Você está na página 1de 13


week (reserva troncal)

Study: Civil Code, article 891

1. Nieva v. Alcala, 41 Phil 915 KUNG

Juliana Nieva, the alleged natural mother of the plaintiff Segunda Maria Nieva, married Francisco
Deocampo. Of said marriage Alfeo De Ocampo was born. Juliana Nieva died intestate on April 19, 1889,
and her said son, Alfeo De Ocampo, inherited from her, ab intestate, parcels of land. AlfeoDeocampo died
intestate and the parcels of land passed to his father, Francisco De Ocampo, by intestatesuccession.
Thereafter Francisco Deocampo married Manuela Alcala, of which marriage was born Jose De Ocampo.
Francisco De Ocampo died on August 15, 1914, whereupon his widow and son, the defendants herein,
took possession of the parcels of land in question, under the claim that Jose De Ocampo (a minor) had
inherited the same, ab intestate, from his deceased father. Segunda, claiming to be an acknowledged
natural daughter of the said Juliana Nieva, instituted the present action for the purposes of recovering
from the defendants the parcels of land inquestion invoking reservatroncal. The lower court held that,
even granting, without deciding, that the plaintiff was an acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana
Nieva, she was not entitled to the property here in question because, in its opinion, an illegitimate
relative has no right to the reservatroncal.
Is an illegitimate relative within the third degree entitled to reservatroncal?
No. In Article 811 (ReservaTroncal) the legislator uses the generic terms ascendant, descendant, and
relatives, without specifying whether or not they have to be legitimate. Does the legislator, then, refer to
legitimate as well as to illegitimate relatives?
This question has not been decided before by any court or tribunal. However, eminent commentators on
the Spanish Civil Code, who have devoted their lives to the study and solution of the intricate and difficult
problems that may arise under the provisions of that Code, have dealt with the very question in this case,
and are unanimous in the opinion that the provision of Article 811 of the Civil Code apply only to
legitimate relative.
Manresa, one of the eminent commentators, in determining the persons in whose favor the reservation is
established, says: Persons in whose favor thereservation is established This is one of the most delicate
points in the interpretation of article 811. According to this article, the reservation is established in favor
of the parents who are within the third degree and belong to the line from which the properties came.
It treats of blood relationship, which is applicable to questions on succession, according to articles 915 to
920. It could not be otherwise, because relationship by affinity is established between each spouse and
the family of the other, by marriage, and to admit it, would be to favor the transmission of the properties
of the family of one spouse to that of the other, which is just what the article intends to prevent.
It also treats of legitimate relationship. The person obliged to reserve it is a legitimate ascendant who
inherits from a descendant property which proceeds from the same legitimate family, and this being true,
there can be no question, because the line from which the properties proceed must be the line of that
family and only in favor of that line is the reservation established.
To hold that the appellant is entitled to the property left by her natural brother, Alfeo Deocampo, by
operation of law, would be a fragrant violate of the express provision of the foregoing article.

2. Hollero v. CA, June 29, 1964 YAP

Holero v. CA

Doctrine: Heirs may relinquish their rights to their inheritance.

Facts: Jose Hollero et. al (brothers and sisters of the decedent) claim the property by virtue of the reserva troncal. Upon
the death of Paz, they contend, the property passed to Felix; and upon the latter's death, it passed to Generoso.
Thereafter, the reserva troncal began to operate, to wit: when Generoso died, the property had to be transmitted by
operation of law to the relatives of Felix up to the third degree.

Defendants allege, that they inherited the land from Saturnina's brother Generoso, upon the latter's death. They assert
that Paz Hollero, in her lifetime, had sold the property to Andrea Gustilo; and that Generoso purchased it from Andrea.

It appears that Paz Hollero executed a document transferring the property by " pacto de retro" to Andrea Gustilo which
was later on ruled by the CA to be an equitable mortgage. CA also ordered a new title in the name of Jose Hollero et al
which also included the Manuel Hollero and Felix Harder.

The petitioners maintain that it was error to award "a part of the land in question to Manuel Hollero and Felix Harder"
since they were not parties plaintiff because "they have relinquished their rights in favor of the defendants"; it also
appears that in the Iloilo civil case, the petitioners sued said two persons for ejectment from the land; and both having
expressly acknowledged the ownership of the former.

