G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 August 15, 1983.

After verification, Aida In time7, respondent Alfonso appealed to

REGINA FRANCISCO AND ZENAIDA learned that there was indeed a deed of the Court of Appeals.8
PASCUAL, petitioners, absolute sale in favor of Regina Francisco After due proceedings, on April 30, 1999,
vs. and Zenaida Pascual. Thus, on August 15, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
AIDA FRANCISCO- 1983, Gregorio executed a "Kasulatan sa decision reversing that of the trial court,
ALFONSO, respondent. Ganap na Bilihan, whereby for P25,000.00, the dispositive portion of which reads:
PARDO, J.: he sold the two parcels of land to Regina "WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 21,
May a legitimate daughter be deprived of Francisco and Zenaida Pascual. By virtue of 1994 of the court a quo is REVERSED and
her share in the estate of her deceased the sale, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan SET ASIDE and another rendered as
father by a simulated contract transferring issued TCT No. T-59.585 to Regina follows:
the property of her father to his illegitimate Francisco and TCT T-59.586 to Zenaida "1. The Kasulatan Sa Ganap na Bilihan
children? Pascual.4 dated August 15, 1983 (Exhibit "G") is
The case before the Court is an appeal via On April 1, 1991, Aida filed with the declared null and void from the beginning
certiorari from the decision of the Court of Regional Trial Court, Bulacan a complaint and TCT Nos. T-59.585 (M) and T-59-586
Appeals1 declaring void the deed of sale of against petitioners for annulment of sale (M), both of the Registry of Deeds of
two parcels of land conveyed to petitioners with damages.5 She alleged that the Bulacan (Meycauayan Branch) in the
who are illegitimate children of the signature of her late father, Gregorio names of Regina Francisco and Zenaida
deceased to the exclusion of respondent, Francisco, on the Kasulatan sa Ganap na Pascual, respectively, are annulled and
his sole legitimate daughter. Bilihan dated August 15, 1983, was a cancelled;
The facts2 are: forgery. "2. The Register of Deeds of Bulacan
Respondent Aida Francisco-Alfonso In their joint answer to the complaint, (Meycauayan Branch) is ordered to cancel
(hereafter Aida) is the only daughter of petitioners denied the alleged forgery or the aforementioned TCT Nos. T-59.585 (M)
spouses Gregorio Francisco and Cirila de la simulation of the deed of sale. After due and T-59.586 (M) and to reinstate Transfer
Cruz, who are now both deceased. proceedings, on July 21, 1994, the trial Certificates of Title Nos. T-132740 and T-
Petitioners, on the other hand, are court rendered a decision dismissing the 117160 both in the name of Gregorio
daughters of the late Gregorio Francisco complaint. The dispositive portion reads: Francisco.
with his common law wife Julia Mendoza, "WHEREFORE, on the basis of the evidence "3. Defendants-appellees Regina Francisco
with whom he begot seven (7) children. adduced and the law applicable thereon, and Zenaida Pascual jointly and solidarily
Gregorio Francisco (hereafter Gregorio) the Court hereby renders judgment: are ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant
owned two parcels of residential land, "a) sustaining the validity of the "Kasulatan Alfonso the amount of P5,000.00 as moral
situated in Barangay Lolomboy, Bocaue, Sa Ganap Na Bilihan" (Exh."G") executed damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary
Bulacan, covered by TCT Nos. T-32740 and on 15 August 1993 by the late Gregorio damages and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees.
T-117160. When Gregorio was confined in Francisco in favor of the defendants; "4. The counterclaim of defendants-
a hospital in 1990, he confided to his "b) affirming the validity of the Transfer appellees is dismissed for lack of merit.
daughter Aida that the certificates of title Certificates of Title No. T-59.585 (Exh. "I") "Costs of suit against said defendants-
of his property were in the possession of issued to defendant Regina Francisco and appellees." 9
Regina Francisco and Zenaida Pascual. No. T-59.386 (Exh. "H") issued to Hence, this petition.10
After Gregorio died on July 20, 1990,3 Aida defendant Zenaida Pascual; and The main issue raised is whether the
inquired about the certificates of title from "c) dismissing the complaint as well as the Supreme Court may review the factual
her half sisters. They informed her that defendants' counterclaim for damages and findings of the appellate court. The
Gregorio had sold the land to them on attorney's fees for lack of merit." 6 jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought
before it from the Court of Appeals under three years was P9,000.00, and she earned According to Article 888, Civil Code:
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is P50.00 a night at the club.16 "The legitime of legitimate children and
limited to review of pure errors of law. It is Regina Francisco, on the other hand, was a descendants consists of one-half of the
not the function of this Court to analyze or market vendor, selling nilugaw, earning a hereditary estate of the father and of the
weigh evidence all over again, unless there net income of P300.00 a day in 1983. She mother.
is a showing that the findings of the lower bought the property from the deceased for "The latter may freely dispose of the
court are totally devoid of support or are P15,000.00.17 She had no other source of remaining half subject to the rights of
glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave income. illegitimate children and of the surviving
abuse of discretion.11 We find it incredible that engaging in buy spouse as hereinafter provided."
