Reservista – reservoir Reservatorio- reservee
Lourdes)
CANO VS DIRECTOR OF LANDS and EUSTAQUIA
GUERRERO
FACTS: The decree and the Certificate of Title were
issued in the name of Maria Cano, subject to reserva
troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero. Later, the
reservatorio Guerrero filed a motion with the
Cadastral Court, alleging the death of the original
registered owner and reservista, Maria Cano and
praying that the original Certificate of Title be
ordered cancelled and a new one issued in favor of
her; and that the Sheriff be ordered to place her in
possession of the property.
The motion was opposed by Jose and Teotimo
Fernandez, sons of the reservista Maria Cano, who
contended that the application and operation of the
reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary
contentious proceeding, and that the Registration
Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion.
Lower court granted the petition for the issuance of
a new certificate to Eustaquia Guerrero
ISSUE: WON ownership of the reservatorio can not
be decreed in a mere proceeding but requires a
judicial administration proceedings, wherein the
rights of the reservatorio entitled to the reservable
property, are to be declared. NO, no need
HELD: The requisites of reserva troncal have
already been declared to exist by the decree of
registration.
RESERVA TRONCAL in this case:
ORIGIN: Evaristo Guerrero (father of Lourdes)
PROPOSITUS: Lourdes Guerrero (deceased daughter
of Maria Cano)
RESERVOR: Maria Cano (acq thru inheritance from
RESERVEE: grandchildren of Evaristo + Eustaquia
Guerrero (only living daughter of Evaristo from
former marriage )
The reservatario receives the property as a
conditional heir of the descendant ( prepositus). It is
a consequence of these principles that upon the
death of the reservista, the reservatario (Eustaquia
Guerrero) nearest to the prepositus becomes,
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of
the reservable property. As already stated, that
property is no part of the estate of the reservista,
and does not even answer for the debts of the latter.
Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be
entered in the property records without necessity
of estate proceedings, since the basic requisites
therefor appear of record.
It is equally well settled that the reservable property
can not be transmitted by a reservista to her or his
own successors mortis causa (Jose and Teotimo) so
long as a reservatario within the third degree from
the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the
property came, is in existence when the reservista
dies.
NOTE: Instances where further proceedings would
be unavoidable
1. where the registration decree merely
specifies the reservable character of the
property, without determining the identity
of the reservatario (Director of Lands vs.
Aguas)
2. where several reservatarios dispute the
property among themselves
BANAWA VS MIRANO
No. L-24750 May 16, 1980
Petitioners: DOROTEO BANAWA + JULIANA
MENDOZA (Adoptive Parents of Maria) CASIANO
AMPONIN and GLICERIA ABRENICA (legally
adopted child)
Respondents: PRIMITIVA MIRANO (sister of
Maria), GREGORIA MIRANO, JUANA MIRANO
and MARCIANO MIRANO (children of Maria’s
brother-Martin)
FACTS:
Banawa and Mendoza took their niece Maria
Mariano to Mahabang Ludlod, Taal, Batangas. The
spouses reared the child because they were childless.
The spouses purchased a parcel of land in Barrio of
Iba, Taal, Batangas and a second parcel of land in
Barrio of Carsuche, Taal, Batangas. The spouses
named the title of the said properties under Maria’s
name for the purpose of safeguarding the latter’s
future in case the spouses die. Due to an illness,
Maria died and was survived by her sister Primitiva
Mirano and the three children of his brother Martin as
the nearest relatives. Two parcels of land are in
dispute in this case: the Iba property (44,200 sqm)
and Carsuche property (54, 093 sqm).
The Miranos filed a case in court against the
Banawas with regard to the possession of the said Iba
and Carsuche properties as legal heirs of Maria.
Petitioners’ Contention: the money used in
buying said land pertained to the spouses thus, the
donor spouses are entitled to the land in question and
also their successors-in-interest.
Defendants Contention: The Iba property
were sold to Maria Mariano as such, the rightful
possession belongs to the heirs of Maria.
CFI declared Maria Mariano the owner of
the two parcels of land. The defendant spouses died
during the pendency of the case at the CA and were
substituted by their legally adopted child Gliceria
Abrenica and her husband. CA affirmed the decision
of the trial court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not S5, R100 of the old rules
of court is applicable.
2. To whom should the rightful possession
of the two parcels of land belong to.
RULING:
1. No, it is not applicable. Maria is not
legally adopted. The rule with respect to reversion
adoptiva prescribed in Sec. 5, Rule 100, of the former
Rules of Court applies only to property that had been
received by a judicially adopted child. Extrajudicial
adoption is not within the contemplation and spirit of
the rule. It is an elementary rule of construction that
when the language of the law is clear and
unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly
what it says.
2. The IBA Property is owned by Maria
Mariano.
Article 632 of the old CC provides: "
Donations of personal property may be made verbally
or in writing. Verbal donation requires the
simultaneous delivery of the gift. In the absence of
this requisite the donation shall produce no effect,
unless made in writing and accepted in the same
form." The execution of the deed of sale of the Iba
property in favor of Maria was the constructive
transfer of possession of the incorporeal rights of the
spouses over said property.
The CARSUCHE Property is owned by
spouses Banawas.
There was a sale embodied in a public
document of the Carsuche property in 1935 in favor
of Maria. However, in 1940 it was sold to the
Banawas. The sale was duly registered. They then
immediately entered into the possession of the land
as owners. The spouses acquired the Carsuche
property by acquisitive prescription
Decision of the CA is affirmed as to the Iba
property but reversed as to the Carsuche property
which was acquired by Banawa and Mendoza who
could validly donate the said property to Casiano
Amponin and Gliceria Abrenica.
[NOTE: This reserva adoptal is believed to have
been abolished by the Civil Code in view of the
desire of the Code Commission to abolish all
reservas. As has been said before, the retention of
“reserva troncal” was not intended by the Code.
Besides, according to the Civil Code, “the
proceedings for adoption shall be governed by the
Rules of Court insofar as they are not in conflict with
this Code.” (Art. 345). It follows therefore that all the
substantive provisions on adoption in the Rules of
Court have been repealed by the new Civil Code.
HOWEVER, this reserva adoptal has been
REVIVED under Art. 39 of PD 603.
Rule 100 Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
“In case of the death of the child, his parents
and relatives by nature and not by adoption, shall be
his legal heirs except as to property received or
inherited by the adopted child from either of his
parents by adoption, which shall become the property
of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall
participate in the order established by the Civil Code
for Intestate estates.”
Teotico vs. Del Val
Issues:
(1) Has oppositor Ana del Val Chan the right to
intervene in this proceeding?;
(2) Has the will in question been duly admitted to
probate?;
(3) Did the probate court commit an error in passing
on the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
and in determining who should inherit the portion to
be vacated by the nullification of the legacy made in
favor of Dr. Rene Teotico?