Issue: WON the two heirs should be included.

Ruling: No.

It must be explained that the record makes reference to two Manuel Holleros. One is the plaintiff Manuel Hollero who is
the nephew of Paz and another Manuel Hollero who is Paz' own brother excluded from the complaint. The latter is the
one enumerated erroneously in the dispositive part of the Court of Appeals' decision. Given the result of the Iloilo
Civil Case, his portion should have been reserved or adjudicated to herein petitioners-defendants below. What about
Felix Harder? He is the son of Socorro, sister of Paz. She is awarded one-sixth of the property by the above decision; and
as she had left four children (Anita, Meriam, Alatia and Felix) the latter's share is one-fourth of such one-sixth, i.e., 1/24,
which must be awarded to herein petitioners-defendants below.

3. Cabardo v. Villanueva, 44 Phil 186 - AQUINO
Facts: Rosa Cabaldo instituted an action to establish her right as reservee. The last owner of the
property in question is Cornelia Abordo, who died intestate. The estate of Cornelia came from 2
sources part from her mother Basilia Cabardo and the other part from her grand mother Isabel
Macaraya. When Cornelia Abordo died, Lorenzo Abordo, Cornelias her father, succeeded to all of
Cornelias property.
Rosa Cabardo, was a sister to Basilia Cabardo in life, and therefore aunt to Cornelia Abordo.
Issue: Whether Rosa Cabaldo is entitled to succeed, being the only living person within the limits of
the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came.
As to the property inherited from Basilia Cabardo (mother), the property became impressed with the
character of reservable property in the hands of Lorenzo Abordo. The property originally pertained to
the conjugal partnership of Basilia and Lorenzo.
As to the property inherited from Isabel Macaraya, it pertains to the reservable estate. It is sufficient
that the property descended to Cornelia from Isabel by gratuitous title.
The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in
return. It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges; what
is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously, or by an act of mere liberality of the person
making it, without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient; and that the person receiving
the property transmitted deliver, give or do nothing in return.
The typical gratuitous titles, to which all imaginable sorts are reducible, are donation and testate and
intestate succession, which are specified as such in article 968.
As the person from whom the degrees should here be reckoned is clearly Cornelia Abordo herself,
since she was at the end of the line from which the properly came and the person upon whom the
property last devolved by descent. Lorenzo Abordo was a stranger to that line and not related by
blood to those for whom the property is reserved.

4. Riosa v. Rocha, 48 Phil 737 - BISNAR
Jose Riosa inherited 11 parcels of land from his father.
Parcels Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11.
When Jose died, he instituted his wife, Marcelina Casas (Respondent) as his only heir.
Since Joses mother Maria Corral (Respondent), was preterited, she and Marcelina entered into a contract,
wherein they divided the Joses property between themselves.
The 11 parcels of land were assigned to Maria.
Maria then sold parcels 2,3,4,5,6,10 and 11 to Marcelina. Marcelina then in turn sold it to Pablo Rocha
Pablo Rocha however, returned all the parcels, except 10 and 11, stating that the other parcels were
erroneously included in the sale. Pablo only kept parcels 10 and 11.
Magin Riosa (Petitioner) is the daughter of Joses brother, the one of the nearest relatives within the third degree
of the line from which the property came from.
Magin filed a complaint praying that parcels 10 and 11 be declared reservable property, that the sale be declared
valid only in so far as it saves the right of reservation in favor of Magin and her sister, Consolacion, and that such
be noted on the deeds of sale.

Issue: Whether Pablo can be compelled to cause the reservable character of the properties be noted in the registry of