The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and sell could raise the amount of Gregorio Francisco did not own any other
supported by substantial evidence are P10,000.00, or that earnings in selling goto property. If indeed the parcels of land
conclusive and binding on the parties and could save enough to pay P15,000.00, in involved were the only property left by
are not reviewable by this Court,12 unless cash for the land. their father, the sale in fact would deprive
the case falls under any of the recognized The testimonies of petitioners were respondent of her share in her father's
exceptions to the rule.13 incredible considering their inconsistent estate. By law, she is entitled to half of the
Petitioner has failed to prove that the case statements as to whether there was estate of her father as his only legitimate
falls within the exceptions.14 consideration for the sale and also as to child.21
We affirm the decision of the Court of whether the property was bought below or The legal heirs of the late Gregorio
Appeals because: above its supposed market value. They Francisco must be determined in proper
First: The kasulatan was simulated. There could not even present a single witness to testate or intestate proceedings for
was no consideration for the contract of the kasulatan that would prove receipt of settlement of the estate. His compulsory
sale. Felicitas de la Cruz, a family friend of the purchase price. heir can not be deprived of her share in the
the Franciscos, testified that Zenaida Since there was no cause or consideration estate save by disinheritance as prescribed
Pascual and Regina Francisco did not have for the sale, the same was a simulation and by law.22
any source of income in 1983, when they hence, null and void.18 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
bought the property, until the time when Second: Even if the kasulatan was not DENIED. The decision of the Court of
Felicitas testified in 1991.15 simulated, it still violated the Civil Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 48545 is
As proof of income, however, Zenaida Code19 provisions insofar as the transaction AFFIRMED, in toto.
Pascual testified that she was engaged in affected respondent's legitime. The sale No costs.
operating a canteen, working as cashier in was executed in 1983, when the applicable SO ORDERED.
Mayon Night Club as well as buying and law was the Civil Code, not the Family
selling RTW (Ready to Wear) items in Code.
August of 1983 and prior thereto. Obviously, the sale was Gregorio's way to
Zenaida alleged that she paid her father transfer the property to his illegitimate
the amount of P10,000.00. She did not daughters20 at the expense of his
withdraw money from her bank account at legitimate daughter. The sale was executed
the Rural Bank of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to to prevent respondent Alfonso from
pay for the property. She had personal claiming her legitime and rightful share in
savings other than those deposited in the said property. Before his death, Gregorio
bank. Her gross earnings from the RTW for had a change of heart and informed his
daughter about the titles to the property.
G.R. No. L-29901 August 31, 1977 the sum of P8,000.00 in favor of Jose Frias praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of
IGNACIO FRIAS CHUA, DOMINADOR Chua's widow, Consolacion de la Torre, the Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to
CHUA and REMEDIOS CHUA, petitioners, other half of Lot No. 399 in favor of Juanito Juanito Frias but which passed to
vs. Frias Chua, his son in the second marriage; Consolacion de la Torre upon the latter's
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF P3,000.00 in favor of Lorenze Frias chua; death, be declaredas a reservable property
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH V and and P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio Frias, for the reason that the lot in questionn was
SUSANA DE LA TORRE, in her capacity Chua, his sons of the first marriage. By subject to reserval troncal pursuant to
as Administratrix of the Intestate virtue of said adjudication, Transfer Article 981 of the New Civil Code, Private
Estate of Consolacion de la Certificate of Title No. TR-980 respondent as administratrix of the estate
Torre, respondents. (14483) dated April 28, 1932 was issued
2
of individually the complaint of petitioners 4
Dominador G. Abaria and Primitivo Blanca by the Register of Deeds in the names of On July 29, 1986, the respondent Court
for private respondent. Consolacion de la Torre and Juanito Frias rendered a decision dismissing the
Rodrigo O. Delfinado for petitioners. Chua as owners pro-indiviso of Lot No. 399. complaint of petitioner. Hence this instant.
On February 27, 1952, Juanito Frias Chua The pertinent provision of reserva
MARTIN, J.: of the second marriage died intestate troncal under the New Civil Code provides:
Petition for review of the decision of the without any issue. After his death, his ART. 891. The ascendant who inheritts
respondent Court which dismissed the mother Consolacion de la Torre succeeded from his descendant any property which
complaint of petitioners in Civil Case No. to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. In the latter may have acquired by gratuitous
7839-A, entitled "Ignacio Frias Chua, et al. a week's time or on March 6, 1952, title from another ascendat, or a brother or
vs. Susana de la Torre, Administratrix of Consolacion de la Torre executed a sister, is obliged to reserve such property
the Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la declaration of heirship adjudicating in her as he may have acquired by operation of
Torre" favor the pro-indiviso share of her son law for the benefit of relatives who are
It appears that in the first marriage of Jose Juanito as a result of which Transfer within the third degree and belong to the
Frias Chua with Patricia S. Militar alias Sy Certificate of Title No. 31796 covering the line from which said property came.
