Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 6878 September 13, 1913MARCELINA EDROSO, petitioner-appellant, vs.PALO !"# ASILIO SALAN, opponents-appellees.Francisco Dominguez for appellant.Crispin Oben for appellees.ARELLANO, C.J.$The subject matter of this appeal is the reistration of certain propert! classifie" as re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve". Marcelina E"roso applie" for reistration an" issuance of title to t$o parcels of lan" situate" in the municipalit! of Pasanjan, Province of %auna, one of & hectare '' ares an" () centares, an" the other & hectare ( ares an" *( centares. T$o applications $ere file", one for each parcel, but both $ere hear" an" "eci"e" in a sinle ju"ment.Marcelina E"roso $as marrie" to +ictoriano ,ablan until his "eath on ,eptember **, &--*. .n this marriae the! ha" a son name" Pe"ro, $ho $as born on Auust &, &--&, an" $ho at his father/s "eath inherite" the t$o sai" parcels. Pe"ro also "ie" on 0ul! &1, &23*, unmarrie" an" $ithout issue an" b! this "ecease the t$o parcels of lan" passe" throuh inheritance to his mother, Marcelina E"roso. 4ence the here"itar! title $hereupon is base" the application for reistration of her o$nership.T$o leitimate brothers of +ictoriano ,ablan 5 that is, t$o uncles erman of Pe"ro ,ablan 5 appeare" in the case to oppose the reistration, claimin one of t$o thins6 Either that the reistration be "enie", 7or that if rante" to her the riht reserve" b! la$ to the opponents be recor"e" in the reistration of each parcel.7 8B. of E., &&, &*.9The Court of %an" Reistration "enie" the reistration an" the application appeale" throuh a bill of e:ceptions.Reistration $as "enie" because the trial court hel" that the parcels of lan" in #uestion parta;e of the nature of propert! re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" an" that in such a case application coul" onl! be presente" jointl! in the names of the mother an" the sai" t$o uncles of Pe"ro ,ablan.The appellant impuns as erroneous the first i"ea a"vance" 8secon" assinment of error9, an" "enies that the lan" $hich are the subject matter of the application are re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" 5 a contention $e rear" as in"efensible., $hence the lan"s procee"e". The trial court/s rulin that the! parta;e of the nature propert! re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" is therefore in accor"ance $ith the la$.But the appellant conten"s that it is not proven that the t$o parcels of lan" in #uestion have been ac#uire" b! operation of la$, an" that onl! propert! ac#uire" $ithout a valuable consi"eration, $hichis b! operation of la$, is re#uire" b! la$ to reserve".The appellees justl! arue that this "efense $as not allee" or "iscusse" in first instance, but onl! herein. Certainl!, the alleation in first instance $as merel! that 7Pe"ro ,ablan ac#uire" the propert!in #uestion in &--*, before the enforcement of the Civil Co"e, $hich establishes the allee" riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", of $hich the opponents spea;= hence, prescription of the riht of action= an" finall!, opponents/ renunciation of their riht, a"mittin that it e:iste" an" that the! ha" it7 8p. A29.4o$ever that be, it is not superflous to sa!, althouh it ma! be unnecessar!, that the applicant inherite" the t$o parcels of lan" from her son Pe"ro, $ho "ie" 7unmarrie" an" $ithout issue.7 The trial court so hel" as a conclusion of fact, $ithout an! objection on the appellant/s part. 8B. of E., &', *3.9 Bhen Pe"ro ,ablan "ie" $ithout issue, his mother became his heir b! virtue of her riht to her son/s leal portion un"er article 2)1 of the Civil Co"e6.n the absence of leitimate chil"ren an" "escen"ants of the "ecease", his ascen"ants shallfrom him, to the e:clusion of collaterals.The contrar! coul" onl! have occurre" if the heiress ha" "emonstrate" that an! of these lan"s ha" passe" into her possession b! free "isposal in her son/s $ill= but the case presents no testamentar! provision that "emonstrate an! transfer of propert! from the son to the mother, not b! operation of la$, but b! her son/s $ish. The leal presumption is that the transfer of the t$o parcels of lan" $as abintestate or b! operation of la$, an" not b! $ill or the $ish of the pre"ecessor in interest. 