Ruling: Yes.
Reservation imposes obligations upon the reservor (reservista) and creates rights in favor of the reservee
Maria (reservor) is obliged to have the reservation noted in the registry of deeds in accordance with the
provisions of the Mortgage Law which fixes the period of 90 days for accomplishing it.
After the expiration of this period the reservees may demand compliance with this obligation.
If Maria Corral had not transferred parcels 10 and 11 to another there would be no doubt that she could be
compelled to cause the reservable character of this property to be noted in the registry of deeds.
Acquisition by Pablo Rocha took place when it was the duty of Maria Corral to make the notation of the
reservation in the registry and at the time when the reservees had no right to compel Maria Corral to make such
notation, because this acquisition was made before the expiration of the period of ninety days from November 12,
1920, the date of the adjudication by the court, after which the right of the reservees to commence an action for
the fulfillment of the obligation arose. But the land first passed to Marcelina Casas and later to Pablo Rocha
together with the obligation that the law imposes upon Maria Corral.
They could not have acquired a better title than that held by Maria Corral and if the latter's title was
limited by the reservation and the obligation to note it in the registry of deeds, this same limitation is
attached to the right acquired by Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha.
In the transmission of reservable property the law imposes the reservation as a resolutory condition for the
benefit of the reservees.
The fact that the resolvable character of the property was not recorded in the registry of deed at the time
that it was acquired by Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha cannot affect the right of the reservees, for the
reason that the transfers were made at the time when it was the obligation of the reservor to note only
such reservation and the reservees did not them have any right to compel her to fulfill such an obligation.
Marcelina Casas, as well as Pablo Rocha, Knew of the reservable character of the property when they bought it.
They had knowledge of the provisions of the last will and testament of Mariano Riosa by virtue of which these
parcels were transferred to Jose Riosa. Pablo Rocha was one of the legatees in the will. Marcelina Casas was
the one who entered into the contract of partition with Maria Corral, whereby these parcels were adjudicated to
the latter, as a legitimate heir of Jose Riosa. Pablo Rocha was the very person who drafted the contracts of sale
of these parcels of land by Maria Corral to Marcelina Casas and by the latter to himself. These facts, together
with the relationship existing between Maria Corral and Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha, the former a
daughter-in-law and the latter a nephew of Maria Corral, amply support the conclusion that both of them knew
that these parcels of land had been inherited by Maria Corral, as her legitime from her son Jose Riosa who had
inherited them, by will, from his father Mariano Riosa, and were reservable property. Wherefore, the duty of Maria
Corral of recording the reservable character of lots 10 and 11 has been transferred to Pablo Rocha and the
reservees have an action against him to compel him to comply with this obligation.

5. Lacerna v. Vda. De Corcino, 1 Phil 1226 -CLETO

RIcardo LARCERNA, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.
Agatona Paurillo VDA. DE CORCINO, defendant-appellee.
Jacoba MARBEBE, intervenor-appellee.
G.R. No. L-14603, April 29, 1961
Valentine Marbebe begot a daughter, Jacoba Marbebe, before his marriage with Bonifacia Lacerna. Valentine and
Bonificia had an only son, Juan.
Valentine and Bonifacia died leaving three parcels of land to their only son Juan. Juan, then, executed a power of
attorney authorizing the sister of his mother or his aunt, Agatona Vda. de Corcino take care of the disputed land.
Eventually, Juan died intestate and without any issue. The Court of First Instance declared that the land is property of
Jacoba being the half sister of Juan. Agatona Vda. de Corcino and the nephews and nieces of Bonifacia questioned the
decision of the court. According to them, the case should be based upon Article 891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
which establishes what is known as "reserva troncal." According to them, under this principle, the properties in dispute
should pass to the heirs of the deceased within the third degree, who belong to the line from which said properties came.
Thus, since Juan Marbebe inherited the land from his mother, they should go to his nearest relative within the third
degree on the maternal line or to his aunt and cousins and not to Jacoba Marbebe for she belongs to the paternal line.
This, however, was protested by Jacoba Marbebe. She contends that pursuant to Articles 1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, brothers and sisters exclude all other collateral relatives in the order of intestate succession, and that,
as Juan Marbebe's half-sister, she has, accordingly, a better right than plaintiffs herein to inherit his properties.
Who has the better right to succeed Juan?
The provision on reserve troncal cannot be applied in this case. In reserve troncal, the ascendant who inherits from
his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother
or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who
are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. (Emphasis supplied.) This article
applies only to properties inherited, under the conditions therein set forth, by an ascendant from a descendant, and this is
not the scenario in the given case, for the lands in dispute were inherited by a descendant, Juan Marbebe, from an
ascendant, his mother, Bonifacia Lacerna. Said legal provision is, therefore, not applicable in this case.
Furthermore, the Trial Judge, correctly awarded the land to Jacoba Marbebe. The said decision is in accordance with
the order prescribed for intestate succession, particularly Articles 1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
pursuant to which a sister, even if only a half-sister, in the absence of other sisters or brothers, or of children of brothers
or sisters, excludes all other collateral relatives, regardless of whether or not the latter belong to the line from which the
property of the deceased came.
Based on the foregoing, Jacoba Marbebe has the better right to succeed Juan.

