Reserva Troncal Legitime Case

Nuguid vs. Nuguid

17 SCRA 449 June 23, 1966
J. Sanchez:
FACTS:

Felix = Paz
=H

Preterition consists in the omission in the ORs will of the forced heirs or
anyone of them, whether because they are not mentioned therein or though
mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.
Disinheritance in turn, is a testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.
The former is presumed to be involuntary, while the latter is always
voluntary. Preterition shall annul the institution of heir with the exception of
the devises and legacies. In ineffective disinheritance, such shall annul the
institution of heirs but only insofar as it may prejudice the person
disinherited.

Rosario Nuguid Remedios Other brothers and sisters

CASE NO. 68
Rosario died without descendants. She was survived by parents and 6
siblings. Remedios, a siter, filed for the probate of the H will of Rosario,
executed some 11 years before her death. The parents opposed alleging that
the institution of Remedios as universal heir would illegally preterited them
as compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line and therefore, said
institution is void.
CFI: null and void
HELD: Affirmed. In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the courts area of
inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic
validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testamentary capacity and
the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.
However, where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of
the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the Court should meet the
issue.

Neri v. Akutin
72 Phil 323; June 3, 1934
J. Moran:
FACTS:

AGRIPINO Neri died on December 12, 1931.

During his 1 st

marriage, he had six children: Agripino, Agapito, Eleuterio, Rosario, Celerina

and Getulia who predeceased him eight years ago and was survived by seven
children.

During his second marriage with Ignacia Akutin, he had five

children.
His will was admitted for probate. He willed that his children by the first
marriage shall have no longer any participation in his estate as they had
already received their shares during his lifetime. TC found to the contrary,

Where the deceased left no descendants, but she left forced heirs in the direct
ascending line her parents, and her H will does not explicitly disinherit
them but simply omits their names, the case is one of Preterition and not a
case of ineffective disinheritance since there is no specific legacies or bequest.

excluding Eleuterio. Thus TC declared children by the 1 st and 2nd marriage as

intestate heirs without prejudice to the of the improvements introduced as
conjugal which should belong to Ignacia. CA: modified; as to the 2/3 which
could be freely disposed of.

HELD: TC- affirmed.

given to the children of the 1st marriage. And since the testator left all his

The CA misapplied Art. 851. Thus, the testator expressly denied them any

property by universal title to the children by his 2 nd marriage, and that

share but the denial was predicated not upon the desire to disinherit but

without expressly disinheriting the children by his 1 st marriage, this is a case

upon a mistaken belief that they had already received their share.

of preterion, hence, the institution of heirs should be annulled and intestate

succession should be declared open.

Preterion consists in the omission in the testators will of the forced heirs or
anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein or though

(2) Petitioners confused Preterion with those of diminishing the legitime

mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.

(Art. 817) and disinheritance without a statement of cause (Art. 851). Art.

In this case, while they are mentioned in the will, they are not accorded any

817 is merely a general rule inapplicable to specific cases provided by law,

share, without expressly disinheriting them. Also, there are no legacies or

such as Art. 814 and 851.

betterments as to fall to the exceptions.

PRETERION

DISINHERITANCE

Nullity of the institution of

Nullity is PARTIAL, in so far

heirs is TOTAL

only as that affects the legitime

CASE NO. 68
Neri v. Akutin

Of course, the annulment of institution of heirs in cases of Preterion is

74 Phil 185; May 21, 1943

subject to exceptions: in cases of preterion is subject to exceptions: in cases of

devices or legacies in so far as they are not innoficious or excessive. As to the

J. Moran:

argument that the bequest to the children by the 2nd marriage should be
treated as legacies and devices and not be entirely annulled but merely

FACTS: Agripino Neri [+] in his will left all his property by universal title to

reduced is without merit. If this theory would be adopted, it would result in

his children by the 2 marriage [herein petitioners] and that the sic children

the complete abrogation of Art. 814 and 851. if every case of institution of

of the 1 marriage are preterited. The TC and CA annulled the institution of

heirs may be made to fall into concepts of legacies and devices, Art. 814 and

heirs and declared total intestacy. Petitioners alleged that (1) there is no

851 would be absolutely meaningless. Thus, instead of construing we would

preterion as they have received their shares in the property left by the

be destroying the provisions of law.

