DIONISIA PADURA ET AL, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES

V.
MELANIA BALDOVINO, ET AL, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS
GR NO L-11960 DECEMBER 27, 1958
REYES, JBL,J.,
SV: Fortunato Padura without any heirs, hence the four parcels of land he received
from his father were transmitted to her mother. After her mother died, Fortunatos
nephews and nieces from his full sister and half-brother took possession of the
property. The court ruled that these nephews and nieces will have equal shares over
the property.
SC: Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the relatives of Fortunato
up to the third degree will get the reservable property after his mother dies. The
children of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the property by way of
right of representation. But after applying the rule, the reservatarios and their
relationship will be considered in determining their shares. The rules on ordinary
intestate succession would be followed after the reservatarios have been
determined.
1. Agustin Padura married twice. His first wife was Gervacio Landig with
whom he had one child named Manuel Padura. His second wife was Benita
Garing with whom he had 2 children named Fortunato and Candelaria
Padura
2. He died leaving a last will and testament duly probated wherein he
bequeathed his properties among his children, Manuel, CAndelaria and
Fortunato, and his surviving spouse Benita (2 nd wife). Fortunato was
adjudicated 4 parcels of land
a. Fortunato died unmarried and without having executed a will; and
not having any issue, the 4 parcels of land were inherited
exclusively by Benita. Benita applied for an later was issued a
Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, BUT subject to the condition
that the properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the
3rd degree belonging to the line from which the property came
(Fortunato)
b. Candelaria (Fortunatos full sister) died leaving as her heirs her 4
legitimate children (the appellants) Melania, Anicia and Pablo all
surnamed Baldovino
c. Manuel (Fortunatos half brother) also died. His heirs were his
legitimate children (the appellees) Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio,
Francisco, Juana and Severino, all surnamed Padura 1
3. Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and
Fortunato took possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable
properties).
a. CFI Laguna issued a resolution declaring the legitimate children of
Manuel and Candelaria are the rightful reserves and as such
entitled to the 4 parcels of land
4. The Baldovinos filed this present petition wherein they seek to have the
properties partitioned suh that one-half of the same be adjudicated to
1

You will see later, kung bakit lugi talaga yung mga Baldovinos.

them, the other half to the Paduras on the basis that they inherited by
right of representation from their respective parents, the original reserves.
5. The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all (all 11 of them) be
deemed inheriting in their own right hence, they should have equal
shares.
6. TC rendered judgment declaring them all reservees without distinction and
have equal shares over the properties as co-owners, pro indiviso.

ISSUE: should the properties be apportioned among the nephews 2 of the whole
blood and nephews of the hald-blood equally? Or should the nephews of the whole
blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half-blood? The
nephews of the whole blood get twice the share.

The Baldovinos contend that notwithstanding the rule on Reservable

character of the property under Art. 891, the reservatarios nephews of the
whole blood are entitled to a share twice as large as that of the others
pursuant to Arts. 10063, 10084 on intestate succession.
The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of
the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line
from which the property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into
and by their relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista)
o Article 891. 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. (871)
o The motives for such rule were explained by D. Manuel Alonso Martinez
in his book El Codigo Civil en sus relaciones con Las Legislaciones
Forales 5
Summary of not so good translation: consider this sample case:
father dies leaving his wife and lone son as heirs. Wife remarries
and had children with 2nd husband. Lone son dies and his mother
(wife) inherits whatever he got from the father. In case the wife
dies, the relatives of the lone son are prejudiced since the wifes
children from the second marriage will inherit the properties of
the lone son as opposed to his uncle (fathers brother)
The code commission chose to give more importance to lineal
succession than the presumed affection of the deceased.

or niblings kasi may nieces din na kasama

Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and
sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter.
(949)
4
Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or
per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood.
(915)
5
Passage was in Spanish. Google translate was not much help.
3

The commission settled with the suggestion of Manresa, among

others, to reserve the property in case the ascendants inherit in
favor of relatives up to the third degree. No reason was given
why 3rd degree.
Aside from the sample case, another reason why this rule was
adopted was to make it the law more democratic (Democracy
was becoming a trend when the civil code was being made by
the Spaniards, so fetch).
The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has
devolved to the specified relatives of the line of origin. After that, Art.
891 has nothing to do with the relations between one reservatario and
another of the same degree. Their shares should be foverned by the
ordinary rules of intestate succession. Upon the death of the ascendant
reservista, the reservable property should pass, not to all reservatarios as a
class, but only to those nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus),
excluding those reseravatarios more remote in degree.
o The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming
the same as a reservatario of the property is not among those relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property
came. Relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be
considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as
such
o But there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are
within the third degree mentioned by law as in the case of nephews of
the deceased person from whom the reservable property came
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of
intestate succession so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are
entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.
o In determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of
degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply,
the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood
should likewise be operative.
Reserva Troncal merely determines the group pof relatives to whom the
property should be returned. Within the group, the individual right to the
property should be decided by applicable rules of ordinary intestate
succession (since art. 891 is silent on the matter).
Reserva Troncal is an exceptional case and its application should be limited to
what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law
Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the reservatarios could compel the
annotation of their right (over the property) in the registry of property. The
reservable property is no part of the estate of the reservista, who may not
dispose them by will so long as there are reservatarios existing. The
reservatarios are in fact inheriting from the descendant prepositus from
whom the reservista inherited the property.
If the nephews of whole and half-blood inherited the prepositus directly, the
whole bloods would receive a double share compared to those of the halfblood. Why then should the half-bloods inherit equally just because of the
delay in the transmission of the property (when it was with the reservista)?
The hereditary portions should not change

Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this despite the contrary
opinions of authors such as Sanchez Roman and Mucius Scaevola.