6. Florentino v. Florentino, 40 Phil 480 -Fernandez
Florentino vs Florentino digest
Doctrine: Reservable property left, through a will or otherwise, by the death of ascendants (reservista) together with his own property
in favor of another of his descendants as forced heir, forms no part of the latters lawful inheritance nor of the legitime, for the reason
that, as said property continued to be reservable, the heir receiving same as an inheritance from his ascendant has the strict obligation
of its delivery to the relatives, within the third degree, of the predecessor in interest, without prejudicing the right of the heir to an
aliquot part of property, if he has at the same time the right of reservatorio.
Note: Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives of the descendant within the third
degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property which the reservista (person holding it subject to
reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one more remote.
Facts: Apolonio Florentino II married Antonia Faz de leon, they have 11 children. One of the children is Encarnacion, plaintiff in this
case. Apolonio became a widower and married again, he married Severina Faz de leon, they had 2 children, Mercedez Florentino and
Apolinio III. Mercedez was the defendant in this case.
Apolinio Florentino died.
That on January 17 and February 13, 1890, Apolonio Isabelo Florentino executed a will before the notary public of Ilocos Sur,
instituting as his universal heirs his aforementioned 11 children, the posthumos Apolonio III and his widow Severina Faz de Leon;
that he declared, in one of the paragraphs of said will, all his property should be divided among all of his children of both marriages.
That, in the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio Florentino III, his posthumos son, the property marked
with the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F in the complaint, a gold rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of table service, livestock, palay,
some personal property and other objects mentioned in the complaint.
That Apolonio Florentino III, the posthumos son of the second marriage, died in 1891; that his mother, Severina Faz de Leon,
succeeded to all his property described in the complaint; that the widow, Severina Faz de Leon died on November 18, 1908, leaving a
will instituting as her universal heiress her only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino
Issue: whether the property left at the death of Apolonio III, the posthumos son of Apolonio Isabelo II, was or was not invested with
the character of reservable property when it was received by his mother, Severina Faz de Leon?
Held: Was invested with the character of reservable property.
The property enumerated by the plaintiffs in paragraph 5 of their complaint came, without any doubt whatsoever, from the common
ancestor Apolonio Isabelo II, and when, on the death of Apolonio III without issue the same passed by operation of law into t he hands
of his legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon, it became reservable property, in accordance with the provision of article 811 of the
Code, with the object that the same should not fall into the possession of persons other than those comprehended within the order of
person other than those comprehended within the order of succession traced by the law from Apolonio Isabelo II, the source of said
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and receives same from his
descendant, therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced heirs. It becomes his own
property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista) in which case said reservable property losses
such character.
With full right Severina Faz de Leon could have disposed in her will of all her own property in favor of her only living daughter,
Mercedes Florentino, as forced heiress. But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the reservable property received from
her son Apolonio III, or rather, whatever provision will reduce the rights of the other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of
her daughter Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said property is not her own and she has only the right of usufruct or
of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve and to deliver same to the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes
For the foregoing reasons it follows that with the reversal of the order of decision appealed from we should declare, as we hereby do,
that the aforementioned property, inherited by the deceased Severina Faz de Leon from her son Apolonio Florentino III, is reservable
property; that the plaintiffs, being relatives of the deceased Apolonio III within the third degree, are entitled to six-sevenths of said
reservable property; that the defendant Mercedes is entitled to the remaining seventh part thereof

7. Cano v. Director of Lands, 105 Phil 1 -FORTES

Maria Cano v. Director of Lands (1959)
By Roselle Fortes-Leung

Doctines: the reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant (prepositus),
said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed
during the reservista's lifetime
Reserved property is no part of the estate of the reservista, and does not even answer for the
debts of the latter
reservable property can not be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own successors mortis
causa,(like appellants herein) 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