nd

st

testator; (2) assuming that there is, it would only result to reduction of the
bequest made to them.
HELD: CA- affirmed
(1) As found by the TC and CA, since all the parcels that corresponded to the
testator are now in the administrators possession, as appears in the
inventory, the property has remained intact and that no portion had been

of the instruments alleging forgery and undue execution and the exclusion of
the retardate sister Delia which resulted in the latters preterition that should
CASE NO. 69

warrant the extrajudicial settlements annulment.

VIADO NON v. CA

CFI- for Res. Alicia CA- affirmed

GRN 137287, February 15, 2000

HELD: AFFIRMED
J. Vitug:

When Virginia died intestate in 1982, her part of the conjugal

property, was transferred to her heirs- her husband Julian and their children
+ Nov. 15, 85

+Oct. 20, 82

Julian Viado Virginia Viado

Nilo, Rebecca Leah, and Delia.

moment of the death of the decedent, remained under co-ownership regime

among the heirs under partition.

+
(Res.) Alicia Nilo

Every act intended to put an end to

indivision among co-heirs and legatees and devisees would be a partition

+
Leah

The inheritance, which vested from the

Rebecca

although it would purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, a

donation, or an extrajudicial settlement.

Delia
(Pet.)

The attack of the due execution of the two documents by petitioner

cannot be well taken as the evidence presented are wanting, consisting of

Cherri

Fe Fides
(Res.)

self-serving testimonies. And as to the contention that she signed the deed of
extrajudicial settlement on the mistaken belief that the instrument pertained
to the administration of properties is to tenuous to accept. It is difficult to

FACTS:

Spouses Julian and Virginia owned several pieces of property,

believe that Rebecca, a teacher could have made such mistaken belief.

among of which the Isarog property at La Loma, QC. Pet. and Res. since 1977

The exclusion of Delia, alleged to be retardate from the extrajudicial

shared a common residence at the property involved. Rebecca demanded to

settlement verily has had the effect of preterition. This kind of preterition,

divide equally the property, but Alicia claimed absolute ownership over it.

however, in the absence of proof of badfaith, does not justify a collateral

Hence pet, asserting co-ownership filed for a partition.

attack of the TCT. Remedy Art. 1104- preterited heir shall be paid the value
of the share pertaining to her. Hence, the case is remanded to the TC to

Res. claim of ownership is evidenced by two docs. (1) deed of donation

executed by Julian Viado, covering his conjugal share of the prop. in favor
of Nilo in Aug. 26, 1983 & (2) deed of extrajudicial settlement in which
Julian, Leah, and Rebecca waived in favor of Nilo the share from the property
inherited from Virginia dated on Aug. 26, 1983. Property was registered in
the name of the heirs of Nilo on Jan. 7, 1988. Petitioner attacked the validity

determine the amount due to petitioner.

HELD: AFFIRMED
CASE NO. 70

Requisites of Fideicommisary Substitution:

Perez v. Gachitorena

1) A first heir called primary to the enjoyment of the estate; (#9)

54 Phil 431; February 13, 1930

2) An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a

J. Romualdez:

third person the whole or part of the estate; (#10)

3) A second heir. (#10 and #11)

FACTS: Ana Maria Acantara (+) died single without any forced heir. She
left among others, a sum of money in deposit with La Urbana in the name of

Although clause #9 says, SOLE HEIR, it does not necessarily exclude the idea

Carmen de Perez, trustee of her estate. In her will, it contains the following

of substitute heirs. Taking all the three clauses together, Carmen is the sole

clauses:

heiress in the first instance.