Facts: Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre Held:

died on July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila with no
Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to
ascendants or descendants. She left properties
intervene because she has no interest in the estate
worth P600,000.00 and a will written in Spanish
either as heir, executor, or administrator, nor does
which she executed at her residence at No. 2
she have any claim to any property affected by the
Legarda St., Quiapo, Manila. She affixed her
will, because nowhere in the will was any provision
signature at the bottom of the will and on the left
designating her as heir, legatee or devisee of any
margin of each and every page thereof in the
portion of the estate. She has also no interest in the
presence of three witnesses who in turn affixed
will either as administratrix or executrix. Neither has
their signatures below the attestation clause and on
she any claim against any portion of the estate
the left margin of each and every page of the will in
because she is not a co-owner thereof.
the presence of the testatrix and of each other. Said
will was acknowledged before a Notary Public by Additionally, if the will is denied probate, she would
the testatrix and her witnesses. not acquire any interest in any portion of the estate
left by the testatrix. She would acquire such right
She left P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, married to
only if she were a legal heir of the deceased, but she
her niece named Josefina Mortera; and the usufruct
is not under our Civil Code. It is true that she claims
of her interest in the Calvo building to the said
to be an acknowledged natural child of Jose and also
spouses. However, the naked ownership of the
an adopted daughter of Francisca. But the law does
building was left in equal parts to the legitimate
not give her any right to succeed to the estate of
children of said spouses. She also instituted Josefina
Maria because being an illegitimate child she is
Mortera as her sole and universal heir to all the
prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate
remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed
relatives of her natural father. Thus, Article 992 of
of in the will.
our Civil Code provides: “An illegitimate child has no
Thereafter, Vicente B. Teotico filed a petition for the right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
probate of the will before the Court of First Instance children and relatives of his father or mother; … .”
of Manila. However, Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be
an adopted child of Francisca Mortera, a deceased
sister of the testatrix, as well as an acknowledged It thus appears that the oppositor has no right to
natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased brother of intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in
the same testatrix. this probate proceeding contrary to the ruling of the
court a quo.
The claim that the will was not properly attested to will Exhibit A must be set aside as having been made
is contradicted by the evidence of record. The will in excess of its jurisdiction. Another reason why said
was duly executed because it was signed by the pronouncement should be set aside is that the
testatrix and her instrumental witnesses and the legatee was not given an opportunity to defend the
notary public in the manner provided for by law. validity of the legacy for he was not allowed to
intervene in this proceeding. As a corollary, the
The claim that the will was procured by improper other pronouncements touching on the disposition
pressure and influence is also belied by the of the estate in favor of some relatives of the
evidence. deceased should also be set aside for the same
reason.
Moreover, the mere claim that Josefina and her
husband Rene had the opportunity to exert pressure
on the testatrix simply because she lived in their
house several years prior to the execution of the will
and that she was old and suffering from
hypertension in that she was virtually isolated from
her friends for several years prior to her death is
insufficient to disprove what the instrumental
witnesses had testified in court. The exercise of
improper pressure and undue influence must be
supported by substantial evidence and must be of a
kind that would overpower and subjugate the mind
of the testatrix as to destroy her free agency and
make her express the will of another rather than her
own.

On the third issue, the question of whether the

probate court could determine the intrinsic validity
of the provisions of a will has been decided by this
Court in a long line of decisions. In Castañeda v.
Alemany, the Court had stated, thus:

To establish conclusively as against everyone, and

once for all, the facts that a will was executed with
the formalities required by law and that the testator
was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose
of the proceedings under the new code for the
probate of a will. The judgment in such proceedings
determines and can determine nothing more. In
them the court has no power to pass upon the
validity of any provisions made in the will. It cannot
decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and
another one is valid.

Pursuant to the foregoing precedents the

pronouncement made by the court a quo declaring
invalid the legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico in the