8Act No. &23, sec. ))A, No. *(.9 All the provision of article -&& of the Civil Co"e have therefore been full! complie" $ith..f Pe"ro ,ablan ha" institute" his mother in a $ill as the universal heiress of his propert!, all he left at "eath $oul" not be re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", but onl! $hat he $oul" have perforce left her as the leal portion of a leitimate ascen"ant.The leal portion of the parents or ascen"ants is constitute" b! one-half of the here"itar! estate of the chil"ren an" "escen"ants. The latter ma! unrestricte"l! "ispose of the other half, $ith the e:ception of $hat is establishe" in article -)(. 8Civil Co"e, art. -32.9.n such case onl! the half constitutin the leal portion $oul" be re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", because it is $hat b! operation of la$ coul" full to the mother from her son/s inheritance= the other half at free "isposal $oul" not have to be reserve". This is all that article -&& of the Civil Co"e sa!s.No error has been incurre" in hol"in that the t$o parcels of lan" $hich are the subject matter of theapplication are re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", because the intereste" part! has not prove" that either of them became her inheritance throuh the free "isposal of her son.Proof testate succession "evolves upon the heir or heiress $ho allees it. .t must be a"mitte" that a half of Pe"ro ,ablan/s inheritance $as ac#uire" b! his mother b! operation of la$. The la$ provi"es that the other half is also presume" to be ac#uire" b! operation of la$ 5 that is, b! intestate succession. Cther$ise, proof to offset this presumption must be presente" b! the intereste" part!, that is, that the other half $as ac#uire" b! the man/s $ish an" not b! operation of la$.Nor is the thir" assinments of error a"missible 5 that the trial court faile" to sustain the renunciation of the riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", $hich the applicant attributes to the opponents. ,uch renunciation "oes not appear in the case. The appellant "e"uces it from the fact that the appellees "i" not contra"ict the follo$in statement of hers at the trial6The "a! after my brother-in-law Pablo Sablan "ies an" $as burie", his brother came to m! house an" sai" that those rice lan"s $ere mine, because $e ha" alrea"! tal;e" about ma;in "eliver! of them. 8p. 2&9.The other brother allu"e" to is Basilio ,ablan, as state" on pae 2*. e" abilit!, summari>es the subject un"er the hea"in, 7(ights an" obliations "urin the e:istence of the riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve",7 in these $or"s6Durin the $hole perio" bet$een the constitution in leal form of the riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" an" the e:tinction thereof, the relatives $ithin the thir" "eree, after the riht that in their turn ma! pertain to them has been assure!, have onl! an e:pectation, an" therefore the! "o not even have the capacit! to transmit that e:pectation to their heirs.The ascen"ant is in the first place a usufructuar! $ho shoul" use an" enjo! the thins accor"in to their nature, in the manner an" form alrea"! set forth in commentin upon the article of the Co"e referrin to use an" usufruct.But since in a""ition to bein the usufructuar! he is, even thouh con"itionall!, the o$ner in fee simple of the propert!, he can "ispose of it in the manner provi"e" in article 2'A an" 2'( of the same Co"e. Doubt arose also on this point, but the Direccion )eneral of the reistries, in an opinion of 0une *1, &-2*, "eclare" that articles 2'A an" 2'1, $hich are applicable b! analo!, for the! refer to propert! reserve" b! la$, reveal in the clearest manner the attitu"e of the leislator on this subject, an" the relatives $ith the thir" "eree ouht not to be more privilee" in the riht reserve" in article -&& than the chil"ren in the riht reserve" b! article 2'1, chiefl! for the reason that the rihtre#uire" to be reserve" carries $ith it a con"ition subse#uent, an" the propert! subject to those con"itions can vali"l! be alienate" in accor"ance $ith article &32 of the Mortae %a$, such alienation to continue, pen"in fulfillment of the con"ition.7 8Civil Co"e, +., *'3.9Another commentator corroborates the foreoin