9 - instituted Carmen Gachitorena, niece-in-law and married to Joaquin

th

Perez-Alcantara, as the sole and universal heiress to the remainder of the

estate after payment of all the debts and legacies, so that after probate of her

CASE NO. 71

will, she will receive from her executrix the property, that she may enjoy

Ramirez v. vda de Ramirez

them;

111 SCRA 704; Feb. 15, 1982

10 - should Carmen die, her whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her
th

surviving children (in such wise that my estate shall never pass unimpaired

J. Abad-Santos:

to my relatives;
11th- should Carmen die after her while her children are still minor, however

FACTS: Jose Eugenio Ramirez [+], a Filipino national died in Spain on Dec.

estate shall be administered by her executrix, Josefa Laplana.

11, 1964, with only his widow Marcelle Demoron [French] as compulsory
heir.

His will was admitted for probate.

The administratrix Ma. Luisa

Thereafter, Mariano Gachitorena held a judgment for payment of money

Palacios submitted a project of partition which state as follows: to widow

against Joaquin Alcantara. Sheriff levied an attachment on said amount

Marcelle Demoron as legitime and to Jorge and Robert Ramirez in which

deposit with La Urbana.

Plaintiff; secured for a preliminary injunction

1/3 of the same is subject to the widows usufruct (substitution in the person

alleged said deposit belongs to the Fideicommisary heirs of Ana Maria.

of Wanda de Wrobleski) and 2/3 of the same as usufruct in favor of Wanda

Defendant contends that plaintiff is a universal heiress.

de Wrobsleski, an Australian who live in Spain.

TC- deposit belongs to plaintiffs children as fideicommisary heirs, hence

cannot

be

attached.

Appellant:

Fideicommisary substitution.

simple

substitution.

Appelle:

Jorge and Robert opposed: (1) the provision on vulgar substitution in favor
of Wanda with respect to the widows usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, with respect to Wandas usufruct are

invalid because the first heir survived the testator; (2)

fideicommisary

substitution is also void because 1 heir is not related to 2 heir; (3) Art. III
st

nd

sec. 5. CFI approved the project of partition.

HELD: (1) As to the widows legitime: legitime is proper. But the 1/3
usufruct over the free portion should not be granted. The will contained such

CASE NO. 72

disposition, but her legitime was impaired by such disposition. So much so

Kilayco v. Tengco

that the legitime would be enough and give her more than her legitime will

GR No. 45965; March 27, 1992

run counter to the testators intention for as stated, his disposition even
impaired her legitime.

J. Romero:

(2) Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into

FACTS:

the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted- SIMPLE, BRIEF,

Eustaquia Lizares. Eustaquia filed a petition for the settlement of the estate

RECIPROCAL, and FIDEICOMMICARY.

of Maria.the required publication has been made and the CFI ordered the

ma. Lizares died leaving a will in the possession of her niece

probate of the will and appointed Eustaquia as executrix. The latter then
Dying before the testator is not the only case for VULGAR SUBSTITUTION

filed for a project of partition which was granted by the court and declared

for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as provision

the heirs, devises, legatees, and usufructuaries mentioned therein as the only

in Art. 859 hence, vulgar substitution is valid. As to the substitution with

heirs; adjudicated to them the property assigned to and every one of them

respect to 1/3 of the widow, moot, as the widow is not entitled to usufruct.

ordered the Register of Deed to effect the corresponding transfer of title, as

well as the corresponding transfer of shares, stocks and dividends.

Fideicommisary substitution is void.

The substitutes are not related to

Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 requires one degree from the

Thereafter, Eustaquia filed a motion to reopen in order that some of the

heir originally instituted, so its either parent or a child of the 1 heir.

property of Maria which had been omitted in the partition be adjudicated to

(3) What the 1935 Constitution prohibits is the vesting of the title to land in

her. This was granted and the court adjudicated to her certain shares of

favor of aliens.

stock, revolving funds certificate, plantation certificate, and sugar quota

st

- widows legitime

allocations and real/ personal properties which were not given by Maria in

- Roberto and Jorge- naked ownership. Wanda- usufruct with a

her last will and testament.

simple substitution in
favor of Juan Pablo and Horace.