Quio he sired three children, namely: whole Lot No. 399 was issued in her name. Persuant to the foregoing provision, in
Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel, all surnamed Then on March 5, 1966, Consolacion de la order that a property may be impressed
Frias Chua. When Patricia S. Militar died, Torre died intestate leaving no direct heir with a reservable character the following
Jose Frias Chua contracted a second either in the descending or ascending line requisites must exist, to wit: (1) that the
marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with except her brother and sisters. property was acquired by a descendant
whom he had a child by the name of In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de from an asscendant or from a brother or
Juanita Frias Chua. Manuel Frias Chua died la Torre", docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 7839- sister by gratuitous title; (2) that said
without leaving any issue. Then in 1929, A, the petitioners herein, Ignacio Frias descendant died without an issue; (3) that
Jose Frias Chua died intestate leaving his Chua, of the first marriage and dominador the property is inherited by another
widow Consolacion de la Torre and his son and Remedios Chua, the supposed ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that
Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo there are relatives within the third degree
and sons Ignacio Frias Chua and Lorenzo Frias Chua, also of the first marriage filed belonging to the line from which said
Frias Chua of his first marriage. In the complaint a quo 3 (subseqently property came. 5 In the case before Us, all
Intestate Proceeding No. 4816, the lower segregated as a distinct suit and docketed of the foregoing requisites are present.
court issued an order dated January 15, as Civil Case No. 7839-A) on May 11, 1966 Thus, as borne out by the records, Juanoito
1931 1 adjudicating, among others, the before the respondent Court of First Frias Chua of the second marriage died
one-half (1/2,) portion of Lot No. 399 and Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, intestate in 1952; he died withour leaving
any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of gratuitously, or by an act of mere liberality la Torre and Juanito Frias Chua not
Lot No. 399 was acquired by his mother, of the person making it, without imposing personally by the deceased Jose Frias Chua
Consolacion de la Torre died, Juannnito any obligation on the part of the recipient; in his last will and testament but by an
Frias Chua who died intestate had relatives and that the person receiving the property order of the court in the Testate Proceeding
within the third degree. These relatives are gives or does nothing in return; or, as ably No.4816 dated January 15, 1931. As long
Ignacio Frias Chua and Dominador Chua put by an eminent Filipino as the transmission of the property to the
and Remidios Chua, the suppose legitimate commentator, "the essential thing is that
6
heirs is free from any condition imposed by
children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias the person who transmits it does so the deceased himself and the property is
Chua, who are the petitioners herein. gratuitously, from pure generosity, without given out of pure generosity, itg is
The crux of the problem in instant petition requiring from the transferee any gratuitous. it does not matter if later the
is focused on the first requisit of reserva prestation." It is evident from the record court orders one of the heirs, in this case
troncal — whether the property in question that the transmission of the property in Juanito Frias Chua, to pay the Standare oil
was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from question to Juanito Frias Chua of the co. of New York the amount of P3,971.20.
his father Jose Frias Chua, gratuitously or second marriage upon the death of his This does not change the gratuitous nature
not. In resolving this point, the respondent father Jose Frias Chua was by means of a of the transmission of the property to him.
Court said: hereditary succession and therefore This being the case the lot in question is
It appears from Exh. "3", which is part of gratuitous. It is true that there is the order subject to reserva troncal under Art, 891 of
Exh. "D", that the property in question was (Exh. "D") of the probate Court in Intestate the New Civil Code.
