successiondigests233-243.doc

8/14/2019 Successiondigests233-243.doc

1/10

Reservatarios

DIONISIA PADURA, et. al. vs. MELANIA BALDOVINO, et. al.G.R. No. L-1196, De!e"#er $%, 19&'

(A)*S+Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife,he had one child, Manule Padura, and with his second wife Benita padura, he had twochildren, Fortunato and Candelaria. Agustin died in 190, lea!ing all of his properties toBenita and the three children. Four parcels of land were ad"uciated to Fortunato Padura.Fortunato Padura died without a will an# without an# issue, said parcels of land passedto his mother, Benita. $n 19%&, Candelaria also died, lea!ing as his onl# heirs fourlegitimate children, petitioners herein. 'hereafter Manuel also died, lea!ing as his onl#heirs se!en legitimate children, oppositors herein. $n 19(), Benita Padura died. 'hen thenephews and nieces of Fortunato from his full sister Candelaria and half*+rother Manuelwere declared to +e the rightful reser!atarios. 'he instant petition is filed to ha!e thereser!a+le properties partitioned, such that 1) of the same +e ad"udicated to thechildren of Candelaria on the +asis that the# inherit +# right of representation. 'he

children of Manuel filed their opposition, maintaining that the# should all +e deemed asinheriting in their own right, and all inherit in e-ual shares.

ISSUE+Whether or not the properties +e apportioned among the nephews of the whole+lood and the nephews of the half*+lood e-uall#.

ELD+ o. 'he purpose of the reser!e is accomplished once the propert# has de!ol!edto the specified relati!es in the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no furtheroccasion for its application. $n the relations +etween one reser!atario and another of thesame degree, there is no call for appl#ing Art. 91 an# longer/ wherefore, the respecti!eshares of each re!ersionar# propert# should +e go!erned +# the ordinar# rules ofintestate succession. pon the death of the ascendant reser!ista, the reser!a+le

propert# should pass, not to all reser!atarios as a class, +ut onl# to those nearest indegree to the descendant propositus2, e3cluding those reser!atarios of more remotedegree. Pro3imit# of degree and right of representation are +asic principles of ordinar#intestate succession/ so is the rule that whole +lood +rothers and nephews are entitledto a share dou+le that of +rothers and nephews of half*+lood. 'he reser!a troncal merel#determines the group of relati!es to whom the propert# should +e returned / +ut withinthat group the indi!idual right of the propert# should +e decided +# the ordinar# rules ofintestate succession, since Art. 91 does not specif# otherwise.

IGNA)IO (RIAS )UA!s. *E )OUR* O( (IRS* INS*AN)E O( NEGROSO))IDEN*ALG.R. No. L-$991,Ast /1, 19%%

ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A


2/10

(A)*S+ 4uring the first marriage of 5ose Frias Chua with Patricia 6. Militar alias 6#7uio he sired three children, namel#8 $gnacio, oren:o and Manuel, all surnamed FriasChua. When Patricia 6. Militar died, 5ose Frias Chua contracted a second marriage withConsolacion de la 'orre with whom he had a child +# the name of 5uanita Frias Chua.'hen in 19)9, 5ose Frias Chua died intestate lea!ing his one*half 1),2 portion of oto. %99 in fa!or of 5ose Frias Chua;s widow, Consolacion de la 'orre, the other half of

ot o. %99 in fa!or of 5uanito Frias Chua, his son in the second marriage . ater,5uanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without an# issue. After hisdeath, his mother Consolacion de la 'orre succeeded to his pro*indi!isio share of oto. %99. 'hen Consolacion de la 'orre died intestate lea!ing no direct heir either in thedescending or ascending line e3cept her +rother and sisters. Petitioners herein, $gnacioFrias Chua, of the first marriage and 4ominador and , ?'he transmission is gratuitous or +#gratuitous title when the recipient does not gi!e an#thing in return.? $t matters notwhether the propert# transmitted +e or +e not su+"ect to an# prior charges/ what isessential is that the transmission +e made gratuitousl#, or +# an act of mere li+eralit# ofthe person ma@ing it, without imposing an# o+ligation on the part of the recipient/ andthat the person recei!ing the propert# gi!es or does nothing in return/ or, as a+l# put +#an eminent Filipino commentator,?the essential thing is that the person who transmits itdoes so gratuitousl#, from pure generosit#, without re-uiring from the transferee an#prestation.? $t is e!ident from the record that the transmission of the propert# in -uestionto 5uanito Frias Chua of the second marriage upon the death of his father 5ose FriasChua was +# means of a hereditar# succession and therefore gratuitous. 'hus, theforegoing re-uisites for reser!e troncal to e3ist are present. 5uanito Frias Chua of thesecond marriage died intestate in 19()/ he died withour lea!ing an# issue/ his pro*indi!iso of 1) share of ot o. %99 was ac-uired +# his mother, Consolacion de la 'orredied, 5uannnito Frias Chua who died intestate had relati!es within the third degree.'hese relati!es are $gnacio Frias Chua and 4ominador Chua and