Then, the heirs of Maria executed a deed of partition, thereby terminating

their co-ownership over four lots of the cadastral survey of Talisay.

Eustaquia died intestate. Herein petitioner, Celsa vda. de Kilayko [sister of

should die and a second heir also designated shall succeed, cannot be

Maria] et. al. filed a motion to reopen the estate of Maria alleging that

considered as fideicommisary since no obligation is imposed upon Eustaquia

paragraphs 10 and 11 of the will contains a simple substitution. This was

to preserve the same.

denied by the court and held that settlement of the estate being in rem, is

VULGAR or SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION under Art. 859 but it shall be effective

binding against the whole world.

only of the first heir dies before the testator. In this case, Eustaquia survived

likewise denied.

The motion for reconsideration was

Petitioners thereafter filed a complaint for recovery of

The substitution should them be construed as a

the testatrix, hence no substitution.

ownership and possession against the administrator Eustaquia- lis pendens.

unconditionally devolved upon Eustaquia.

The administrator of the estate of Eustaquia moved for dismissal alleging

CASE NO. 75

that the same was barred by prior judgment and for the cancellation of lis

Morente v. dela Santa

pendens. Granted.

9 Phil 387; December 19, 1907

Respondents alleged that claim of Celsa, Encarnacion and Remedios was

J. Willard:

Thus, the property involved

goundless because paragraph 10 and 11 where they base their claim conceived
of fideicommisary substitution.

Petitioners however allege that it is an

invalid fideicommisary substitution. It is only a conditional substitution.

FACTS: Consuelo Morente died leaving a will which states that (1) all her
real setate shall pass to her husband, Gremersindo dela Santa; (2) that the
husband shall not leave her brother after her death and not he shall not

HELD: Dismissed. In testate succession, there can be no valid partition

marry anyone; should he have children by anyone, he shall not convey any

among the heirs until after the will has been probated.

portion of the property except 1/3 thereof and 2/3 should be given to her
brother Vicente or his children if any; (3) after her death, husband should

The probate court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to distribute the estate has

live in which the bakery id located.

the power to determine the portion or parts to which each distribute is

entitled. A project of partition is merely a proposal which a court may accept

Four months after her death, Gremersindo married again. Elena Morente,

or reject. In this case, records shows that the property subject for recovery

sister of the testatrix filed a petition in the probate alleging 2 nd marriage of

were included in the partition as property and assigned exclusive to

Gremersindo and asked for the annulment of the legacy. The CFI denied the

Eustaquia as a devisee. In accordance with such project of partition, the heir

petition.

executed a deed of partition. The project of partition shows that the Lizares
sisters recognized the decree of partition and in fact reaped the fruits thereof.

HELD: Affirmed. Testamentary provision made conditional and prohibitive

They are therefore precluded from attacking the validity.

against another marriage may be valid against a widow or widower.

Assuming that they are not precluded or no res juridicata, paragraphs 10 and

Hewever, under the will of the testatrix, there are several directions given to

11, wherein the testator merely names an heir and provides that if such heir

the husband, but no one of these orders is attached that condition that he

fails to comply with them, he shall lose the legacy. It is only in one event-

whenever Basilia should die, but that the ownership belongs to Emilio.

having children- the disposition will change. The will should be construed

Basilica, though counsel, opposed claiming ownership over the legacy. CFI-

with reference to all the clauses and with reference to such surrounding

ownership and dominion should be given to Basilia, subject to reservation

circumstances. There being no express condition attached to the legacy in

mabe in behalf of Lorenzo and Emilio.

reference to the second marriage, there can be no implied condition from the
context of the will. In order to make a testamentary provision conditional,

HELD: Affirmed. A person is entirely free to make his will in such a manner

such condition must fairly appear from the language used in the will

as may best please him provided the testamentary provision conform to law
and meet its requirements. The testator may impose a condition in his will
touching either the institution of heirs or the designation of legatees. And

CASE NO. 73

when the condition imposed upon the latter do not fall with the provision of

Natividad v. Gabino

the articles of the CC relative to heirs and legatees, such conditions shall be

36 Phil 663; March 31, 1917

governed by the rules for conditional obligation.