not acquired by Consolacion de la Torre and Proceeding No. 4816 which estates in It is contented that the distribution of the
Juanito Frias Chua gratuitously but for a express terms; shares of the estate of Jose Frias Chua to
consideration, namely, that the legatees 2. — Se adjudicada pro el presente a favor the respondent heirs or legatees was
were to pay the interest and cost and other de Consolacion de la Torre, viuda, mayor agreed upon by the heirs in their project of
fees resulting from Civil Case No. 5300 of de edad, y de su hiju, Juanito Frias Chua, partition based on the last will and
this Court. As such it is undeniable that the menor de edad, todos residente de San testament of Jose Frias Chua. But
lot in question is not subject tot a reserva Enrique, Negros Occidental, I.F.,como petitioners claim that the supposed Last
troncal, under Art. 891 of the New Civil herederos del finado Jose Frias Chua Choo, Will and Testament of Jose Frias Chua
Code, and as such the plaintiff's complaint estas propiadades: was never probated. The fact that the will
must fail. 14483 was not probated was admitted in
We are not prepared to sustain the La parcela de terrenno concida por Lote No. paragraph 6 of the respondents'
respondent Court's conclusion that the lot 399 del Catsatro de la Carlota, Negros answer. 7 There is nothing mentioned in
in question is not subject to a reserva Occidental, de 191.954 metros the decision of the trial court in Civil Case
troncal under Art. 891 of the New Civil cuadddrados y cubierto por el Certificado No. 7839 A which is the subject of the
Code. It is, As explained by Manresa which de Titulo No. 11759, en partes equales pro- present appeal nor in the order of January
this Court quoted with approval in Cabardo indiviso; por con la obligscion de pagar a 15, 1931 of the trial court in the Testate
v. Villanueva, 44 Phil. 186, "The las Standard Oil Co. of New York la deuda Estate Proceeding No. 4816 nor in the
transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous de P3971.20, sus intereses, costas y private respondent's brief, that the Last
title when the recipient does not give demas gastos resultantes del asunto civil Will and Testament of Jose Frias Chua
anything in return." It matters not whether No. 5300de este jusgado has ever been probated. With the
the property transmitted be or be not But the obligation of paying the Standard foregoing, it is easy to deduce that if the
subject to any prior charges; what is Oil Co. of New York the amount of Last Will and Testament has in fact been
essential is that the transmission be made P3,971.20 is imposed upon Consolacion de probated there would have been no need
for the testamentary heirs to prepare a covering Lot No. 399 issued in the name of
project of partition among themselves. The Consolacion de la Torre and to issue a new
very will itself could be made the basis for Certificate of Title in the names of
the adjudication of the estate as in fact Consolacion de la Torre, 1/2 undivided
they did in their project of partition with portion; Ignacio Frias Chua, 1/4 undivided
Juanito Frias Chua getting one-half of Lot portion; and Dominador Chua and
399 by inheritance as a sone of the Remedios Chua, 1/4 undivided portion, of
deceased Jose Frias Chua by the latter's said lot. Without pronouncement as to
second marriage. costs.
According to the record, Juanito Frias Chua SO ORDERED.
died on February 27, 1952 without any
issue. After his death his mother
Consolation de la Torre succeeded to his
one-half pro-indiviso share of Lot 399. This
was, however, subject to the condition that
the property was reservable in character
under Art. 891 of the Civil Code in favor of
relatives within the third degree of Jose
Frias Chua from whom the property came.
These relatives are the petitioner herein.
It is claimed that the complaint of
petitioners to recover the one-half portion
of Lot 399 which originally belonged to
Juanito Frias Chua has already prescribed
when it was filed on May 11, 1966. We do
not believe so. It must be remembered 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.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
appealed from is hereby set aside. The
petitioners Ignacio Frias Chua, Dominador
Chua and Remedios Chua are declared
owners of 1/2 undivided portion of Lot 399;
and the Register of Deeds of Negros
Occidental is hereby ordered to cancel.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31796
G.R. No. L-12957 March 24, instrument of sale in favor of the spouses Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino
1961 Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes, the said Yaeso. With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he
CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL., plaintiffs- sale having been registered together with had four children named Agaton, Fernando,
appellants, an affidavit of adjudication executed by Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second
vs. Paulina and Cipriana on July 18, 1951, as wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son
FIDEL ESPARCIA, ET AL., defendants- sole surviving heirs of the aforesaid named Francisco. According to the
appellees. deceased; that since then the Esparcias cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the
Proceso R. Remollo for plaintiffs- had been in possession of the property as properties left by Saturnino upon his death
appellants. owners. — the date of which does not clearly appear
Leonardo D. Mancao for defendants- After trial upon the issues thus joined, the of record — were left to his children as
appellees. lower court rendered judgment as follows: follows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to
DIZON, J.: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, Fernando, Lot 3375 to Agaton, Lot 3377
Appellants commenced this action below to judgment is hereby rendered declaring (1) (southern portion) to Paulina, and Lot 3368
secure judgment (1) declaring null and void that the sale of Lot No. 3368 made by (western portion) to Francisco. As a result
the sale executed by Paulina and Cipriana Andrea Gutang to the plaintiff spouses of the cadastral proceedings, Original
Yaeso in favor of appellees, the spouses Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay is Certificate of Title No. 10275 covering Lot
Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes; (2) void, and the reconveyance prayed for by 3368 was issued in the name of Francisco.
ordering the Esparcia spouses to reconvey them is denied; (2) that the sale made by Because Francisco was a minor at the time,
to appellants Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of his mother administered the property for
Survey of Ayuquitan (now Amlan), Oriental defendants Fidel Esparcia and Paulina him, declared it in her name for taxation
Negros; and (3) ordering all the appellees Sienes involving the same lot is also void, purposes (Exhs A & A-1), and paid the
to pay, jointly and severally, to appellants and they have no valid title thereto; and taxes due thereon (Exhs. B, C, C-1 & C-2).