CFI Sorsogon approved registration of 2 parcels of land in Juban, Sorsogon with their
improvements, in the name of Maria Cano, Filipina, 71 years of age, widow and resident of
Juban, province of Sorsogon
With the understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the right of reservation in favor of
Eustaquia Guerrero
Certificate of Title were issued in the name of Maria Cano, subject to reserva troncal in favor of
Eustaquia Guerrero.
Counsel for the reserve (reservatorio) Guerrero filed a motion with the Cadastral Court, alleging
the death of the original registered owner and reservista, Maria Cano, on September 8, 1955
Cancel OCT and TCT be issued in favor of Guerrero
The motion was opposed by the sons of reservista Maria Cano, Jose and Teotimo Fernandez
contended that the application and operation of the reserva troncal should be ventilated in
an ordinary contentious proceeding
Registration Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion.
Lower Court: death of the reservista vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the
sole reservatorio troncal. Hence, the TCT was issued in the name of Eustaquia Guerrero

WON: The title was validly issued to Eustaquia Guerrero, the reservatorio? -YES
HELD: From the stipulation of facts, it is evident that Lot No. 1799 was acquired by the Appellant Maria
Cano by inheritance from her deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero
Lourdes in turn, inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero
Hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891 of the Civil Code; and that each and
everyone of the private oppositors are within the third degree of consaguinity of the decedent
Evaristo Guerrero, and who belonging to the same line from which the property came
The only requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee, Eustaquia are:
1. the death of the reservista; and
2. the fact that the reservatario has survived the reservista.
Both facts are admitted, and their existence is nowhere questioned.

8. Frias Chua v. CFI of Negros Occidental, 78 SCRA 412 -ITARALDE

DOCTRINES: 1) Requisites of Reserva Troncal : a) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or
from a brother or sister by gratuitous title; a) that said descendant died without an issue; c) that the property is inherited
by another ascendant by operation of law; and d) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which said property came.
2) For purposes of reserva troncal, there is gratuitous transfer when the recipient does not give anything in return and it
matters not that the property is subject to prior charges, such as an order of the court imposing the payment of a certain
sum owned by the deceased.
3) The cause of action of the reservees of a piece of property subject to reserva troncal does not arise until the reservor

FACTS: Jose Frias Chua bore 3 children ( Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel) with his first marriage (Patricia S. Militar). Upon
Patricias death, Jose contracted another marriage with Consolacion de la Torre and bore Juanito Frias Chua. Manuel
died without any issue. Jose died intestate. In the intestate proceeding, the lower court ordered giving each of Lot 399
to Consolacion and Juanito. Subsequently, Juanio died intestate without any issue. Consolacion, succeeded in the pro-
indiviso share of Lot 399. Consolacion died intestate leaving no direct heir in the descending or ascending line except
here brothers and sisters. In the intestate proceeding of her estate, Ignacio and children of Lorenzo filed a complaint
praying that portion of Lot 399 which belonged to Juanito but passed to Consolacion upon the Juanitos death, be
declared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reserva troncal based on Art. 891
of the NCC. Lower court dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE: 1) WON the property in question was acquired by Juanito from Jose gratuitously or not, thus, comes within the
ambit of reserva troncal?
2) WON the right of Ignacio and children of Lorenzo already prescribed.?

HELD: 1) YES. Doctrine No. 2. The essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously, from pure
generosity, without requiring from the transferee ay prestation. It is evident from the record that the transmission of Lot
399 to Juanito upon death of Jose was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous.It is true that the
there is the order of the probate court to pay Standard il, Co of NY a certain amount, but the same s impsed to
Consolacion and Juanito not personally by the deceased Jose in his Will but by an order of the probate court. as long as
the transmission of the property to the heirs is free from any condition imposed by the deceased himself and the property
is given out of pure generosity, it is gratuitous. As far as Jose is concerned, the transmission of the propert y to his heirs is

2) NO. Doctrine No. 3 The cause of action of reservees does not arise until the reservor dies. Ignacio, et.als action was
very timely, since they filed it after Consolacions death.

9. Gonzales v. CFI, 104 SCRA 479 -KUNG

Facts: Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died. He was survived by his
widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children: (Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and Filomena, Benito,
Alejandro and Jose). The real properties left by Benito were partitioned in three equal portions by his
daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were
represented by Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Races. Mrs. Legarda
executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased
daughter, Filomena. As a result, Filomena Races succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as
co-owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.

Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties,
which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the children of her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose
(sixteen grandchildren in all). Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties
consisting of the one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in
representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.

Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. The decree of probate was
affirmed by the CA.

In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix, filed a motion to exclude
from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter,
Filomena, on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by
Filomena Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
That motion was opposed by the administrator, Benito F. Legarda.

Without awaiting the resolution on that motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers,
sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate for the purpose of securing a declaration that the
said properties are reservable properties. Lower court dismissed the action of Beatriz.

Issue: whether the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal under art.

Held: In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an
ascendant or from a brother or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is
acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant, and (3) the said ascendant should reserve
the said property for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased
descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property came.

3 transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an
ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant; (2) a posterior transmission, by operation of
law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of
another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation, and (3) a
third transmissions of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the
reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging
to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased descendant .

The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property
was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title, (2) the descendant or prepositus
(prepositus) who received the property, (3) the reservor (reservista) the other ascendant who obtained
the property from the (prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the reserves (reservatario) who is within
the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the (line o tronco) from which the property came
and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.

Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. illegitimate relationship and relationship by affinity
are excluded. Gratuitous title or titulo lucrativo refers to a transmission wherein the recipient gives
nothing in return such as donacion and succession.

The reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve
and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line
from which the property came.

The properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. Legarda. She was a
reservor. The reservation became a certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives
within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda.

Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable
properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not
form part of her estate. The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties
as long as the reservees survived the reservor.

Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives
within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the six children of Mrs. Legarda. She
could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other
reservees of their share therein.

To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary disposition of the reservable properties in favor
of the reservees in the third degree and, consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree
would be a glaring violation of article 891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed.

10. Sumaya v. IAC, 201 SCRA 178 -YAP

Doctrine: Relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right (or property) is reserved have no title of
ownership or of fee simple over the reserved property during the lifetime of the reservor. Only when the reservor
should die before the reservees will the latter acquire the reserved property, thus creating a fee simple, and only
then will they take their place in the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives within the third
degree. The reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservor, as it then becomes a right of full ownership on
the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor.

Facts: Raul inherited from two (2) different ascendants the two (2) sets of properties subject of this case: 1) 1/3
interest, pro-indiviso in a parcel of land in Laguna from his father; and 2) A one-seventh (1/7) interest pro-indiviso in
ten (10) parcels of registered lands from his maternal grandmother.

Raul died intestate eaving only his mother, Consuelo, as his sole surviving heir.
Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the above described properties in an Affidavit.
She then later sold the property in Laguna to Sumaya which was subsequently sold by Sumaya to Villa Honorio
Development Corporation, Inc., which later on transferred and assigned its rights over the property in favor of Agro-
Industrial Coconut Cooperative, Inc. Consuelo also sold the properties in the 2
inheritance to Villa Honorio
Development Corporation, Inc. which also in turn transferred and assigned all its rights to the properties in favor of
Agro-Industrial Cooperative.

Consuelo died and now comes her children, brothers of Raul to recover said properties which they claimed were
subject to a reserva troncal in their favor. Trial Court ruled in favor of the brothers. This decision was appealed to
the appellate court which affirmed the decision of the court a quo in toto. The motion for reconsideration was denied
(p. 65, Rollo) by the appellate court which found no cogent reason to reverse the decision.

According to petitioners, before they agreed to buy the properties from the reservor, Consuelo they first sought the
legal advice of their family consultant and that there were no liens and encumbrances hence they were buyers in
good faith. The fact remains however, that the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source
of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature thereof was registered with the RD, and this is sufficient
notice to the whole world.

Issue: 1) WON said properties are reservable and that the brothers have a better right, and 2) if such right has
already prescribed.

Ruling: Yes. No.

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

The respondent appellate court did not err in finding that the cause of action of the private respondents did not
prescribe yet. The cause of action of the reservees did not commence upon the death of the propositus Raul but
upon the death of the reservor Consuelo. Relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right is reserved have
no title of ownership or of fee simple over the reserved property during the lifetime of the reservor. Only when the
reservor should die before the reservees will the latter acquire the reserved property, thus creating a fee simple,
and only then will they take their place in the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives within the
third degree. The reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservor, as it then becomes a right of full
ownership on the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor. Nonetheless, this right if not
exercised within the time for recovery may prescribe in 10 years under the old Code of Civil Procedure.