J. Torres:

Double legacy: condition: depends upon the happening of the event

constituting the condition- death of the legatee Basilia, a perfectly legal

FACTS:

+1867
Tiburcio Anselma Nicasio
++1913

condition as it is not impossible of performance and is not contrary to law or

public morals. 1st legacy: voluntary reservation to Basilia of the ownership.
2nd legacy: conditional legacy of P4,000 to Lorenzo.

Higinia Clemente Natividad

Testator provided in his will that the dominion [ownership and possession
Emilio

Purificacion

shall be delivered to Basilia subject to the condition that upon her death it
would revert to testators grandson, provided the latter pays P4,000 to

Tiburcio Salvador executed a notarial will and instituted his grandchildren

Lorenzo. It cannot be understood that the legacy covered on the usufruct

Emilio and Purificacion as sole heirs. However, clause six is as follows: I

because the plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator

bequeath to Basilia Gabino, the ownership and dominion of the urban

clearly shows beyond all doubt the express wishes that the legatees right of

property, consisting of a house and lot in Calle Lavezares If the said legatee

dominion should end at her death.

should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall be obliged to deliver the same to my

grandson Emilio, upon payment of the latter to the former P4,000.00.
Executor Emilio presented a project of partition wherein it was stated therein
that the clause six should be interpreted as giving the right of usufruct only to
Basilia, and a general legacy in favor of Lorenzo Salvador of P4,000

CASE NO. 78
Mangulabnan v. IAC
185 SCRA 760; May 31, 1990

HELD: Reversed. There must be a declaration of the status of the child

J. Gancayco:

from which the right to support

is derived and before support can be

ordered. Such a declaration may be provisional, that is by affidavit.

FACTS: Elena Mangulabnan, as guardian ad litem of minor Alfie Angeno
Acero, filed in the RTC an action for support, actual and moral damages for

The requirement for recognition by the father or mother jointly or by one of

her child Alfie.

them as provision of law refers in particular to a natural child- such a child is

Pending litigation an application support pendente lite

against Ambrosio Tan Chew Acero-opposed.

RTC:

ordered Ambrosio Tan to pay monthly support of P1,500.

MOR denied
CA:

presumed to be natural child of the parents recognizing it who had the legal
capacity to contract marriage at the time of conception. Thus, an illegitimate
child like Alfie whose father is married and had no legal capacity to contract

RTCs decision was annulled.

While the childs paternity appears to have been
established by the affidavits of Elena Mangulabnan as well as

marriage at the time of conception is not a natural child but an illegitimate

child or spurious child in which case recognition is not required before
support can be granted.

affidavit of two
witnesses, this fact alone is not sufficient to order Ambrosio to
pay support. It is

However, under Art. 887, in all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation
must be proved either Voluntary or Compulsory recognition.

necessary that Ambrosio has recognized the child.

Refused to accept the birth certificate constituted voluntary
recognition since its
probative value was impaired by the verified opposition of
Ambrosio. He claims

VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

COMPULSORY RECOGNITION

When made in:

When by court action, the child brings

1) record of birth;

out his recognition.

2) will;
3) statement before a court;
4) any authentic writing.

that the same was spurious as it was sworn before a notary

The affidavits, as well as the birth certificate had provisionally established the

public in Manila.
When the child was born in Cavite Maternity clinic in Las

status of the child.