the sum of P500.00 as damages, plus the (3) that the reservable property in question When Francisco died on May 29, 1932 at
costs of suit. In their answer appellees is part of and must be reverted to the the age of 20, single and without any
disclaimed any knowledge or information estate of Cipriana Yaeso, the lone surviving descendant, his mother, as his sole heir,
regarding the sale allegedly made on April relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso at the executed the public instrument Exhibit F
20, 1951 by Andrea Gutang in favor of death of Andrea Gutang as of December entitled EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND
appellants and alleged that, if such sale 13, 1951. No pronouncement as to the SALE whereby, among other things, for and
was made, the same was void on the costs. in consideration of the sum of P800.00 she
ground that Andrea Gutang had no right to From the above decision the Sienes spouse sold the property in question to appellants.
dispose of the property subject matter interposed the present appeal, their When thereafter said vendees demanded
thereof. They further alleged that said principal contentions being, firstly, that the from Paulina Yaeso and her husband Jose
property had never been in possession of lower court erred in holding that Lot 3368 Esparcia, the surrender of Original
appellants, the truth being that appellees, of the Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan was a Certificate of Title No. 10275 — which was
as owners, had been in continuous reservable property; secondly, in annulling in their possession — the latter refused,
possession thereof since the death of the sale of said lot executed by Andrea thus giving rise to the filing of the
Francisco Yaeso. By way of affirmative Gutang in their favor; and lastly, in holding corresponding motion in the cadastral
defense and counterclaim, they further that Cipriana Yaeso, as reservee, was record No. 507. The same, however, was
alleged that on July 30, 1951, Paulina and entitled to inherit said land. denied (Exhs. 8 & 9).
Cipriana Yaeso, as the only surviving heirs There is no dispute as to the following Thereafter, or more specifically, on July 30,
of Francisco Yaeso, executed a public facts: 1951, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the
surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who that he may alienate the same but subject Gutang, the person obliged to reserve,
as such had declared the property in their to reservation, said alienation transmitting died. Thus the former became the absolute
name, on January 1, 1951 executed a deed only the revocable and conditional owner of the reservable property upon
of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel ownership of the reservists, the rights Andrea's death. While it may be true that
Esparcia and Paulina Sienes (Exh. 2) who, acquired by the transferee being revoked the sale made by her and her sister prior to
in turn, declared it in their name for tax or resolved by the survival of reservatarios this event, became effective because of the
purposes and thereafter secured the at the time of the death of the reservista occurrence of the resolutory condition, we
issuance in their name of Transfer (Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295; Lunsod are not now in a position to reverse the
Certificate of Title No. T-2141 (Exhs. 5 & 5- vs. Ortega, 46 Phil. 664; Florentino vs. appealed decision, in so far as it orders the
A). Florentino, 40 Phil. 480; and Director of reversion of the property in question to the
As held by the trial court, it is clear upon Lands vs. Aguas, 65 Phil. 279). Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the
the facts already stated, that the land in The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor vendees — the Esparcia spouses did — not
question was reservable property. of appellees was, therefore, subject to the appeal therefrom.
Francisco Yaeso inherited it by operation of condition that the vendees would definitely WHEREFORE, the appealed decision — as
law from his father Saturnino, and upon acquire ownership, by virtue of the above modified — is affirmed, with costs,
Francisco's death, unmarried and without alienation, only if the vendor died without and without prejudice to whatever action in
descendants, it was inherited, in turn, by being survived by any person entitled to equity the Esparcia spouses may have
his mother, Andrea Gutang. The latter was, the reservable property. Inasmuch much against the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso for the
therefore, under obligation to reserve it for as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana reconveyance of the property in question.
