Francisca Tioco DE PAPA, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

Dalisay Tongko CAMACHO, et al., defendants-appellants.

G.R. No. L-28032; September 24, 1986

FACTS:

The plaintiffs are the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant, Dalisay. They have as a
common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister named Romana Tioco), father of the
plaintiffs and great grandfather of Dalisay. During the lifetime of Romana, she gratuitously
donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs). The latter
died intestate survived by her husband Estacio Dizon and their two (2) legitimate children,
Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay) and leaving the said four (4) parcels of land as the
inheritance of the children in equal pro-indiviso shares. Subsequently, Balbino died intestate,
survived by his legitimate children and bu his wife (among the plaintiffs) and legitimate
grandchildren, Faustino and Trinidad. In the partition of his estate, three (3) parcels of land were
adjudicated as the inheritance of Toribia but as she had predeceased her father, the said three
(3) parcesl of land devolved upon her two legitimate children, Faustino and Trinidad in equal pro-
inidiviso shares. Faustino died intestate, singled and without issue, leaving his one-half (1/2) pro-
indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land to his father, Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir,
who reserved the said property subject to a reserva troncal. When Trinidad died intestate, her
rights and interests in the land were inherited by her only child, Dalisay and not long after,
Eustacio died intestate survived also by his only legitimate child, Dalisay. Dalisay now owns one-
half (1/2) of all the seven (7) parcels of land as her inheritance from Trinidad. Dalisay also claims
the other half of the said parcels of land by virtue of reserva troncal imposed thereon upon the
death of Faustino but the plaintiffs opposed such claim because they claim three-fourths (3/4) of
the one-half pro-indiviso interst in said parcel of land, which was inherited by Eustacio from
Faustino, or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels of land, by virtue of their being also third degree
relatives of Faustino. The lower court declared that the parties are entitled to one-half (1/2) of the
seven (7) parcels of land in dispute, as reservatarios, in equal proportions. Not satisfied, the
defendant appealed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not all the relatives of the propositus within the third degree in the appropriate
line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the
reservista.
2. Whether or not the rights of the plaintiffs are subject to, and should be determined by, the
rules on intestate succession.

RULING:

Article 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.

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 Article 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 instestate succession, the
plaintiffs must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of
Faustino (the propositus), they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant,
although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. Had the reversionary
property passed directly from the propositus, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs would have been
excluded by the defendant 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,” i.e., the property took a “detour” through an ascendant thereby
govong rise to the reservation before its transmission to the reservatario.

Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of
the plaintiffs.