EDROSO vs.
SABLAN A v er y def in ite c onc lu s ions of law is that t he heredit ar y tit le is
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 was born on August 1, 1881, and who at his father's 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 l a n d p a s s e d t h r o u g h i n h e r i t a n c e t o h i s m o t h e r , M a r c e l i n
a E d r o s o . . H e n c e t h e hereditary title whereupon is based the
application for registration of her ownership. Two legitimate
brothers of Victoriano Sablan — that is, two uncles german of PedroSablan
— 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 bylaw to the opponents be recorded in the registration
of each parcel." The Court of Land Registration denied the registration
and the application appealed through a bill of exceptions.
Appellant’s Contention:
The applicant acquired said lands from her descendant Pedro Sablan
by inheritance;(2) Pedro Sablan had acquired them from his ascendant
Victoriano Sablan, likewiseby inheritance; (3) Victoriano Sablan had likewise
acquired them by inheritance
fromh i s a s c e n d a n t s , M a r i a n o S a b l a n a n d M a r i a R i t a F e r n a
n d e z , t h e y h a v i n g b e e n adjudicated to him in the partition of hereditary
property had between him and hisbrothers. These are admitted
facts. The appellant also contends that it is not proven that the two parcels of
land inquestion have been acquired by ope ration of law, and that
only property acquired without a valuable consideration, which is by
operation of law, is required by law toreserved.
Appellees’ Contention:
Argue that the appellant’s defense was not alleged or discussed in first
instance, butonly herein. Certainly, the allegation in first instance was merely
that "Pedro Sablanacquired the property in question in 1882, before the
enforcement of the Civil Code,which establishes the alleged right
required by law to be reserved, of which the opponents speak; hence,
prescription of the right of action; and finally, opponents'renunciation of their
right, admitting that it existed and that they had it"
RTC Ruling:
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 couldonly be presented jointly in the names of the mother and
the said two uncles of PedroSablan.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lands which are the subject matter of the application are
requiredby law to be reserved
HELD
one wit hout 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 whathe receives; and a very definite
conclusion of law also is that the uncles are withinthe third degree of blood
relationship.
Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from hisdescendant property which
the latter acquired without a valuable consideration from another descendant,
or forma 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
parcelso f l a n d w h i c h h e h a d
acquired without a valuable consideration – that is,
b y inheritance from another ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquire
them byoperation of law, she is obligated to relatives within the third degree
and belong tothe line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez (parents
of Victoriano),
wheret h e l a n d s p r o c e e d e d . T h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g t h a t t
h e y p a r t a k e o f t h e n a t u r e property required by law to be reserved is
therefore in accordance with the law.
The hereditary title is one without a valuable consideration [gratuitous title].
He whoa c q u i r e s b y i n h e r i t a n c e g i v e s n o t h i n g i n r e t u r n f o r wh a t
h e r e c e i v e s a n d a v e r y definite conclusion of law also is that the uncles
german are within the third degreeof blood relationship.Art. 811, OCC
provides:
“The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter
acquiredwithout a valuable consideration from another ascendant, or from
a brother or sister,is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired by
operation of law for therelatives who are within the third degree and belong
to the line whence the property proceeded.”
Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him these two
parcels of land which he acquired without a valuable consideration – that is,
by inheritance fromanother ascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquired
them by operation of law,she is obligated to reserve them intact for the
claimants, who are uncles or relativeswithin the third degree and belong to
the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria RitaFernandez, whence the lands
proceeded. The trial court's ruling that they partake of the nature of property
required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance withthe law.If
Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will as the universal heiress of
his property, all he left at death would not be required by law to be reserved,
but only what he would have perforce left her as the legal portion of a
legitimate ascendant.[Art. 809, OCC.] In such case only the half constituting
the legal portion would be required by law to be reserved, because it is what
by operation of law would fall tothe mother from her son's inheritance; the
other half at free disposal would not have to be reserved. Proof of testate
succession devolves upon the heir or heiress who alleges it. It mustbe
admitted that a half of Pedro Sablan's inheritance was acquired by his
mother by operation of law. The law provides that the other half is also