3/10

(A)*S+ 'he spouses, Marcelo ela#o Bernardo and Florentina de los 6antos, had twodaughters named aleriana, the appellant herein, and Maria 'rinidad, who was marriedto Miguel 6io"o, the defendant herein, li@ewise died without lea!ing an# children. 'helands proceeded from the ela#o spouses and were inherited +# Ma3imina Aguirre inthe following manner/ parcels A, B, C, 4 and F, from her grandfather and and , fromher grandmother. $n her will which was allowed to pro+ate, Ma3imina Aguirre

+e-ueathed two*thirds )%2 of said propert# to her father, Pa+lo Aguirre, and theremaining one*third 1%2 to her hus+and, Miguel 6io"o. 6ometime later, Pa+lo Aguirre+rought an action against the appellee herein for partition of the lands in -uestion whichaction was withdrawn through a compromise agreement +etween the parties +# !irtue ofwhich 6io"o was to remain in possession of all the lands which +elonged to his wife inlieu of pa#ment +# him to Pa+lo Aguirre of the sum of P%,)(0. aleriana ela#oBernardo +rought an action to compel her nephew, Miguel 6io"o, to partition the se!enparcels of land descri+ed in the complaint/ to ha!e her declared entitled to a shareconsisting in fi!e*si3ths (>2 thereof/ to ha!e the appellee render an accounting of all thefruits deri!ed +# him therefrom since the death of his father*in*law, Pa+lo Aguirre, onMa# )0, 19), and to deli!er to her the amount corresponding to her said share, withcosts against the appellee.

ISSUE+ Whether or not the alleged compromise agreement constituted a transfer orwai!er +# the appellant of her right to the reser!a+le propert#.

ELD+ o. 'he Court concluded that, strictl# spea@ing, the appellant did not inter!enein ci!il case o. )9(& and was not a part# to the action for partition or in the compromiseagreement entered into +# the parties to that suit, and e!en in the supposition that shehad !oluntaril# gi!en her consent thereto, the contract thus e3ecuted was null and !oidor without effect for the reason that it anticipated the transfer or wai!er of reser!a+le

propert# during the lifetime of the reser!er thereof. D!en if the appellee o+tain thecertificate of title and transfer certificate of title corresponding to parcels A and B,

respecti!el#, he is, ne!ertheless, +ound to transfer herein appellant the portion towhich she is entitled in !iew of the fact that he o+tained said certificates of titlethereto @nowing that such properties did not +elong to him +ut to the reser!ee,the appellant herein.

Pr3ose o4 Reserva *ro5!al

(RAN)IS)A *IO)O DE PAPA !s. DALISA0 *ONGO )AMA)OG.R. No. L-$'/$, Se3te"#er $7, 19'6

ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A


4/10

(A)*S8


5/10

(A)*S+ PetitionerMarcelina Ddroso applied for registration and issuance of title to twoparcels of land situated in the municipalit# of Pagsan"an, Pro!ince of aguna, one of 1hectare EE ares and >% centares, and the other 1 hectare > ares and )> centares. 'woapplications were filed, one for each parcel, +ut +oth were heard and decided in a single

"udgment. Marcelina Ddroso was married to ictoriano 6a+lan the# had a son namedPedro who inherited the two said parcels. Pedro also died, unmarried and without issue

and +# this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother,Marcelina Ddroso. ence the hereditar# title whereupon is +ased the application forregistration of her ownership. 'wo legitimate +rothers of ictoriano 6a+lan that is, twouncles german of Pedro 6a+lan appeared in the case to oppose the registration,claiming one of two things8 Dither that the registration +e denied, ?or that if granted to herthe right reser!ed +# law to the opponents +e recorded in the registration of eachparcel.? 'he Court of and


6/10

land planted with coconut trees, situated in the barrio of %ta. &atalina, %an

!ablo La$una. !etitioner filed a co#plaint a$ainst %inforoso 'rte$a and

&andido &aria$a that he was ille$all", and b" #eans of strate$" and stealth,

turned out of the possession of said lands. In answer to said co#plaint, the

defendant 'rte$a denied the alle$ations and clai#ed that he was, to$ether

with his sister Francisca 'rte$a, a pro indiviso owner thereof, and that hispossession was not obtained ille$all" and was inherited fro# their first cousin

Anacleta 'rte$a and that defendant Rufina Medel had onl" the usufruct of

said parcels of land durin$ her lifeti#e. (he case was dis#issed as to the

defendant &aria$a.

ISSUE+ Whether or not the alienation of the three parcels of land is !alid.