CASE NO. 76

Pinas Rizal.
illegitimate child to be entitled to support must be
recognized whether natural or

Noble V. Noble
18 SCRA 1104; Dec. 17, 1966

spurious.
J. Barrera:
Petitioner claims that the child is entitled to support upon proof of filiation
without the need of acknowledgment,

FACTS: Don Vicente Noble died in 1959. The notarial will he executed in
1957 was presented for probate wherein Juan Noble was designated as
executor. Maria Noble, claiming as the illegitimate child of the deceased

born out of an illicit relationship between the latter and Lucia Sinag in July

action becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be brought after the

22, 1923, opposed the probate of the will. She prays for the disallowance of

death of the putative parent.

the will and be declared as the only surviving illegitimate daughter or in the
alternative, in case the will be probated, the institution of heirs made therein

Acknowledgement is the basis of the right of a spurious child to enjoy the

be declared null and void. Simultaneously, she filed a motion asking for

successional rights.

permission to present evidence on her alleged filiation, stating therein that

she is in continuous possession of status of a child of the late Don Vicente
Noble by the direct acts of the latter and/or his family, and that she has in her
favor evidence and/or proof that the deceased is her father. This motion was
opposed by Judge Noble on the ground that the claim was in effect an Action
for Compulsory recognition, and that since it was brought after the death of

CASE NO. 77

the putative father, and when she was already of majority age, the right to

Rosales v. Rosales

bring the same has already prescribed.

148 SCRA 69; Feb. 27, 1987

CFI: admitted the will for probate and the claim of Maria had been
barred by

J. Gancayco:
prescription.

++
Petra Rosales Fortunado

HELD: Art. 887: In all case of illegitimate children, their filiation must be
duly proved. Filiation must be acknowledged by the alleged parent, for if the

Magna Rosales Acebes

+Antonio

+Carterio Irenea

mere fact of paternity of the supposed father is all that is needed to be

proved, that would pave the way to unscrupulous individuals taking

Macikequerox

advantage of the death of the presumed parent who would no longer be in the
position to deny the allegation.
FACTS: During the proceedings for the intestate estate of Petra, the CFI
In this case, what is intended to be proved is simply the supposed naked

declared the following as legal heirs: Fortunato- ; Magna- ; Antonio:

paternity of the deceased. Her allegations merely claimed that she is the

and Macikequerox- . Irenea insisted in getting a share in her capacity as

child of the deceased, which is a ground for compelling recognition.

surviving spouse of the deceased son of Petra, claiming that she is a

compulsory heir under Art. 887.

It is necessary to allege that her putative parent had acknowledged and

recognized her as such. Such acknowledgment is essential and is basis of her
right to inherit. There being no allegation of such acknowledgment, the

HELD: NO. Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two:

1) those who inherit by their own right;

2) those who inherit by the right of representation.

HELD: Affirmed. Though the provision does not distinguish, the intent of
The provisions Art. 980-982, 999 which relate to the ader of intestate

the legislature shows that it applies only to legitimate relatives.

succession does not include a surviving spouse of a child as an intestate heir

of the mother-in-law.

(1) Art. 809 and 810 establish the legitime of legitimate ascendants.
Therefore, the place

Art. 887 [3] refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the
surviving spouse is a compulsory heir but does not apply to the estate of a
parent-in-law. Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a 3

rd

which Art. 811 occupies is proof that it refers only to legitimate

ascendants;

person as

regards the estate of the parent-in-law.

(2) the principle which underlies Art. 811- property should not pas,
by reason of new
marriage, out of the family to which they belonged.

CASE NO. 82
Nieva v. Alcala

CASE NO.85

+Juliana Nieva +++Francisco de Ocampo Manuela Alcala

Florentino v. Florentino
+

++

+++

Antonia Faz de Leon Apolonio Florention II

Segunda Ma. Nieva
(illegitimate)
FACTS:

++Alfeo

Jose

Severina

(2 parcel of land)

9 children

Plaintiff Segunda ma. Nieva, claiming to be an acknowledged

natural daughter of Juliana Nieva [baptismal; birth] and was reared as legal
daughter, sought recovery of the property invoking Art. 811: Any ascendant
who inherits from his descendants any property

Mercedes

Apolonio III
(3 died single)
(posthumuous)

acquired by the latter

gratuitously from some other descendant, or from a brother or sister, is

obliged to reserve such of the property as he may have acquired by operation
of law for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line
from which such property came.
CFI: an illegitimate relative has no right to the reserve troncal