presumed to be acquired by operation of law — that is, by intestate
succession. Otherwise, proof to offset thispresumption must be presented by
the interested party, that is, that the other half was acquired by the
man's wish and not by operation of law. In this case, theinterested party has
not proved that either of the lots became Marcelina’s inheritancethrough the
free disposal of her
son. Two kinds of property required by law to be reserved
are distinguished in the CivilCode.Article 968 provides:
"Besides the reservation imposed by article 811, the widow or widower
contracting asecond marriage shall be obliged to set apart for the children
and descendants of thefirst marriage the ownership of all the property he or
she may have acquired fromthe deceased spouse by will, by intestate
succession, by gift, or other transfer w/out a valuable consideration."
From principles of jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain, it
isinferred that if from December, 1889, to July, 1893, a case had occurred of
a rightrequired to be reserved by article 811, the persons entitled to such
right would havebeen able to institute, against the ascendants who
must make the reservation,proceedings for the assurance and guaranty that
articles 977 and 978 grant to thechildren of a first marriage against their
father or mother who has married again. The proceedings for assurance,
under article 977, are: Inventory of the property subject to the right reserved,
annotation in the property registry of such right reserved in thereal property
and appraisal of the personal property; and the guaranty, under article978, is
the assurance by mortgage, in the case of realty, of the value of what
isvalidly alienated.Article 199 of amended Mortgage Law: "The special
mortgage for guaranteeing theright reserved by article 811 of the Civil Code
can only be required by the relatives inwhose favor the property is to be
reserved, if they are of age; if minors, it will berequired by the persons who
should legally represent them. In either case the right of the persons in
whose favor the property must be reserved will be secured by thesame
requisites as set forth in the preceding articles (relative to the right reserved
byarticle 968 of the Civil Code), applying to the person obligated to reserve
the rightthe provisions with respect to the father." The lapse of the ninety
days is not the expiration by prescription of the period for theexercise of this
right of action by the persons in whose favor the right must bereserved, but
really the commencement thereof, and enables them to exercise it atany
time, since no limit is set in the law. So, if the annotation of the right required
by law to be reserved in the two parcels of land in question must be made in
the property registry of the Mortgage Law, the persons entitled to it may
now institute proceedings to that end, and an allegation of prescription
against the exercise of such right of action cannot be sustained.
“What are the rights in the property of the person who holds it subject tothe
reservation of article 811 of the Old Civil Code?”
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,
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
whopossesses or should possess it and have title to it, although a limited and
revocableone. In a word, the legal title and dominion, even though under a
condition, reside inhim 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 isreserved cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way,
either actually,constructively or formally, in their possession; and, moreover,
because they have notitle 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 beforethem will they
acquire it, thus creating a fee simple, and only then will they take theirplace
in the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives within the
thirddegree, that is to say, a second contingent place in said legitimate
succession in thefashion of aspirants to a possible future legacy. If any of the
persons in whose favor the right is reserved should, after their right has
been assured in the registry, dare todispose of even nothing more than the
fee simple of the property to be reserved hisact would be null and void, for it
is impossible to determine the part "that might pertain therein to the relative
at the time he exercised the right, because in view of the nature and scope of
the right required by law to be reserved the extent of
hisright cannot be foreseen, for it may disappear by his dying before
the personrequired to reserve it, just as it may even become absolute should
that person die."No act of disposal inter vivos of the person required by law
to reserve the right canbe impugned by him in whose favor it is reserved,
because such person has all,
SOLIVIO v. CA (1990)
J. Medialdea
FACTS:
Estate of the late novelist,
Esteban Javellana, Jr.
, author of the first post-war Filipino novel "WithoutSeeing the Dawn," who
died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters,
nephews or nieces.
Only surviving relatives:(1) maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia Solivio, half-
sister of his mother, Salustia Solivio; and(2) private respondent, Concordia
Javellana-Villanueva, sister of his father, Esteban Javellana, Sr.Salustia
brought to her marriage paraphernal properties (various parcels of land in
Calinog, Iloilo covered by 24titles) which she had inherited from her mother,
