitime shall be reduced on petition of the compulsory heirs.

When you apply inofficious donation, only the compulsory heirs can assail that the donation shall
be reduced because it impairs their legitime. The creditor cannot petition that donation inter vivos
which are inofficious be reduced

Art. 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator
shall be considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed
in the will.
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by the
testator that are subject to collation, at the time he made them. (818a)
The present article is about computation of the hereditary estate. Take note that if you do
not arrive at the correct net hereditary estate, all your computation of the legitimes would be wrong.

You add the donations made during the lifetime of the testator. That is the process of collation. In
collation, you do not actually return the property physically but only the value thereof is considered
as part of the estate Donations are collated because it would be easy for the testator to circumvent
the law on legitime by donating all his properties during his
lifetime so that nothing would be left for his compulsory heirs at the time of his death

Donations which are inofficious cannot be assailed by creditors except when the donation is in
fraud of the creditor. The value to be considered is the value of the property donated at the time it
was donated, not the value upon the death of the testator

Remember that donations to spouses are void. Since it is void, it is still part of the estate and so,
there is nothing to collate because it was not deducted.
Art. 909. Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime.
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator
could have disposed by his last will.
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable portion, they shall be
reduced according to the rules established by this Code. (819a)
Remember that in succession, a stranger is one who is not a compulsory heir of the testator.
Donations made to strangers during the lifetime of the testator are charged to the free portion.

Donations to strangers should be collated, otherwise, the legitime of the compulsory heirs will be
impaired. Incase there is no free portion to speak of, the donation becomes inofficious. As such,
there has to be a reduction or a return of the property donated

Art. 910. Donations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his
father or mother, shall be charged to his legitime.
Should they exceed the portion that can be freely disposed of, they shall be reduced in the
manner prescribed by this Code.
Art. 911. After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three preceding
articles, the reduction shall be made as follows:
(1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling,
if necessary, the devises or legacies made in the will;
(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata, without any distinction
whatever.
If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others, it
shall not suffer any reduction until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the
legitime.
(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity, whose value may be considered
greater than that of the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose between
complying with the testamentary provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part
of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. (820a)
Order of priority:
1. Legitime
2. Donations
3. Preferred legacy or devise; and
4. All other pro-rata

Steps to be followed under Article 911:

1. Determine the Net Hereditary Estate (NHE); How? Gross Estate
Less: Debts & charges
Plus: Donations subject to Collation
2. Determine the legitime of the compulsory heirs based on #1;

3. Add total value of all of all the legitimes of all the compulsory heirs;
4. Deduct the total value of the legitimes in #3 from the Net Hereditary Estate in #1 to arrive at the
free disposal;

5. Charge the donations to compulsory heirs to their legitimes. In case of excess of donations over
the legitime, charge excess to free disposal;

6. Charge the donations to strangers to the free disposal;

7. Charge PREFERRED legacies/devises to free disposal;

8. Charge all other legacies/devises to free disposal;

9. In case free disposal is insufficient, reduce the legacies, donations etc in the order of priority.
How?
1. Donation to strangers;
2. If there is still an excess, then you charge the legacies & devises;
3. If still insufficient, all others.
Article 911 contemplates of a situation where there are compulsory heirs and or there are donations
subject to collations.

The remaining free portion is to be distributed prorate since the testator did not prefer a
certain devise or legacy. If there were 2 or more donations, they shall be respected equally if made
at the same time. It shall be apportioned the same with the legacy and devise, which means pro-
rata.
If there were 2 or more donations made on different dates, the earlier one shall be respected.
The more recent donations are less preferred than the donations earlier made because there is a
presumption that it was made first. This means that the testator has more preference or affection
for that person to whom he made that first donation. That is if the donations are made on different
dates.

Art. 912. If the devise subject to reduction should consist of real property, which cannot be
conveniently divided, it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does not absorb one-half of its
value; and in a contrary case, to the compulsory heirs; but the former and the latter shall
reimburse each other in cash for what respectively belongs to them.
The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property, provided its value
does not exceed that of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as legitime.
In this case, the devise subject to reduction cannot be conveniently divided

According to Article 912, if the reduction does not absorb of its value, it shall go to the devisee
and the devisee will just pay the compulsory heirs for such value
If the reduction absorbs more than of its value, it shall go to the compulsory heirs and the
compulsory heirs will just pay the devisee for such value

If it is exactly of its value, the real property shall go to the devisee if you apply the article
literally, you would be defeating the intent of the testator. The devisee will just pay the compulsory
heirs for the value

Art. 913. If the heirs or devisees do not choose to avail themselves of the right granted by the
preceding article, any heir or devisee who did not have such right may exercise it; should the
latter not make use of it, the property shall be sold at public auction at the instance of any
one of the interested parties. (822)
If the legatee or devisee does not want to exercise the right under Article 912, the other
parties (heir or devisee) may exercise the right on behalf of the party who does not wish to exercise
the right

If none of the parties have the interest to exercise the right or reimbursement or retention, the
property may just be sold at a public auction at the instance of any interested party such as a
creditor of the estate

Art. 914. The testator may devise and bequeath the free portion as he may deem fit. (n)
After all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs have been satisfied, including the surviving
spouse and the illegitimate children, the free disposal may be given by the testator to anybody
provided that there is no prohibition by law.

