MARIA MENDOZA, ET AL. V.

JULIA POLICARPIO
G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013

FACTS:

The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of land (Lots 1, 2, and
3 for brevity) located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan presently in the name of respondent Julia
Delos Santos. Lot No. 2 is also in the name of respondent but allegedly co-owned by
Victoria Pantaleon who bought one-half of the property from petitioner Maria Mendoza
and her siblings. Petitioners alleged that the lands were part of their grandparents
Placido and Dominga's estate.

Placido and Dominga had four children, and Exequiel is one of them. After the
death of Spouses Placido and Dominga, the properties subject of this case were
adjudicated to Exequiel in an oral partition. When, Exequiel died, the lands passed to
his wife Leonor, and daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor's death, all lands were
subsequently passed to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died intestate without issue.
Petitioners (cousins of Gregoria) claimed that respondent Julia (Gregoria's aunt) who is
the sister of Leonor adjudicated unto herself all the lands allegedly as sole heir of Leonor
and Gregoria. Petitioners argued that the lands should revert to them as being subject to
reserva troncal by virtue of Article 891
of the Civil Code.

Julia (respondent) denies that she has the obligation to reserve the lands and
claims that these did not originate from petitioner's familial line. Instead. Julia alleges
that Exequiel bought them from a certain Alfonso Ramos in 1931.

RTC ruled for the petitioners and ordered the reconveyance of the properties to
them by virtue of reserva troncal. Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held that
petitioners failed to establish that Placido and Dominga owned the properties in
dispute.

ISSUE:

WON Are the properties subject to reserva troncal?

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that the properties are not reservable. There are three
lines of transmission in reserva troncal. The first transmission is by gratuitous title,
whether by inheritance or donation, from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant
called the prepositus. The second transmission is by operation of law from the
propositus 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.
 It was error for the Court of Appeals to proceed fromvthepremise that Placido
(grand father of petitioners) is the ascendant contemplated in Article 891. The lineal
character of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the
propositus received the property by gratuitous title. The ownership should be reckoned
only from Exequiel as he is the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred or
from whom Gregoria inherited the properties. The law does not go farther than such
ascendant/brother or sister in determining the lineal character of the property.
Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from
Exequiel by gratuitous title.

Moreover, Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been
acquired by the descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative
title. It was clearly established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned
by Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/propositus) acquired the
properties as inheritance.

Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an
ascendant (also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant,/prepositus. Julia,
however, is not Gregoria's ascendant; rather, she is Gregoria's collateral relative within
the third degree and not her ascendant. If at all, what should apply in the distribution of
Gregoria's estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code, which provide:

Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a

surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased in accordance with the following articles.

Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers
or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. The latter shall
succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship
by the whole blood.

Nevertheless, the Court is not in the proper position to determine the proper
distribution of Gregoria's estate at this point as the cause of action relied upon by
petitioners in their complaint filed with the RTC is based solely on reserva troncal.
Further, any determination would necessarily entail reception of evidence on Gregoria's
entire estate and the heirs entitled thereto, which is best accomplished in an action filed
specifically for that purpose.