11. Velayo v. Siojo, 58 Phil 89 -AQUINO

Bernardo vs Siojo

The spouses, Marcelo Velayo Bernardo and Florentina de los Santos, had two daughters named Valeriana and
Maria Trinidad. Maria Trinidad was married to Pablo Aguirre who died on May 20, 1928, with whom she had two
children, Roman and Maximina. Roman died on August 30, 1906, without any descendant and Maximina, who was
married to Miguel Siojo likewise died without leaving any children.

The lands which are subject matter of this suit proceeded from the Velayo spouses and were inherited by Maximina
Aguirre in the following manner; parcels A, B, C, D and F, from her grandfather and G and H, from her

In her will which was allowed to probate, Maximina Aguirre bequeathed two-thirds (2/3) of said property to her
father, Pablo Aguirre, and the remaining one-third (1/3) to her husband, Miguel Siojo. The latter was appointed
executor of the said Maximina Aguirre's will, administered said property and reaped the benefits derived therefrom
with Pablo Aguirre.
Sometime later, Pablo Aguirre brought an action against the appellee herein for partition of the lands in question
which action was withdrawn through a compromise agreement between the parties by virtue of which Siojo was to
remain in possession of all the lands which belonged to his wife in lieu of payment by him to Pablo Aguirre of the
sum of P3,250.

The appellant herein was not a party to either the action for partition or the compromise agreement between the
appellee and Pablo Aguirre, yet in spite of the fact that these two understood the reservable nature of all the lands
in question; they made it appear in their written agreement that the appellant herein was present in the court when
said agreement was made and that she had given her consent thereto, renouncing whatever right she might have
in said lands. It was likewise stated in the compromise agreement that Pablo Aguirre would deliver a certain portion
of the sum of P3,250 to the appellant herein. This compromise agreement was approved by the then presiding
judge and was made a part of the decision rendered therein which terminated the litigation.

Issue: whether the compromise agreement waiving the Petitioners right to the reservable property is valid.

Held: Valeriana is declared entitled to five-sixths (5/6) of parcels A, D, G and H described in the complaint and to
five-sixths (5/6) of half of the parcels B, C, and F as well as to the same proportion in the fruits realized and derived
by the Siojo from said lands.

The parties admit that all the lands partake of the character of reservable property having been inherited by an
ascendant who was found to reserve them for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line
from which such property came, in accordance with article 811 of the Civil Code.

On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right is reserved cannot dispose of the
property, first because it is in no way, either actually, constructively or formally, in their possession; and moreover,
because they have no title of ownership or of fee simple which they can transmit to another, on the hypothesis that
only when the person who must reserve the right should die before them will they acquire it, thus creating a fee
simple, and only then will they take their place in the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives
within the third degree, that is to say, a second contingent place in said legitimate succession in the fashion of
aspirants to a possible future legacy.

Renunciation of the right over the reserved property by the reservatario during the lifetime of the reservista is void
and prohibited by article 1271 of the CC forbidding the execution of contracts with respect to future inheritances.

week (legitimes)

Study: Civil Code, articles 886-890, 892-914

Memorize: Legitime charts

1. Danilo I. Suarez v. CA, 213 SCRA 397 BISNAR
Marcelo Suarez died in 1955, since then, his estate consisting of several parcels of land had not been liquidated.
Danilo I. Suarez, et al. (Petitioners) were children of Marcelo.
1977: Teofista Suarez, Marcelos widow and Rizal Realty Corporation lost in consolidated cases for rescission of
some contracts and for damages against Valente Raymundo, et al. (Respondents).
Court ordered them to pay the respondents.
5 parcels of land owned by the deceased were levied and sold in an auction, where the Respondents were the
highest bidder.
Petitioners filed an action for the annulment of the auction sale and the recovery of the ownership of the property.

Issue: Whether private respondents can validly acquire all 5 parcels of land co-owned by petitioners and registered in the
name of petitioners deceased father?

Ruling: No.
Only of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the auction sale.
Art. 777: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
Art. 888: The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of of the hereditary estate of the father
and of the mother.
The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the
surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.
Art. 892 (2nd par.): If there are 2 or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to
a portion equal to the legitime of each child.
The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different from and adverse to that of
their mother.
Petitioners became co-owners of the property not because of their mother but through their own rights as children of
their deceased father.