If he gives the free disposal to his concubine, that is not allowed

Cases:
Pascual vs Bautista
Don Andres Pascual died intestate (on October 12, 1973) without any issue, legitimate,
acknowledged natural, adopted or spurious children.
Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual are the acknowledged natural children of
the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres Pascual.
Petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the Memorandum in Support of
Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights. the Regional Trial Court, presided over by Judge Manuel S.
Padolina issued an order, the dispositive portion of which resolved to deny this motion reiterating
their hereditary rights. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioners appealed their case to the Court of Appeals, but like the ruling of CA, their motion for
reconsideration was also dismissed.
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely within
the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude
recognized (and acknowledged) natural children as their illegitimacy is not due to the subsistence
of a prior marriage when such children were under conception.
Issue:
WON NCC 992 can be interpreted to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of
the deceased.
Ruling:
No.
Article 992 of the civil Code, provides:
An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives
of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child.
In Diaz v. IAC it was ruled that article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in
that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the
legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a
natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Article 992. Between the
legitimate family and illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and
incompatibility. #peaches The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the
legitimate family; the family is in turn hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the
privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former,
in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
resentment.
Xxx
Article 902, 989, and 990 clearly speaks of successional rights of illegitimate children, which rights
are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate
children) who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
In whatever manner, one should not overlook the fact that the persons to be represented are
themselves illegitimate. The three named provisions are very clear on this matter. The right of
representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance
of a legitimate grandparent. It may be argued, as done by petitioners, that the illegitimate
descendant of a legitimate child is entitled to represent by virtue of the provisions of Article 982,
which provides that "the grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of
representation." Such a conclusion is erroneous. It would allow intestate succession by an
illegitimate child to the legitimate parent of his father or mother, a situation which would set at
naught the provisions of Article 992. Article 982 is inapplicable to the instant case because Article
992 prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother. Article 982 is the general rule and Article 992 the
exception.
The rules laid down in Article 982 that "grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right
of representation" and in Article 902 that the rights of illegitimate children . . . are transmitted
upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the limitation
prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.

Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children. Petitioners cannot
represent their father Eligio Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the
decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of their father.
Verily, the interpretation of the law desired by the petitioner may be more humane but it is also an
elementary rule in statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear
and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute
must be taken to mean exactly what is says. Clearly the term "illegitimate" refers to both natural
and spurious.
Finally under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are generally placed under
one category, which undoubtedly settles the issue as to whether or not acknowledged natural
children should be treated differently, in the negative.
Gonzales vs. Legarda
Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died in Manila on June
17, 1933. He was survived by his widow Filomena and their seven children: four daughters and
three sons.
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 Legarda y De la Paz who
were represented by Benito F. Legarda. Filomena Legarda died intestate and without issue on
March 19, 1943. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda. Mrs. Legarda
executed on May 12, 1947 an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties, which she inherited
from her deceased daughter, Filomena Legarda, which were the properties in litigation in this case.
As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Roces Legarda succeeded her deceased
daughter as co-owner of the properties held pro indiviso by her other six children.
Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the
properties, which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her sons children, a total of 16
grandchildren all in all. Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned all the properties
consisting of the 1/3 share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason, which the children inherited,
in representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.
Mrs. Legarda died and her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. In the testate
proceeding, Beatriz Legarda, a daughter of the testatrix filed a motion to exclude from the
inventory of her mothers estate the properties, which she inherited from her deceased daughter on
the ground that said properties are reservable properties, which should be inherited by
FilomenaLegarda.
Without awaiting the resolution on the motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil action against her
brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mothers estate for the purpose of serving a
declaration that said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath
in her will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her sons and daughters.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject properties are subject to ReservaTroncal
Ruling:

In reservatroncal:
1. A descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from
a brother or sister;
2. The same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of
law from said descendant, and
3. The said ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are
within the third degree from the deceased descendants (prepositus) and who belong to the
line from which the said properties came.
So three transmissions are involved:
1. A first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother
or sister to the deceased descendant;
2. A posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the
deceased descendant (causante de la reserva) in favor of another ascendant, the reservor or
reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation; and,
3. A third transmissions of the property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor
to the reserves (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased
descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased
descendant.
Thus, if there is only two transmission there is no reserva.
The persons involved in reserve troncal are:
1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant
by lucrative or gratuitous title;
2. The descendant or prepositus who received the property;
3. The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property from the
prepositus by operation of law; and,
The reservee who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea
or tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the
reservor.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant, or the one at the end of
the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent. He
is called the propositus.
The reserva 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.
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 reservor is a
usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it subject to the reservation. The
transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferees rights are
revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but become
indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.
The reservors alienation of the reservable property is subject to a resolutory condition, meaning
that if at the time of the reservors death, there are reservees, the transferee of the property should
deliver it to the reservees. If there are no reservees at the time of the reservors death, the
transferees title would become absolute. 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.
Even during the reservistas lifetime, the reservatarios, who are the ultimate acquirers of the
property, can already assert the right to prevent the reservista from doing anything that might
frustrate their reversionary right, and, for this purpose, they can compel the annotation of their
right in the registry of property even while the reservista is alive.
The reservable property is not part of the estate of the reservista who may not dispose of them by
will, so long as there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios, therefore, do not inherit from
the reservista but frm the descendant prepositus, of whom the reservatarios are the heirs mortis
causa, subject to the condition that they must survive the reservista.
Hence, upon the reservistas death, thereservatario nearest to the propositus becomes automatically
and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. 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. In this case, the properties in question were indubitably reservable
property in the hands of Mrs. Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservaton became a
certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the
prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda.
 Tioco de Papa vs. Camacho
This case, which involves the application of Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva
troncal, was submitted for judgment in the lower court by all the parties on the following
"Stipulation of Facts and Partial Compromise":
1. They stipulate that the defendant Dalisay D. TongkoCamacho and the plaintiffs, Francisco Tioco
de Papa, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being said defendant's
grandaunt and granduncles.
2. They stipulate that plaintiffs and defendant Dalisay D. TongoCamacho have as a common
ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of plaintiffs
and great grandfather of defendant.
3. They stipulate that Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of
land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs)
4. They stipulate that Toribia Tioco died intestate in l9l5, survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon,
and their two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon (mother of defendant Dalisay
D, TongkoCamacho) and leaving the aforementioned four (4) parcels of land as the inheritance of
her said two children in equal proindiviso shares.
5. They stipulate that in 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate children by
his wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon and
Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of his estate, three (3) parcels of land now covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 16545 and 16554 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila, copies of which
are attached hereto as Annexes 'C' and 'Cl', were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia
Tioco, but as she had predeceased her father, Balbino Tioco, the said three (3) parcels of land
devolved upon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon in equal proindiviso
shares.
6. They stipulate that in 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue, leaving his
one half (1/2) proindiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned to his father,
Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property subject to a reserva
troncal.
7. They stipulate that in 1939 Trinidad DizonTongko died intestate, and her rights and interests in
the parcels of land abovementioned were inherited by her only legitimate child, defendant Dalisay
D. TongkoCamacho, subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband, defendant Primo
Tongko.
8. They stipulate that on June 14, 1965, Eustacio Dizon died intestate, survived his only legitimate
descendant, defendant Dalisay D. TongkoCamacho.
9. The parties agree that defendant Dalisay D. TongkoCamacho now owns onehalf (1/2) of all the
seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned as her inheritance from her mother, Trinidad Dizon-
Tongko.
On the basis thereof, the lower Court declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and
Nicolas Tioco, as well as the defendant Dalisay TongkoCamacho, entitled, as reservatarios, to
onehalf of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in equal proportions
Issue:
Whether, as contended by the plaintiffs appellees and ruled by the lower Court, all relatives of the
praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the
reservable property upon the death of the reservista, as seems to be implicit in Art. 891 of the Civil
Code or, as asserted by the defendant appellant, the rights of said relatives are subject to, and
should be determined by, the rules on intestate succession.
Ruling:
The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property
originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant
(reservista).
The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified
relatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further occasion for its application.
In the relations between one reservatario and another of the same degree there is no call for
applying Art. 891 any longer; wherefore, the respective share of each in the reversionary property
should be governed by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. In this spirit the jurisprudence of
this Court and that of Spain has resolved that upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the
reservable property should pass, not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to those nearest in
degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those reservatarios of more remote degree.
Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession when there are relatives of the
descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatarios over the
property which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him,
excludes that of the one more remote. The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one
claiming 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, inasmuch as the right granted
by the Civil Code in Article 811 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of
designated persons who are 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.
In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation on the part of one alleging his
right as reservatario who is not within the third degree of relationship, nevertheless 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. ... .
(Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil. 480, 489490) (Emphasis supplied) See also Nieva and Alcala
vs. Alcala and de Ocampo, 41 Phil. 915)
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate
succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that
of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se,
proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of
double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative.
In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom
the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property should
be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not specify
otherwise. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an
exceptional case, its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the
purpose of the law.
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the
plaintiffsappellees must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively,
of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the
defendantappellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter.
Had the reversionary property passed directly from the praepositus, there is no doubt that the
plaintiffsappellees would have been excluded by the defendantappellant under the rules of intestate
succession. There is no reason why a different result should obtain simply because "the
transmission of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva;" 6 i.e., the property
took a "detour" through an ascendantthereby giving rise to the reservation before its transmission
to the reservatario.
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings already cited, the defendantappellant Dalisay
Tongko Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the
plaintiffs appellees.
Wills and Succession: Article Reviews and Case
Digests

Submitted to: Atty. Brenda Tangarorang

Submitted by: Mark L. Abragan