the benefit of relatives within the third Yaeso was still alive, the conclusion
degree belonging to the line from which becomes inescapable that the previous sale
said property came, if any survived her. made by the former in favor of appellants
The record discloses in this connection that became of no legal effect and the
Andrea Gutang died on December 13, reservable property subject matter thereof
1951, the lone reservee surviving her being passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January On the other hand, it is also clear that the
13, 1952 (Exh. 10). sale executed by the sisters Paulina and
In connection with reservable property, the Cipriana Yaeso in favor of the spouses Fidel
weight of opinion is that the reserve Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to
creates two resolutory conditions, namely, a similar resolutory condition. The reserve
(1) the death of the ascendant obliged to instituted by law in favor of the heirs within
reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of the third degree belonging to the line from
his death, of relatives within the third which the reservable property came,
degree belonging to the line from which the constitutes a real right which the reservee
property came (6 Manresa 268-269; 6 may alienate and dispose of, albeit
Sanchez Roman 1934). This Court has held conditionally, the condition being that the
in connection with this matter that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the
reservista has the legal title and dominion vendee only if and when the reservee
to the reservable property but subject to a survives the person obliged to reserve. In
resolutory condition; that he is like a life the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of
usufructuary of the reservable property; the reservees, was still alive when Andrea
G.R. No. 176422 March 20, B, on the other hand, is also in the name of it was only Exequiel who was in possession
2013 respondent but co-owned by Victoria of the properties.6
MARIA MENDOZA, in her own capacity Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
and as Attorney-in-fact of property from petitioner Maria Mendoza Bulacan, Branch 6, found merit in
DEOGRACIAS, MARCELA, DIONISIA, and her siblings. petitioners’ claim and granted their action
ADORA CION, all surnamed MENDOZA, Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido for Recovery of Possession by Reserva
REMEDIOS MONTILLA, FELY Mendoza (Placido) and Dominga Mendoza Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and
BAUTISTA, JULIANA GUILALAS and (Dominga). Placido and Dominga had four Reconveyance. In its Decision dated
ELVIRA MENDOZA, Petitioners, children: Antonio, Exequiel, married to November 4, 2002, the RTC disposed as
vs. Leonor, Apolonio and Valentin. Petitioners follows:
JULIA POLl CARPIO DELOS SANTOS, Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia, Adoracion, WHEREFORE, premised from the foregoing
substituted by her heirs, CARMEN P. Marcela and Ricardo are the children of judgment is hereby rendered:
DELOS SANTOS, ROSA BUENA Antonio. Petitioners Juliana, Fely, 1. Ordering respondents (heirs of Julia
VENTURA, ZENAIDA P. DELOS SANTOS Mercedes, Elvira and Fortunato, on the Policarpio) to reconvey the three (3)
VDA. DE MATEO, LEONILA P. DELOS other hand, are Valentin’s children. parcels of land subject of this action in the
SANTOS, ELVIRA P. DELOS SANTOS Petitioners alleged that the properties were name of the plaintiffs enumerated in the
VDA. DE JOSE, TERESITA P. DELOS part of Placido and Dominga’s properties complaint including intervenor Maria
SANTOS-CABUHAT, MERCEDITA P. that were subject of an oral partition and Cecilia M. Mendoza except one-half of the
DELOS SANTOS, LYDIA P. DELOS subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. After property described in the old title, TCT No.
SANTOS VDA. DE HILARIO, PERFECTO Exequiel’s death, it passed on to his spouse T-124852(M) which belongs to Victorina
P. DELOS SANTOS, JR., and CECILIA M. Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After Pantaleon;
MENDOZA, Respondents. Leonor’s death, her share went to Gregoria. 2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of
DECISION In 1992, Gregoria died intestate and Bulacan to cancel the titles in the name of
REYES, J.: without issue. They claimed that after Julia Policarpio, TCT No. T-149033(M), T-
Reserva troncal is a special rule designed Gregoria’s death, respondent, who is 183631(M) and T-149035(M) and reconvey
primarily to assure the return of a Leonor’s sister, adjudicated unto herself all the same to the enumerated plaintiffs; and
reservable property to the third degree these properties as the sole surviving heir 3. No pronouncement as to claims for
relatives belonging to the line from which of Leonor and Gregoria. Hence, petitioners attorney’s fees and damages and costs.
the property originally came, and avoid its claim that the properties should have been SO ORDERED.7
being dissipated into and by the relatives reserved by respondent in their behalf and On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
of the inheriting ascendant.1 must now revert back to them, applying reversed and set aside the RTC decision
The Facts Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva and dismissed the complaint filed by
The properties subject in the instant case troncal. petitioners. The dispositive portion of the
are three parcels of land located in Sta. Respondent, however, denies any CA Decision dated November 16, 2006
Maria, Bulacan: (1) Lot 1681-B, with an obligation to reserve the properties as provides:
area of 7,749 square meters;2 (2) Lot these did not originate from petitioners’ WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
1684, with an area of 5,667 sq m;3 and (3) familial line and were not originally owned November 4, 2002 Decision of the Regional
Lot No. 1646-B, with an area of 880 sq by Placido and Dominga. According to Trial Court, Br. 6, Third Judicial Region,
m.4 Lot Nos. 1681-B and 1684 are respondent, the properties were bought by Malolos, Bulacan, is REVERSED and SET
presently in the name of respondent Julia Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso ASIDE. The Third Amended Complaint in
Delos Santos5 (respondent). Lot No. 1646- Ramos in 1931. It appears, however, that Civil Case No. 609-M-92 is hereby
DISMISSED. Costs against the Plaintiffs- Ruling of the Court who must be relatives within the third
Appellants. This petition is one for review on certiorari degree from which the property came.15
SO ORDERED.8 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The The lineal character of the
Petitioners filed a motion for general rule in this regard is that it should reservable property is reckoned
reconsideration but the CA denied the raise only questions of law. There are, from the ascendant from whom the
same per Resolution9 dated January 17, however, admitted exceptions to this rule, prepositus received the property by
2007. one of which is when the CA’s findings are gratuitous title
In dismissing the complaint, the CA ruled contrary to those of the trial court.14 This Based on the circumstances of the present
that petitioners failed to establish that being the case in the petition at hand, the case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not
Placido and Dominga owned the properties Court must now look into the differing applicable.
in dispute.10 The CA also ruled that even findings and conclusion of the RTC and the
assuming that Placido and Dominga CA on the two issues that arise – one,
previously owned the properties, it still whether the properties in dispute are
cannot be subject to reserva troncal as reservable properties and two, whether
neither Exequiel predeceased Placido and petitioners are entitled to a reservation of
Dominga nor did Gregoria predecease these properties.