Appealed order REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Whole blood nephews will get twice the
share of those who are nephews of Half-blood.

Francisca Tioco DE PAPA, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

Dalisay Tongko CAMACHO, et al., defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-28032; September 24, 1986
FACTS:
The plaintiffs are the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant, Dalisay. They have as a common
ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister named Romana Tioco), father of the plaintiffs and great
grandfather of Dalisay. During the lifetime of Romana, she gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land to
her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs). The latter died intestate survived by her husband
Estacio Dizon and their two (2) legitimate children, Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay) and leaving
the said four (4) parcels of land as the inheritance of the children in equal pro-indiviso shares.
Subsequently, Balbino died intestate, survived by his legitimate children and bu his wife (among the
plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren, Faustino and Trinidad. In the partition of his estate, three (3)
parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of Toribia but as she had predeceased her father, the
said three (3) parcesl of land devolved upon her two legitimate children, Faustino and Trinidad in equal
pro-inidiviso shares. Faustino died intestate, singled and without issue, leaving his one-half (1/2) proindiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land to his father, Eustacio, as his sole intestate heir, who
reserved the said property subject to a reserva troncal. When Trinidad died intestate, her rights and
interests in the land were inherited by her only child, Dalisay and not long after, Eustacio died intestate
survived also by his only legitimate child, Dalisay. Dalisay now owns one-half (1/2) of all the seven (7)
parcels of land as her inheritance from Trinidad. Dalisay also claims the other half of the said parcels of
land by virtue of reserva troncal imposed thereon upon the death of Faustino but the plaintiffs opposed
such claim because they claim three-fourths (3/4) of the one-half pro-indiviso interst in said parcel of land,
which was inherited by Eustacio from Faustino, or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels of land, by virtue
of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino. The lower court declared that the parties are entitled
to one-half (1/2) of the seven (7) parcels of land in dispute, as reservatarios, in equal proportions. Not
satisfied, the defendant appealed.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not all the relatives of the propositus within the third degree in the appropriate line
succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista.
2. Whether or not the rights of the plaintiffs are subject to, and should be determined by, the
rules on intestate succession.
RULING:
Article 891. 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.

The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property
should be returned, but within that group, the individual right to the property should be decided by the
applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Article 891 does not specify otherwise. This
conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional case, its application
should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law.
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on instestate succession, the
plaintiffs must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino
(the propositus), they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant, although they are
related to him within the same degree as the latter. Had the reversionary property passed directly from the
propositus, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs would have been excluded by the defendant under the
rules of intestate succession. There is no reason why a different result should obtain simply because the

transmission of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva, i.e., the property took a
detour through an ascendant thereby govong rise to the reservation before its transmission to the
reservatario.
Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the
plaintiffs.

Marcelina EDROSO, petitioner-appellant, vs.

Pablo and Basilio SABLAN, opponent-appellees.
G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913
FACTS:
Spouses Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan had a son named, Pedro who inherited two parcels
of land upon the death of his father. Subsequently, Pedro died, unmarried and without issue, the two
parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based
the application for registration of her ownership. The two uncles of Pedro, Pablo and Basilio Sablan
(legitimate brothers of Victoriano) opposed the registration claiming that either the registration be denied
or if granted to her, the right reserved by law to them be recorded in the registration of each parcel. The
Court of Land Registration denied the registration holding that the land in question partake of the nature
of property required by law to be reserved and that in such a case application could only be presented
jointly in the names of the mother and the said two uncles. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the property in question is in the nature of a reservable property.
2. Whether or not Marcelina Edroso has the absolute title of the property to cause its
registration.
RULING:
A very definite conclusions of law is that the hereditary title is one without a valuable consideration
(gratuitous tile), and it is so characterized in Article 968 of the Civil Code, for he who acquires by
inheritance gives nothing in return for what he receives; and a very definite conclusion of law also is that
the uncles are within the third degree of blood relationship.
Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter
acquired without a valuable consideration from another descendant, or form a brother or
sister, is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law for the
relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line where the property
proceeded.

Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him the two parcels of land which he
had acquired without a valuable consideration that is, by inheritance from another ascendant, his father
Victoriano. Having acquire them by operation of law, she is obligated to relatives within the third degree
and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez (parents of Victoriano), where the
lands proceeded. The trial courts ruling that they partake of the nature property required by law to be
reserved is therefore in accordance with the law.
The conclusion is that the person required by Article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at
all, the rights to use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal title and dominion, although under a
condition subsequent. Clearly he has under an express provision of the law the right to dispose of the
property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a condition. He has the right to recover
it, because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and have title to it, although a limited and
revocable one. In a word, the legal title and dominion, even though under a condition, reside in him while
he lives. After the right required by law to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything that a
genuine owner can do.
On the other hadnt, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the right is reserved cannot
dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually or constructively or formally, in their
possession; and moreover, because they have no title of ownership or of the 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.