in ever! $a!. 4e sa!s6The ascen"ants ac#uires that propert! $ith a con"ition subse#uent, to $it, $hether or not there e:ists at the time of his "eath relatives $ithin the thir" "eree of the "escen"ants from $hom the! inherit in the line $hence the propert! procee"s. .f such relatives e:ist, the! ac#uire o$nership of the propert! at the "eath of the ascen"ants. .f the! "o not e:ist, the ascen"ants can freel! "ispose thereof. .f this is true, since the possessor of propert! subject to con"itions subse#uent can alienate an" encumber it, the ascen"ants ma! alienate the propert! re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve", but he $ill alienate $hat he has an" nothin more because no one can ive $hat "oes not belon to him, an" the ac#uirer $ill therefore receive a limite! an! reocable title. The relatives $ithin the thir" "eree $ill in their turn have an e:pectation to the propert! $hile the ascen"ant lives, an e:pectation that cannot be transmitte" to their heirs, unless these are also $ithin the thir" "eree. After the person $ho is re#uire" b! la$ to reserve the riht has "ie", the relatives ma! rescin" the alienation of therealt! re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" an" the! $ill complete o$nership, in fee simple, because the con"ition an" the usufruct have been terminate" b! the "eath of the usufructuar!. 8*orell+ ,stu!ios sobre bienes reserable, )3A, )31.9The conclusion is that the person re#uire" b! article -&& to reserve the riht has, be!on" an! "oubt at all, the rihts of use an" usufruct. 4e has, moreover, for the reasons set forth, the leal title an" "ominion, althouh un"er a con"ition subse#uent. Clearl! he has, un"er an e:press provision of the la$, the riht to "ispose of the propert! reserve", an" to "ispose of is to alienate, althouh un"er a con"ition. 4e has the riht to recover it, because he is the one $ho possesses or shoul" possess it an" have title to it, althouh a limite" an" revocable one. .n a $or", the leal title an" "ominion, even thouh un"er a con"ition, resi"e in him $hile he lives. After the riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" has been assure", he can "o an!thin that a enuine o$ner can "o.Cn the other han", the relatives $ithin the thir" "eree in $hose favor of the riht is reserve" cannot"ispose of the propert!, first because it is no $a!, either actuall!, constructivel! or formall!, in their possession= an", moreover, because the! have no title of o$nership or of the fee simple $hich the! can transmit to another, on the h!pothesis that onl! $hen the person $ho must reserve the riht shoul" "ie before them $ill the! ac#uire it, thus creatin a fee simple, an" onl! then $ill the! ta;e their place in the succession of the "escen"ants of $hom the! are relatives $ithin the thir" "eree, that it to sa!, a secon" continent place in sai" leitimate succession in the fashion of aspirants to a possible future leac!. .f an! of the persons in $hose favor the riht is reserve" shoul", after their rihts has been assure" in the reistr!, "are to "ispose of even nothin more than the fee simple of the propert! to be reserve" his act $oul" be null an" voi", for, as $as "efinitel! "eci"e" in the "ecision on appeal of December )3, &-2', it is impossible to "etermine the part 7that miht pertain therein to the relative at the time he e:ercise" the riht, because in vie$ of the nature an" scope of the riht re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" the e:tent of his riht cannot be foreseen, for it ma! "isappear b! his "!in before the person re#uire" to reserve it, just as ma! even become absolute shoul" that person "ie.7Careful consi"eration of the matter forces the conclusion that no act of "isposal inter ios of the person re#uire" b! la$ to reserve the riht can be impune" b! him in $hose favor it is reserve", because such person has all, absolutel! all, the rihts inherent in o$nership, e:cept that the leal title is bur"ene" $ith a con"ition that the thir" part! ac#uirer ma! ascertain from the reistr! in or"er to ;no$ that he is ac#uirin a title subject to a con"ition subse#uent. .n conclusion, it seems to us that onl! an act of "isposal mortis causa in favor of persons other than relatives $ithin the thir" "eree of the "escen"ants