Exequiel.11 Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva
Now before the Court, petitioners argue troncal
that: The principle of reserva troncal is provided
A. in Article 891 of the Civil Code:
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT his descendant any property which the
PROPERTIES ARE NOT RESERVABLE latter may have acquired by gratuitous title
PROPERTIES, COMING AS THEY DO FROM from another ascendant, or a brother or
THE FAMILY LINE OF THE PETITIONERS sister, is obliged to reserve such property
MENDOZAS. as he may have acquired by operation of
B. law for the benefit of relatives who are
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY within the third degree and belong to the
The fallacy in the CA’s resolution is that it
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE line from which said property came.
proceeded from the erroneous premise that
PETITIONERS MENDOZAS DO NOT HAVE A (Emphasis ours)
Placido is the ascendant contemplated in
RIGHT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BY There are three (3) lines of transmission in
Article 891 of the Civil Code. From thence,
VIRTUE OF THE LAW ON RESERVA reserva troncal. The first transmission is by
it sought to trace the origin of the subject
TRONCAL.12 gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or
properties back to Placido and Dominga,
Petitioners take exception to the ruling of donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister
determine whether Exequiel predeceased
the CA, contending that it is sufficient that to a descendant called the prepositus. The
Placido and whether Gregoria predeceased
the properties came from the paternal line second transmission is by operation of law
Exequiel.
of Gregoria for it to be subject to reserva from the prepositus to the other ascendant
The persons involved in reserva troncal
troncal. They also claim the properties in or reservor, also called the reservista. The
are:
representation of their own predecessors, third and last transmission is from the
Antonio and Valentin, who were the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios
brothers of Exequiel.13
(1) The ascendant or brother or sister from were owned by Exequiel (ascendant). After computation is made. In the case of Julia’s
whom the property was received by the his death, Gregoria collateral relationship with Gregoria, ascent
descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title; (descendant/prepositus) acquired the is to be made from Gregoria to her mother
(2) The descendant or prepositus properties as inheritance. Leonor (one line/degree), then to the
(propositus) who received the property; Ascendants, descendants and common ancestor, that is, Julia and
(3) The reservor (reservista), the other collateral relatives under Article Leonor’s parents (second line/degree), and
ascendant who obtained the property from 964 of the Civil Code then descent to Julia, her aunt (third
the prepositus by operation of law; and Article 891 provides that the person obliged line/degree). Thus, Julia is Gregoria’s
(4) The reservee (reservatario) who is to reserve the property should be an collateral relative within the third degree
within the third degree from the prepositus ascendant (also known as the and not her ascendant.
and who belongs to the (linea o tronco) reservor/reservista) of the First cousins of the
from which the property came and for descendant/prepositus. Julia, however, is descendant/prepositus are fourth
whom the property should be reserved by not Gregoria’s ascendant; rather, she is degree relatives and cannot be
the reservor.16 Gregoria’s collateral relative. considered reservees/reservatarios
It should be pointed out that the ownership Article 964 of the Civil Code provides for Moreover, petitioners cannot be considered
of the properties should be reckoned only the series of degrees among ascendants reservees/reservatarios as they are not
from Exequiel’s as he is the ascendant from and descendants, and those who are not relatives within the third degree of
where the first transmission occurred, or ascendants and descendants but come Gregoria from whom the properties came.
from whom Gregoria inherited the from a common ancestor, viz: The person from whom the degree should
properties in dispute. The law does not go Art. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, be reckoned is the
farther than such ascendant/brother/sister which may be either direct or descendant/prepositus―the one at the end
in determining the lineal character of the collateral.1âwphi1 A direct line is that of the line from which the property came
property.17 It was also immaterial for the constituted by the series of degrees among and upon whom the property last revolved
CA to determine whether Exequiel ascendants and descendants. by descent.19 It is Gregoria in this case.