FACTS: In 1890, Apolonio II died leaving a notarial will. He was survived

by his ten children and his widow as heirs. Apolonio III received in the
partition of the subject property. When Apolonio III died, the said property
were inherited by his mother Severina, who latter died, leaving a will
instituting her only daughter as her universal heiress. Herein appellants

demands from Mercedes to deliver their corresponding share in the

reservable property but Mercedes refused. CFI dismissed the complaint of

FACTS: Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different ascendants two sets

specific performance.

of property: (1) 1/3 pro-indiviso in Liliw, Laguna from his father Jose; and
(2) 1/7 pro-indiviso in 10 parcels of land from his maternal grandmother. He

HELD: REVERSED. Even if Severina left in her will said property together

died single and was survived by his mother, Consuelo and five brothers and

with her own property to her only daughter, nevertheless, this property had

three nephews and nieces. The mother was the sole surviving compulsory

not lost their reservable nature in as much as it originated from the common

heir and adjudicated unto herself the said property in an affidavit stating

ancestor of herein appellants. The property was inherited by the son and was

therein that she was the sole heir/ ascendant of Raul, who died leaving

transmitted by operation of law to his mother.

property inherited from other ascendant. Thereafter, she sold 1/3 of the
property to Marquita Sumaya, who later on sold the same to Villa Honorio

Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property while there are

Dev. Corp.

living within the 3

Cooperative. The other 1/7 of the property was likewise sold to Villa which

rd

degree relative of the latter, is nothing but a life

usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reservable property received. But if

VHDC thereafter sold the property to Agro-Industrial

later on sold the same to Agro.

afterwards, all of such relative die, the said property become free property by
operation of law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of the ascendant

The certificates of title do not contain any annotation of its reservable

heir who can transmit it at his death to his legal succession.

character. The five brothers and three nephews and nieces filed a case for
recovery as the property was subject to a reserva troncal in their favor.

There are seven reservatoris who are entitled to the reservable property left
at the death of Apolonio III:

RTC: in favor of Balantakbos

(1) 3 children of the 1 marriage;

st

CA: affirmed

(2) 3 children who are represented by their own children (nephews/

nieces);
(3) Mercedes

HELD: Affirmed. It was established during the trial that the reservista,
Consuelo, caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the
estate of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated therein that the property were

All of the appellants are the relatives of the posthumous son within the third

inherited by Raul from his father and grandmother. Although the certificate

degree. Hence, they are entiled as reservatarios to the property which came

of titles were free from any liens and encumbrance at the time of sale, the

from the common ancestors.

fact remains that the affidavit which was registered with the register of deeds
Laguna, constitute a sufficient notice to the whole world. Under the rule of
notice in the Property Registration Decree, it is presumed that the purchaser

CASE NO. 84

has examined every instrument of record affecting the title.

Sumaya v. IAC

presumption is irrebutable.

Such

controversy. Upon the death of Jose, he named his wife Marcelina in his will
The failure of the register of deeds to annotate the reservable character of the

as his only heir.

property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo.

Moreover, it is sufficient proof that the buyers had actual knowledge of the
reservable character of the property. Such fact appeared in the deed of sale.

The probate of the will was opposed on account of preterion of Maria

Coronel.

Being the mother and legitimate heir, Maria and Marcelina

executed a contract/deed (dated May 16, 1917 and approved on Nov. 12,
Unless the registration of the limitations is effected, no third persons shall be

1920) dividing between themselves Joses property, the 11 parcels of land

being assigned to Maria Corral. Maria sold eight thereof to Marcelina on Oct.

prejudiced thereby.

26, 1920 evidenced by a public document recorded in the registry of deeds on

Prescription: only when the reservoir dies does the reservee acquire the
reserved property. The cause of action commence upon the death of the
reservoir, Consuelo on June 3, 1968 and not upon the death of the propositus

Nov. 6, 1920. Marcelina sold the same to Pablo Rocha, nephew of Maria on
Nov. 3, 1920. on Sept. 24, 1921, Rocha returned six of said lots to Maria
stating therein that the same was erroneourly included in the sale made by
Maria to Marcelina.