but no conjugal property was acquired during her short-livedmarriage to
Esteban, Sr.On October 11, 1959, Salustia died, leaving all her properties to
her only child, Esteban, Jr., including a house and lotin La Paz, Iloilo City,
where she, her son, and her sister lived. In due time, the titles of all these
properties weretransferred in the name of Esteban, Jr.During his lifetime,
Esteban, Jr. had, more than once, expressed to his aunt Celedonia and
some close friends hisplan to place his estate in a foundation to honor his
mother and to help poor but deserving students obtain a collegeeducation.
Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack without having set up the
foundation.Two weeks after his funeral, Concordia and Celedonia talked
about what to do with Esteban's properties. Concordiaagreed to carry out the
plan of the deceased.Pursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take
care of the proceedings leading to the formation of thefoundation, Celedonia
in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed:
Special Proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the
estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr.
Amended petition praying that letters of administration be issued to her; that
she be declared sole heir ofthe deceased; and that after payment of all
claims and rendition of inventory and accounting, the estate beadjudicated to
her CFI declared Celedonia the sole heir of the estate of Esteban Javellana,
Jr. the properties of the estate had come from her sister, Salustia Solivio
she is the decedent's nearest relative on his mother's side;
with her as sole heir, the disposition of the properties of the estate to fund
the foundation would befacilitated.Thereafter, she sold properties of the
estate to pay the taxes and other obligations of the deceased
andproceeded to set up the Foundation which she caused to be registered
in the SEC.4 months later, Concordia filed an MR of the court's order
declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of Esteban, Jr., becauseshe too was an
heir of the deceased. Denied.Instead of appealing the denial, Concordia filed
1 year and 2 months later a Civil Case in the RTC for partition,recovery of
possession, ownership and damages.
RTC
ruled in favor of Concordia.On Concordia's motion,
RTC
ordered the execution of its judgment pending appeal and required
Celedonia to submitan inventory and accounting of the estate. Celedonia
filed MR
–
Denied
CA
affirmed
in toto.
Hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE/HELD:
WON the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain Concordia’s
action for partition and recoveryof her share of the estate of Esteban
Javellana, Jr. while the probate proceedings are still pending
–
NO
The Probate proceedings were still pending in Branch 23 of the same court,
there being as yet no orders for thesubmission and approval of the
administratix's inventory and accounting, distributing the residue of the estate
to theheir, and terminating the proceedings.
Order of distribution terminates the intestate proceedings
It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the residue of the estate
to the persons entitled thereto thatbrings to a close the intestate proceedings,
puts an end to the administration and thus far relieves the administratorfrom
his duties.The assailed order declaring Celedonia as the sole heir of the
estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. did not toll the end ofthe proceedings. As a
matter of fact, the last paragraph of the order directed the administratrix
to "hurry up the
settlement of the estate” so it can be terminated.
In view of the pendency of the probate proceedings in Branch 11 of the CFI,
Concordia's motion to set aside theorder declaring Celedonia as sole heir of
Esteban, and to have herself (Concordia) declared as co-heir and recoverher
share of the properties of the deceased, was properly filed by her in Spl.
Proc. No. 2540.
Remedy when the court denied her motion was to elevate the denial to the
CA for review on certiorari.
Instead of availing of that remedy, she filed more than 1 year later, a
separate action for the samepurpose in Branch 26 of the court.We hold that
the
separate action was improperly filed for it is the probate court that has
exclusive jurisdiction tomake a just and legal distribution of the estate.In the
interest of orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting
dispositions of a decedent's estate, a courtshould not interfere with probate
proceedings pending in a co-equal court.The power to determine the legality
or illegality of the testamentary provision is inherent in the jurisdiction of
thecourt making a just and legal distribution of the inheritance. ... To hold that
a separate and independent action isnecessary to that effect, would be
contrary to the general tendency of the jurisprudence of avoiding multiplicity
ofsuits; and is further, expensive, dilatory, and impractical.The orders of the
RTC setting aside the probate proceedings in Branch 23 (formerly Branch
11) on the ground ofextrinsic fraud, and declaring Concordia Villanueva to be
a co-heir of Celedonia to the estate of Esteban, Jr., orderingthe partition of
the estate, and requiring the administratrix, Celedonia, to submit an inventory
and accounting of theestate, were improper and officious , to say the least,
for these matters he within the exclusive competence of theprobate court.

