Mendoza v. de los Santos | G.R. No.

176422 | 03-20-2013 | Reserva Troncal |

Jon de Guia

The case originates from an action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva

Troncal, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance. This is an appeal from CA
decision reversing the RTC decision which ordered the reconveyance of the
property from respondent to petitioners-grandchildren

MEM AID

Apos try to claim from the sister of their uncles wife; no reserva troncal

BRIEFER

The three parcels of land in controversy passed onto a certain Julia de los
Santos. Before that, it was with her niece, Gregoria. The relation between
petitioners and the niece is that theyre cousins. There is no reserva troncal for
two reasons: (1) Julia de los Santos is NOT the ascendant of her niece and (2)
cousins are NOT third-degree relatives. But Im almost certain this summary
doesnt make sense so no choice but to read the full digest in order to get it
and just read this briefer as a refresher. In essence, its like this:
DOCTRINE 1st Generation: Placido and Dominga
There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserva troncal. The first transmission is 2nd Generation: Antonio, Exequiel (with wife Leonor), Apolonio, Valentin
by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from an
ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus. The second Respondent Julia de los Santos is Exequiels sister-in-law, or the sister of his wife,
transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other ascendant Leonor
or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last transmission is from the
Gregoria is perhaps the most important character here. She is Exequiel and
reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives within the
Leonors daughter and the cousin of petitioners.
third degree from which the property came.
3rd Generation: Petitioners in two sets: first, Antonios children, second,
FAMILY TREE
Valentins children (but the distinction doesnt matter in this casetheyre all
Incorporated in this digest is the family tree; this was a diagram in the case just petitioners who are, as aforesaid, collectively, cousins of Gregoria)
itself. Had I typed it up, it wouldve likely taken time to understand it.
Respondent Julia de los Santos is Gregorias aunt on her mothers side.

FACTS

There are three parcels of land subject of controversy in this case

Just know that the identities persons who have originally owned these
lands are disputed, but thats not too relevant in the disposition of the
issue (youll get why later); heres the dispute, though, just in case she
asks
o Petitioners-grandchildren allege that the parcels of land are
owned by their grandparents, Placido and Dominga

1
 o Respondent Julia de los Santos, on the other hand, claims
that the properties never passed onto the hands of Placido
and Dominga; instead, they were bought by Exequiel from an
outsider, a certain Alfonso Ramos
The property then went to Exequiel (whether its by inheritance
through an oral partition and subsequent adjudication from Placido
and Dominga or its because he was the one who bought them, the
Court did not say)
Exequiel died
The properties then passed onto Gregoria (first, she shared them with
her mother, Leonor, but Leonor died too)
Gregoria died
The properties then passed onto Julia de los Santos, Gregorias aunt
ACTION
Petitioners instituted a petition for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal,
Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance
CASE ESCALATION
RTC Ruled in favor of petitioners-grandchildren and ordered the
reconveyance as well as the Registry of Deeds cancellation
of the TCT in Julia de los Santos name (but, no order to issue
a new TCT in petitioner-grandchildrens names)
CA Affirmed in toto the RTC decision
CA on MR Reversed itself and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed
the complaint
ISSUE: W/N the three parcels of land are subject to reserva truncal and should
thus be reconveyed to petitioners-grandchildren (NO)
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 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.
Three lines of transmission, according to ponencia
There are three (3) lines of transmission in reserve troncal. The first transmission is
by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from an
2
ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus. The second
transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other ascendant
or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last transmission is from the
reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives within the
third degree from which the property came.
Digest-writers paraphrasing of the three lines of transmission:
Art. 891, chopped up to three clauses, looks like this:
Clause 1: The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
property
Clause 2: which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother or sister,
Clause 3: 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 belong to the line from which said
property came.
1st transmission is Clause 2, in reverse: A certain ascendant, or a brother or
sister (Person 1), transmits property via gratuitous title to his descendant or
sibling (Person 2)
2nd transmission is Clause 1: Person 2 then transmits the property to his
ascendant (Person 3)
3rd transmission is Clause 3: Person 3 then reserves property in favor of Person
1s relatives to the third degree (reserves / reservatorios)
Got it? Good. Now, lets see how it looks.
Application (assuming there was actually reserva truncal which, there isnt)
The first transmission must have come from Exequiel (remember me saying it
didnt matter how the property went to him?). Why? Reverse-engineer it.
Its undisputed that Person 3 here (or the recipient of the second transmission
called the reservista) is Julia de los Santos.
She received the property from Person 2 (recipient of the first transmission
called the propositus), Gregoria, the cousin.
Gregoria then received it from Exequiel, Person 1 (nope, no special name).
Why theres no reserva troncal
First reason: The reservista, Julia de los Santos, should have been the
ascendant (see 2nd transmission) of the propositus, Gregoria. She isnt. Shes
the aunt or Gregorias collateral relative, pursuant to Art. 964,1 CC.

Second reason: Assuming she is, the petitioners-grandchildren are NOT

Gregorias third degree relatives (see 3rd transmission). They are FOURTH
degree relatives, being her cousin.

Q: What about if they claim to represent (via right of representation) their

parents, who are 3rd degree relatives?

A: Reserva troncal, in Art. 891, grants a personal right of reservation only. No

representation is allowed (Arts. 970-977)

Assuming arguendo there was reserva troncal, RTC was mistaken

SC said RTC should have had the reservable nature of the property
registered on the titles of Julia de los Santos.

Quoting Gonzales v. CFI of Manila (in the footnotes):2

The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is
extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. The reservor is
a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it subject
to the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional
ownership of the reservor. The transferees rights are revoked upon the
survival of the reserves at the time of the death of the reservor but
become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.

1
Article 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or
collateral. A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among
ascendants and descendants. A collateral line is that constituted by the series of
degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who
come from a common ancestor. (916a)
2
192 Phil. 1, 12; 104 SCRA 479, 486-487 (1981).
3