Edroso v.

Sablan
G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913

FACTS:

Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22,
1882. In this marriage they had a son named Pedro who at his fathers death inherited
the two said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and without issue and
by this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother,
Marcelina Edroso. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for
registration of her ownership.

Two legitimate brothers of VictorianoSablan that is, two uncles german of Pedro
Sablan appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things:
Either that the registration be denied, or that if granted to her the right reserved by law
to the opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel.

The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.

Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of 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 of Pedro Sablan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the
reservable properties by reservista, Edroso.

RULING:

YES. The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her own name the
two parcels of land which are the subject matter of the applicants, recording in
the registration the right required by the law to be reserved to either or both of
the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.

The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he can use, enjoy, dispose of and
recover it; and if, in addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner and
can alienate it, although under a condition.

The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latters wish or by
operation of law, requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of the right of ownership belong to
him exclusively use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery.

During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by
law to be reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after
the right that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only an
expectation, and therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit
that expectation to their heirs.

Edroso vs. Sablan

1. The reservistas right over the reserved property is one of ownership.

2. The ownership is subject to a resolutory condition, i.e. the existence of reservatarios at the time of
the reservistas death.
3. The right of ownership is alienable, but subject to the same resolutory condition.
4. The reservistas right of ownership is registrable.

The conclusion is that the person required by article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at
all, the rights of use and usufruct. He has, moreover, for the reasons set forth, 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 hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right is reserved cannot
dispose of the property, first because it is 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.
PADURA vs BALDOVINO

G.R. No. L-11960 December 27, 1958

FACTS

Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife Gervacia Landig, hehad
one child, Manuel Padura. With the second wife, Benita Garing, he had two children, Fortunato
andCandelaria Padura. Agustin died on Apr 26, 1908, leaving a last will and testament, duly probated,
whereinhe bequeathed his properties among his three children and his surviving spouse, Benita
Garing.Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried on May 28, 1908, without
havingexecuted a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were inherited exclusively by his
motherBenita. Benita was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, subject to the condition that
theproperties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which saidproperty came.On Aug 26, 1934, Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate
children: Cristeta,Melania, Anicia, and Pablo Baldovino (Oppositors-appellants). On Oct 6, 1940, Manuel
also died, survivedby his legitimate children Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and
Severino Padura(Petitioners-appellees) Upon the death of Benita (the reservista) on Oct 15, 1952, the
heirs took possessionof the reservable properties. CFI Laguna declared the children of Manuel and
Candelaria to be the rightfulreservees, and as such, entitled to the reservable properties (the original
reservees, Candelaria and Manuel,having predeceased the reservista)The Baldovino heirs filed a petition
seeking to have the properties partitioned, such that one-half beadjudicated to them, and the other half
to the appellees, allegedly on the basis that they inherited by right ofrepresentation from their
respective parents, the original reservees.Padura heirs opposed, maintaining that they should all be
deemed as inheriting in their own right,under which, they claim, each should have an equal share.(In
essence, the Baldovino heirs, who are whole blood relatives of the reservista, were contending that
theyshould get more than their half-blood relatives, the Padura heirs. They anchor their claim on Articles
1006and 1008 of the Civil Code)

RTC RULING

Declared all the reservees, without di

stinction, co

-owners, pro-indiviso, in equal shares of the

parcels of land.

ISSUE

WON the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned among the heirs equally.
HELD

NO.The nephews of the whole blood should take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the
half blood.The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable
property to thethird degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its beingdissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista). Article 891 of
the Code provides:

ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may haveacqui
red 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 purpose of the reserva troncal is accomplished once the property has devolved to the
specifiedrelatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further occasion for its
application. In therelations between one reservatario and another of the same degree, there is no call
for applying Art 891 anylonger; the respective share of each in the reversionary property should be
governed by the ordinary rules ofinterstate succession.Florentino v Florentino (as restated in the case):
upon the death of the ascendant reservista, thereservable property should pass, not to all the
reservatorios as a class, but only to those nearest in degree tothe descendant (prepositus), excluding
those reservatarios of more remote degree... And within the thirddegree of relationship from the
descendant (prepositus), the right of representation operates in favor ofnephews.Proximity of degree
and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so isthe rule that whole
blood brothers and nephews are entitled to share double that of brothers and nephews ofhalf-blood. If
in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right
ofrepresentation of nephews are made to aply, the rule of double share for immedaite collaterals of the
wholeblood should likewise be operative.In other words,