predeceased Placido and Dominga or A collateral line is that constituted by the Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth degree
whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel. series of degrees among persons who are relatives, being her first cousins. First
What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned not ascendants and descendants, but who cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree
the properties and he is the ascendant from come from a common ancestor. (Emphasis relatives and are not reservees or
whom the properties in dispute originally and italics ours) reservatarios.20
came. Gregoria, on the other hand, is the Gregoria’s ascendants are her parents, They cannot even claim representation of
descendant who received the properties Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents, their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as
from Exequiel by gratuitous title. great-grandparents and so on. On the Article 891 grants a personal right of
Moreover, Article 891 simply requires that other hand, Gregoria’s descendants, if she reservation only to the relatives up to the
the property should have been acquired by had one, would be her children, third degree from whom the reservable
the descendant or prepositus from an grandchildren and great-grandchildren. properties came. The only recognized
ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. A Not being Gregoria’s ascendants, both exemption is in the case of nephews and
transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her nieces of the prepositus, who have the
title when the recipient does not give collateral relatives. In determining the right to represent their ascendants (fathers
anything in return.18 At risk of being collateral line of relationship, ascent is and mothers) who are the brothers/sisters
repetitious, what was clearly established in made to the common ancestor and then of the prepositus and relatives within the
this case is that the properties in dispute descent to the relative from whom the
third degree.21 In Florentino v. Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree. to petitioners and the transfer of the titles
Florentino,22 the Court stated: Hence, the CA’s disposition that the in their names. What the RTC should have
Following the order prescribed by law in complaint filed with the RTC should be done, assuming for argument’s sake that
legitimate succession, when there are dismissed, only on this point, is correct. If reserva troncal is applicable, is have the
relatives of the descendant within the third at all, what should apply in the distribution reservable nature of the property
degree, the right of the nearest relative, of Gregoria’s estate are Articles 1003 and registered on respondent’s titles. In fact,
called reservatario, over the property 1009 of the Civil Code, which provide: respondent, as reservista, has the duty to
which the reservista (person holding it Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, reserve and to annotate the reservable
subject to reservation) should return to ascendants, illegitimate children, or a character of the property on the title.24 In
him, excludes that of the one more remote. surviving spouse, the collateral relatives reserva troncal, the reservista who inherits
The right of representation cannot be shall succeed to the entire estate of the from a prepositus, whether by the latter’s
alleged when the one claiming same as a deceased in accordance with the following wish or by operation of law, acquires the
reservatario of the reservable property is articles. inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
not among the relatives within the third Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers transferring absolute ownership. All the
degree belong to the line from which such nor sisters, nor children of brothers or attributes of ownership belong to him
property came, inasmuch as the right sisters, the other collateral relatives shall exclusively.25
granted by the Civil Code in Article 811 now succeed to the estate. The reservor has the legal title and
Article 891 is in the highest degree The latter shall succeed without distinction dominion to the reservable property but
personal and for the exclusive benefit of of lines or preference among them by subject to the resolutory condition that
the designated persons who are the reason of relationship by the whole blood. such title is extinguished if the reservor
relatives, within the third degree, of the Nevertheless, the Court is not in the proper predeceased the reservee. The reservor is
person from whom the reservable property position to determine the proper a usufructuary of the reservable property.
came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth distribution of Gregoria’s estate at this He may alienate it subject to the
and the succeeding degrees can never be point as the cause of action relied upon by reservation. The transferee gets the
considered as reservatarios, since the law petitioners in their complaint filed with the revocable and conditional ownership of the
does not recognize them as such. RTC is based solely on reserva troncal. reservor. The transferee’s rights are
x x x Nevertheless there is right of Further, any determination would revoked upon the survival of the reservees
representation on the part of reservatarios necessarily entail reception of evidence on at the time of the death of the reservor but
who are within the third degree mentioned Gregoria’s entire estate and the heirs become indefeasible when the reservees
by law, as in the case of nephews of the entitled thereto, which is best predecease the reservor.26 (Citations
deceased person from whom the accomplished in an action filed specifically omitted)
reservable property came. x x for that purpose. It is when the reservation takes place or is
x.23 (Emphasis and underscoring ours) A reservista acquires ownership of extinguished,27 that a reservatario
The conclusion, therefore, is that while it the reservable property until the becomes, by operation of law, the owner of
may appear that the properties are reservation takes place or is the reservable property.28 In any event,
reservable in character, petitioners cannot extinguished the foregoing discussion does not detract
benefit from reserva troncal. First, because Before concluding, the Court takes note of from the fact that petitioners are not
Julia, who now holds the properties in a palpable error in the RTC’s disposition of entitled to a reservation of the properties
dispute, is not the other ascendant within the case. In upholding the right of in dispute.
the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code petitioners over the properties, the RTC WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
and second, because petitioners are not ordered the reconveyance of the properties Decision dated November 16, 2006 and
Resolution dated January 17, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77694
insofar as it dismissed the Third Amended
Complaint in Civil Case No. 609-M-92 are
AFFIRMED. This Decision is without
prejudice to any civil action that the heirs
of Gregoria
Mendoza may file for the settlement of her
estate or for the determination of
ownership of the properties in question.
SO ORDERED.