from $hom he ot the propert! to be reserve" must be prohibite" to him, because this alone has been the object of the la$6 7To prevent persons outsi"e a famil! from securin, b! some special acci"ent of life, propert! that $oul" other$ise have remaine" therein.7 8Decision of December )3, &-2'.9Practicall!, even in the opinion of those $ho re"uce the person reservin the riht to the con"ition of a mere usufructuar!, the person in $hose favor it must be reserve" cannot attac; the alienation that ma! be absolutel! ma"e of the propert! the la$ re#uires to be reserve", in the present case, that $hich the appellant has ma"e of the t$o parcels of lan" in #uestion to a thir" part!, because the con"itional alienation that is permitte" her is e#uivalent to an alienation of the usufruct, $hich is authori>e" b! article A-3 of the Civil Co"e, an", practicall!, use an" enjo!ment of the propert! re#uire" b! la$ to be reserve" are all that the person $ho must reserve it has "urin his lifetime, an"in alienatin the usufruct all the usefulness of the thin $oul" be transmitte" in an incontrovertible manner. The #uestion as to $hether or not she transmits the fee simple is purel! aca"emic, sine re, for it is not real, actual positive, as is the case of the institution of t$o heirs, one a usufructuar! an" the other the o$ner, b! the e:press $ish of the pre"ecessor in interest..f the person $hom article -&& re#uires to reserve the riht has all the rihts inherent in o$nership, he can use, enjo!, "ispose of an" recover it= an" if, in a""ition to usufructuar!, he is in fact an" in la$the real o$ner an" can alienate it, althouh un"er a con"ition, the $hole #uestion is re"uce" to the follo$in terms6Cannot the heir of the propert! re#uire" b! la$ to reserve", merel! because a con"ition subse#uent is anne:e" to his riht of "isposal, himself alone reister the o$nership of the propert! he has inherite", $hen the persons in $hose favor the reservation must be ma"e "eree thereto, provi"e" that the riht reserve" to them in the t$o parcels of lan" be recor"e", as the la$ provi"esE.t is $ell ;no$n that the ven"ee un"er pacto !e retracto ac#uires all the rihts of the ven"or6The ven"ee substitutes the ven"or in all his rihts an" actions. 8Civil Co"e, art. &1&&.9.f the ven"or can reister his title, the ven"ee can also reister this same title after he has once ac#uire" it. This title, ho$ever, in its attribute of bein "isposable, has a con"ition subse#uent anne:e" 5 that the alienation the purchaser ma! ma;e $ill be terminate", if the ven"or shoul" e:ercise the riht rante" him b! article &13', $hich sa!s6Conventional re"emption shall ta;e place $hen the ven"or reserves to himself the riht to recover the thin sol", $ith the obliation to compl! $ith article &1&-, an" $hatever more ma! have been aree" upon,7 that is, if he recovers the thin sol" b! repa!in the ven"ee the price of the sale an" other e:penses. Not$ithstan"in this con"ition subse#uent, it is a point not at all "oubtful no$ that the ven"ee ma! reister his title in the same $a! as the o$ner of a thin mortae" 5 that is to sa!,the latter $ith the consent of his cre"itor an" the former $ith the consent of the ven"or. 4e ma! alienate the thin bouht $hen the ac#uirer ;no$s b! $ell from the title entere" in the reistr! that he ac#uires a title revocable after a fi:e" perio", a thin much more certain an" to be e:pecte" than the purel! continent e:pectation of the person in $hose favor is reserve" a riht to inherit some "a!$hat another has inherite". The purpose of the la$ $oul" be "efeate" in not appl!in to the person $ho must ma;e the reservation the provision therein relative to the ven"ee un"er pacto !e retracto, since the arument in his favor is the more po$er an" conclusive= ubi ea!em ratio+ ea!em legis !ispositio.Therefore, $e reverse the ju"ment appeale" from, an" in lieu thereof "eci"e an" "eclare that the applicant is entitle" to reister in her o$n name the t$o parcels of lan" $hich are the subject matter of the applicants, recor"in in the reistration the riht re#uire" b! article -&& to be reserve" to eitheror both of the opponents, Pablo ,ablan an" Basilio ,ablan, shoul" the! survive her= $ithout special fin"ins as to costs.Torres+ *apa+ -ohnson+ Carson an! Trent+ --.+ concur.