A.

Reserva Troncal
Art. 891
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.

Edroso vs. Sablan, G.R. No. 6878, 25 Phil 295, September 13, 1913

FACTS:

Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22, 1882. In this marriage they had
a son named Pedro who at his father’s death inherited the two said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902,
unmarried and without issue and by this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother,
Marcelina Edroso. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration of her ownership.

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

The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.

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

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the reservable properties by
reservista, Edroso.

RULING:

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

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

The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latter’s wish or by operation of law, requires the
inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of the right of ownership
belong to him exclusively — use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery.

During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by law to be reserved and the
extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after the right that in their turn may pertain to them has
been assured, have only an expectation, and therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit
that expectation to their heirs.

Sienes vs. Esparcia, G.R. No. L-12957, 1 SCRA 750, March 24, 1961

FACTS:

Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he had four children named
Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named
Francisco. OCT No. 10275 covering Lot 3368, his inheritance, was issued in the name of Francisco. Because Francisco
was a minor at the time, his mother administered the property.
When Francisco died single and without any descendant, his mother Andrea, as his sole heir, executed an
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE whereby, among other things, for and in consideration of the sum of
P800.00 she sold the property in question to appellants.

When thereafter said vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband Jose Esparcia, the surrender of OOCT
No. 10275 — which was in their possession — the latter refused.

Thereafter, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who as such had declared the
property in their name, on January 1, 1951 executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina
Sienes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale made by the reservista Andrea was void there being no right to dispose the same.

RULING:

NO. The Court held that the reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to a
resolutory condition; that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property; that he may alienate the same but
subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists,
the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the
death of the reservista.

The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, subject to the condition that the vendees
would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation, only if the vendor died without being survived by any
person entitled to the reservable property. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso was still
alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in favor of appellants became
of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.

On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and CiprianaYaeso in favor of the
spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory condition. The reserve instituted by law
in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property came, constitutes
a real right which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being that the
alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person obliged to
reserve. In the present case, CiprianaYaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea Gutang, the person
obliged to reserve, died. Thus the former became the absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea’s death.

Florentino vs. Florentino, G.R. No. 14856, 40 Phil 480, November 15, 1919
Chua vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-29901, 78 SCRA 412, August 31, 1977

FACTS:

In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia Militar he sired three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and
Manuel. When Patricia S. Militar died, Jose Frias Chua contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre
with whom he had a child by the name of Juanita Frias Chua. Manuel, one of the children of Jose in his first marriage,
died without leaving any issue.

Then in 1929, Jose Frias Chua died intestate. In the intestate proceeding, Consolacion and Juanito got 1/2 each of
Lot No. 399. Jose’s children in the first marriage got cash.

On February 27, 1952, JuanitoFrias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death,
his mother Consolacion de la Torre succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. Then on March 5, 1966,
Consolacion de la Torre died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except
her brother and sisters.

In the “Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre,” the petitioners herein, Ignacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage
and dominador and Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua, also of
the first marriage filed the complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged
to JuanitoFrias but which passed to Consolacion de la Torre upon the latter’s death, be declaredas a reservable
property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complaint of petitioners to recover the one-half portion of Lot 399 which originally belonged to
JuanitoFrias Chua has already prescribed when it was filed on May 11, 1966, or 14 years after the death of Juanito
(prepositus).

RULING:

NO. The Court held that the petitioners herein are claiming as reservees did not arise until the time the reservor,
Consolacion de la Torre, died in March 1966. When the petitioners therefore filed their complaint to recover the one-
half (1/2) portion of Lot 399, they were very much in time to do so.

De Papa vs. Camacho, G.R. No. L-28032, 144 SCRA 281, September 24, 1986

FACTS:

Appellees and appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a
sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of appellees and great grandfather of defendant. During her lifetime,
Romana gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of appellees). When
Toribia died, she was survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children Faustino and Trinidad
(mother of Dalisay). The 4 parcels of land were left as inheritance of Toribia‟s two children in equal pro-indiviso
shares. They too inherited 3 parcels of land which was supposed to be the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco from
her father Balbino. However, when Faustino died intestate, single and without issue, the ½ pro-indiviso share in the
7 parcels of land was left to his father Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property
subject to a reserve troncal. Subsequently, Trinidad died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of land
were inherited by her only legitimate childe, appellant Dalisay. Eustacio thereafter died intestated, survived by his
only legitimate defendant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho.

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

ISSUE:

Whether or not all relatives of the prepositus (Faustino) within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed
without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista.

RULING:

No. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees
must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus),
they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within
the same degree as the latter. As held in the case of Abellana v. Ferraris, under the Article 1009, the absence of
brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.)
being called to the succession. Hence, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as
nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed, similar to the case at hand.