Raul on June 13, 1952. Action= March 4, 1970.

CFI: denied the probate

SC:

annulled the will for probate.

Maria and Marcelina then

submitted the deed of

CASE NO. 86

extrajudicial partition at the partition of and was approved by the

Riosa v. Rocha

court on Nov. 20, 1920.

+
Mariano Riosa Maria Corral

This action was broght by Margin for whom the property should have been
+

Francisca Santiago

+
Jose Marcelina Casas

reserved against Maria, Marcelina and Pablo praying that: (1) property be
declared reservable property; (2) that this reservation be noted in the registry
of deeds (3) that the sale be subject to the right of reservation.

Severina
(during

HELD: there is no doubt of the reservable character of the property.

infancy)
Magin

Consolacion

1 child (died before Mariano)

In case of testate succession, as in this case, wherein extrajudicial partition

was made and submitted to the court which the latter approved, for the
purposes of reservation and the rights and obligation created thereby, in

FACTS: In the will of Mariano, he divided his property between Santiago

and Jose, giving the latter the 11 parcels of land, the subject property in this

connection with the relatives benefited, the property must not be deemed
transmitted to the heirs from the time the extrajudicial partition was made,
but from the time said partition was approved by the court.

In this case, the reservoir, according to law, is obliged to have the reservation
noted in the registry of deeds within 90 days from the acceptance of
inheritance, that is, from the adjudication of the property by the court to the
heirs. Only after the expiration of the period may the reserves demand
compliance with the obligation.
But the land was sold even before the courts approval on the partition,
hence, appellant could not compel Maria even after the expiration of the 90
days. But, the land was sold with the obligation that the law imposes upon
Maria.

The buyers could not have acquired a better title (obligation to

register) that held by the seller.

CASE NO. 83
De Papa v. Camacho

The fact that the reservable character of the property was not recorded at the
time of the sale cannot affect the right of reserve, because the transfers were

+1928

made at the time when the obligation of the reservoir to note only such

Marciana Felix Balbino Tioco

reservation and the reserves did not then have any right to compel her to
fulfill such obligation.

(donated 4 parcels of
land to Toribia)

Moreover, Marcelina and Pablo knew of the reservable character of the

property as Marcelina was the one who entered with the contract of partition

Romana Tioco

+1915
4 plaintiffs

Toribia Eustacio Dizon

and a daughter-in-law and Pablo drafted the deeds of sale and a nephew.
+1937

+1939

Where a reservable property is sold by the reservor, without having

Faustino

Trinidad Primo Tongco

registered its reservable character, the obligation to register the same is

(single)

transferred to the buyer, when the latter knew of the fact of the propertys

Dalisay Camacho (defendant)

reservable character.
FACTS: Romana donated four parcels of land to Toribia. When Toribia
died in 1915, she left the said property to Faustino and Trinidad, her children.
When Balbino died in 1928, three percels of land were adjudicated to Toribia
and since she predeceased her father, the same was given to her children

Faustino and Trinidad. Faustino died in 1937 and left his pro-indiviso
share in the seven lands to his father Eustacio Dizon, subject to reserve
troncal. When Trinidad died in 1939, all her pro-indiviso share were
inherited by Dalisay, subject to usufruct of Primo Tongko. Eustacio died in
1965, survived by his only granddaughter Dalisay. Dalisay claims the by
virtue of the reserva troncal implied by law upon the death of Faustino.
Plaintiffs, as uncles and aunts, also clain of the pro-indiviso share,
being a third relative of Faustino.

CFI: plaintiffs and defendant are all entitled as reservatarios

HELD: Reversed. 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 condition strengthened by the circumstances that the
reserve being an exceptional case, its application should be limited to what is
strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law. Hence, reservation of
the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession,
plaintiffs-appellee must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt
and uncles of Faustino [propositus], they are excluded from the succession by
his niece, the latter being the nearest relative. {the nearest relative excludes
that of the one more remote]