ELD+o. A mother who, +# operation of law, inherits a propert# from her daughter,

who in turn has ac-uired the same +# inheritance from her father, is o+liged, under

Article 11 of the Ci!il Code, to reser!e such propert# in fa!or of the uncles of said

daughter, +ut this does not render said mother a mere usufructuar# of said propert#she is the owner thereof su+"ect to resolutor# condition, to wit, the e3istence at her death

of relati!es of her daughter within the third degree +elonging to the line where said

propert# came. 6he ma#, therefore, alienate said propert#, pro!ided she sa!es the right

of the reser!es +# securing the latter the !alue thereof, according to the pro!isions

Articles 9E& and 9E( of the Ci!il Code in connection with Article 109 of the Mortgage

aw, and in the manner esta+lished in this article, the pro!isions of the first two articles

+eing applica+le to reser!a+le propert# mentioned in article 11 of the Ci!il Code. But if

the alienation is made without compliance with said pro!isions, the same will +e null and

!oid as against the uncles of said daughter who ma# ha!e sur!i!ed her mother. 'hus,


7/10

G.R. No. L-$/177, a5ar: 17, 19$6

(A)*S+


8/10

(A)*S+ Maria Corral was married to Mariano


9/10

Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the propert# for him, whenhe died, single and without an# descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, e3ecuted thepu+lic instrument and she sold the propert# in -uestion to appellants. When thereaftersaid !endees demanded from Paulina =aeso and her hus+and 5ose Dsparcia, thesurrender of Griginal Certificate of 'itle o. 10)E( the latter refused, thus gi!ing rise tothe filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral record o. (0E. 'hereafter,

Cipriana and Paulina =aeso, the sur!i!ing half*sisters of Francisco, e3ecuted a deed ofsale in fa!or of the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes who, in turn, declared itin their name for ta3 purposes and thereafter secured the issuance in their name of'ransfer Certificate of 'itle. Appellants commenced an action to secure "udgment 12declaring null and !oid the sale e3ecuted +# Paulina and Cipriana =aeso in fa!or ofappellees, the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes/ )2 ordering the Dsparciaspouses to recon!e# to appellants ot %%> of the Cadastral 6ur!e# of A#u-uitan now

Amlan2, Griental egros/ and %2 ordering all the appellees to pa#, "ointl# and se!erall#,to appellants the sum of P(00.00 as damages, plus the costs of suit. $n their answerappellees disclaimed an# @nowledge or information regarding the sale and said propert#had ne!er +een in possession of appellants.

ISSUE+ Whether or not the rights of the reser!atario can +e alienated.

ELD+ =es. $t is clear that the sale e3ecuted +# the sisters Paulina and Cipriana =aesoin fa!or of the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes was su+"ect to a similarresolutor# condition. $n connection with reser!a+le propert#, the weight of opinion is thatthe reser!e creates two resolutor# conditions, namel#, 12 the death of the ascendanto+liged to reser!e and )2 the sur!i!al, at the time of his death, of relati!es within thethird degree +elonging to the line from which the propert# came. 'he reser!e instituted+# law in fa!or of the heirs within the third degree +elonging to the line from which thereser!a+le propert# came, constitutes a real right which the reser!ee ma# alienate anddispose of, al+eit conditionall#, the condition +eing that the alienation shall transferownership to the !endee onl# if and when the reser!ee sur!i!es the person o+liged to

reser!e. $n the present case, Cipriana =aeso, one of the reser!ees, was still ali!e whenAndrea utang, the person o+liged to reser!e, died. 'hus the former +ecame thea+solute owner of the reser!a+le propert# upon Andrea;s death. While it ma# +e true thatthe sale made +# her and her sister prior to this e!ent, +ecame effecti!e +ecause of theoccurrence of the resolutor# condition, the Courts is not in a position to re!erse theappealed decision, in so far as it orders the re!ersion of the propert# in -uestion to theDstate of Cipriana =aeso, +ecause the !endees the Dsparcia spouses did not appealtherefrom.

;2e5 reservatario a!UIA GUERRERO, E* AL.G.R. No. L-1%1, a5ar: 16, 19&9

(A)*S+ $n an amended decision, issued in and


10/10

motion with the Cadastral Court, alleging the death of the original registered owner andreservista, Maria Cano, and pra#ing that the original Certificate of 'itle +e orderedcancelled and a new one issued in fa!or of mo!ant Dusta-uia uerrero/ and that the6heriff +e ordered to place her in possession of the propert#. 'he motion was opposed+# 5ose and 'eotimo Fernande:, sons of the reservistaMaria Cano, who contended thatthe application and operation of the reserva troncalshould +e !entilated in an ordinar#

contentious proceeding, and that the

successiondigests233-243.doc

Documents