Sumaya vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 68843-44, 201 SCRA 178, September 2, 1991

FACTS:

Raul Balantakbo inherited from two (2) different ascendants the two (2) sets of properties subject of this case: 1)
1/3 interest of a parcel of land from his father Jose, Sr., who died on January 28, 1945; and 2) 1/7 interest from his
maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who died on November 3, 1950. On June 13, 1952, Raul died intestate, single,
without any issue, and leaving only his mother, Consuelo Joaquin Vda. deBalantakbo, as his sole surviving heir to
the subject real properties.
Vda. de Balantakbo caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of Raul, wherein it was
clearly stated that the properties were inherited by Raul from his father Jose, Sr. and from his maternal grandmother,
Luisa Bautista.

Vda de Balantakbo sold the property to Sumaya which was subsequently sold to Villa Honorio Development
Corporation. Villa then transferred and assigned its rights over the property to Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative.

The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above described properties do not contain any annotation
of its reservable character.

On March 4, 1970,five brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and three surviving children of deceased Jose
Balantakbo, Jr., another brother of the first named Balantakbos, filed civil cases to recover the subject properties
which they claimed were subject to a reservatroncal in their favor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source of the properties thereby
showing the reservable nature of the properties is sufficient annotation of the reservable nature of the same.

RULING:

NO. The Court disagreed 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 of the reservees (reservatarios), against innocent third persons.

In this case, the affidavit of self adjudication executed by Consuelo Vda. de Balantakbo which contained a statement
that the property was inherited from a descendant, Raul, which has likewise inherited by the latter from another
ascendant, was registered with the Registry of Property. The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the
reservable character of the property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo.

As to the sale of subject properties, the Court affirmed the order of lower courts against plaintiff Agro Industrial
Coconut Cooperative to convey the subject properties back to reservatarios. The Court held that there is sufficient
proof that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the reservable character of the properties before they bought the
same from Consuelo as evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed by the parties.

Moreover, the Court a quo found that the petitioners and private respondents were long time acquaintances and that
they knew all along that the properties litigated in this case were inherited by Raul Balantakbo from his father and
from his maternal grandmother, and that Consuelo Vda. deBalantakbo inherited these properties from his son Raul.

Nieva vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 13386, 41 Phil 915, October 27, 1920

FACTS:

Juliana Nieva, the alleged natural mother of the plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva, married Francisco Deocampo. Of said
marriage Alfeo De Ocampo was born. Juliana Nieva died intestate on April 19, 1889, and her said son, Alfeo De
Ocampo, inherited from her, ab intestate, parcels of land. AlfeoDeocampo died intestate and the parcels of land
passed to his father, Francisco De Ocampo, by intestate succession. Thereafter Francisco Deocampo married Manuela
Alcala, of which marriage was born Jose De Ocampo. Francisco De Ocampo died on August 15, 1914, whereupon his
widow and son, the defendants herein, took possession of the parcels of land in question, under the claim that Jose
De Ocampo (a minor) had inherited the same, ab intestate, from his deceased father. Segunda, claiming to be an
acknowledged natural daughter of the said Juliana Nieva, instituted the present action for the purposes of recovering
from the defendants the parcels of land in question invoking reservatroncal. The lower court held that, even granting,
without deciding, that the plaintiff was an acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana Nieva, she was not entitled to
the property here in question because, in its opinion, an illegitimate relative has no right to the reservatroncal.

ISSUE:

Is an illegitimate relative within the third degree entitled to reservatroncal?

RULING:

No. In Article 811 (ReservaTroncal) the legislator uses the generic terms “ascendant,” “descendant,” and “relatives,”
without specifying whether or not they have to be legitimate. Does the legislator, then, refer to legitimate as well as
to illegitimate relatives?

This question has not been decided before by any court or tribunal. However, eminent commentators on the Spanish
Civil Code, who have devoted their lives to the study and solution of the intricate and difficult problems that may
arise under the provisions of that Code, have dealt with the very question in this case, and are unanimous in the
opinion that the provision of Article 811 of the Civil Code apply only to legitimate relative.

Manresa, one of the eminent commentators, in determining the persons in whose favor the reservation is established,
says: Persons in whose favor the reservation is established — This is one of the most delicate points in the
interpretation of article 811. According to this article, the reservation is established in favor of the parents who are
within the third degree and belong to the line from which the properties came.

It treats of blood relationship, which is applicable to questions on succession, according to articles 915 to 920. 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 the article intends to prevent.

It also treats of legitimate relationship. The person obliged to reserve it is 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.

To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother, Alfeo Deocampo, by operation of
law, would be a fragrant violate of the express provision of the foregoing article.

Nono vs. Nequia, G.R. No. L-5829, 93 Phil 120, May 22, 1953