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 the relatives of the inheriting ascendant.
The reserva merely determines the group of relatives 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. (RFB: Those reservatarios
nearer in degree to the prepositus will exclude the more remotely related.)
G.R. No. L-14856 November 15, 1919
ENCARNACION FLORENTINO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
ME RCEDES FLORENTINO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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 ten 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;
that, as such heir, said daughter took possession of all the property left at the death of her mother, Severina
Faz de
Leon; that among same is included the property, described in the complaint, which the said Severina Faz de
Leon
inherited from her deceased son, the posthumos Apolonio, as reservable property; that, as a reservist, the heir
of
the said Mercedes Florentino deceased had been gathering for herself alone the fruits of lands described in the
complaint; that each and every one of the parties mentioned in said complaint is entitled to one-seventh of the
fruits
of the reservable property described therein, either by direct participation or by representation,

That several times the plaintiffs have, in an amicable manner, asked the defendants to deliver their
corresponding
part of the reservable property; that without any justifiable motive the defendants have refused and do refuse to
deliver said property or to pay for its value; that for nine years Mercedes Florentino has been receiving, as rent
for
the lands mentioned,

that thereby the plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum of fifteen thousand four hundred and twentyeight
pesos and fifty-eight centavos, in addition to three hundred and eight pesos and fifty-eight centavos for the
value of the fruits not gathered, of one thousand pesos (P1,000) for the unjustifiable retention of the
aforementioned
reservable property and for the expenses of this suit. Wherefore they pray it be declared that all the foregoing
property is reservable property;
G.R. No. L-12957 March 24, 1961
CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
FID EL ESPARCIA, ET AL., defendants-appellees

Appellants commenced this action below to secure judgment (1) declaring null and void the sale executed by
Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of appellees, the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes; (2) ordering
the
Esparcia spouses to reconvey to appellants Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan (now Amlan),
Oriental
Negros; and (3) ordering all the appellees to pay, jointly and severally, to appellants the sum of P500.00 as
damages, plus the costs of suit. In their answer appellees disclaimed any knowledge or information regarding
the
sale allegedly made on April 20, 1951 by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellants and alleged that, if such sale
was
made, the same was void on the ground that Andrea Gutang had no right to dispose of the property subject
matter
thereof. They further alleged that said property had never been in possession of appellants, the truth being that
appellees, as owners, had been in continuous possession thereof since the death of Francisco Yaeso. By way
of
affirmative defense and counterclaim, they further alleged that on July 30, 1951, Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso,
as the
only surviving heirs of Francisco Yaeso, executed a public instrument of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel
Esparcia
and Paulina Sienes, the said sale having been registered together with an affidavit of adjudication executed by
Paulina and Cipriana on July 18, 1951, as sole surviving heirs of the aforesaid deceased; that since then the
Esparcias had been in possession of the property as owners.

judgment is hereby rendered declaring (1) that the sale of Lot No. 3368
made by Andrea Gutang to the plaintiff spouses Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay is void, and the
reconveyance prayed for by them is denied; (2) that the sale made by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of
defendants Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes involving the same lot is also void, and they have no valid title
thereto; and (3) that the reservable property in question is part of and must be reverted to the estate of
Cipriana Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of Francisco Yaeso at the death of Andrea Gutang as of
December 13, 1951. No pronouncement as to the costs.

From the above decision the Sienes spouse interposed the present appeal, their principal contentions being,
firstly,
that the lower court erred in holding that Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan was a reservable
property;
secondly, in annulling the sale of said lot executed by Andrea Gutang in their favor; and lastly, in holding that
Cipriana Yaeso, as reservee, was entitled to inherit said land.

The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was, therefore, subject to the condition that the
vendees
would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation, only if the vendor died without being survived by
any
person entitled to the reservable property. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso was
still
alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in favor of appellants
became
of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of
the
spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory condition. The reserve instituted
by
law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property came,
constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being
that
the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person obliged
to
reserve. In the present case, Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea Gutang, the
person
obliged to reserve, died. Thus the former became the absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's
death. While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this event, became effective
because of
the occurrence of the resolutory condition, we are not now in a position to reverse the appealed decision, in so
far
as it orders the reversion of the property in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees
the
Esparcia spouses did not appeal therefrom.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision as above modified is affirmed, with costs, and without prejudice to
whatever action in equity the Esparcia spouses may have against the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso for the
reconveyance of the property in question.