absolutely all, the rights inherent in ownership, except that the legal title
is burdenedwith a condition that the third party acquirer may ascertain from
the registry in orderto know that he is acquiring a title subject to a condition
subsequent. In conclusion, itseems to us that only an act of disposal mortis
causa in favor of persons other thanrelatives within the third degree of the
descendant from whom he got the property tobe reserved must be prohibited
to him, because this alone has been the object of thelaw: "To prevent
persons outside a family from securing, by some special accident of life,
property that would otherwise have remained therein."
“Can the heir of the property required by law to be reserved himself
aloneregister the ownership of the property he has inherited?”
YES. When the persons in whose favor the reservation must be made agree
theretoand provided that the right reserved to them in the two parcels of land
is recorded,as the law provides.
Chua v. CFI "the essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously,
Facts: Jose Frias Chua had 2 marriages. First with Patricia, he had 3 from pure generosity,without requiring from the transferee any prestation." It
children- Ignacio, Manuel and Lorenzo. When Patriciadied, he married is evident from the record that the transmissionof the property in question to
Consolacion de la Torre and had one child- Juanito Frias Chua. Jose Frias Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage upon the death of his father
Chua died intestate.After the intestate proceeding the court adjudicated half JoseFrias Chua was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore
of lot in question to Consolacion and the other half totheir only son, Juanito. gratuitous.
The two sons in the first marriage, Lorenzo and Ignacio, received P3k and
P1550respectively. (Manuel already died).Juanito also died intestate without
issue. Consolacion de la Torre executed a declaration of heirship As long as the transmission of the property to the heirs is free from
adjudicating inher favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito in the lot in any condition imposed by thedeceased himself and the property is given out
question. When dela Torre died, Ignacio and theheirs of Lorenzo filed a of pure generosity, itg is gratuitous
complaint praying that the one-half portion of the Lot be declared as
a reservable propertyfor the reason that the lot in question was subject to
reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 NCC.Lower court dismissed
complaint.Issue: WON property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias
Chua from his father Jose Frias Chua gratuitously(as first requisite of
Reserva Troncal).Held: YesRatio:

In order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character the

following requisites must exist,to wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a
descendant from an asscendant or from a brother or sisterby gratuitous title;
(2) that said descendant died without an issue; (3) that the property
is inherited byanother ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there are
relatives within the third degree belongingto the line from which said property
came.

All of the foregoing requisites are present. Thus, as borne out by the records,
Juanoito Frias Chua of thesecond marriage died intestate in 1952; he
died withour leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399
was acquired by his mother, Consolacion de la Torre died, Juannnito Frias
Chua who diedintestate had relatives within the third degree. These relatives
are Ignacio Frias Chua and DominadorChua and Remidios Chua, the
suppose legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua, who arethe
petitioners herein

According to Manresa, "The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title

when the recipient does notgive anything in return." It matters not whether
the property transmitted be or be not subject to any priorcharges; what is
essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously, or by an act of mere
liberality of the person making it, without imposing any obligation on the part
of the recipient; and that the personreceiving the property gives or does
nothing in return.
Florentino v. Florentino

FACTS
: In 1890, Apolonio II died leaving a notarial will. He was survived
by his ten children and his widow as heirs. Apolonio III received in the
partition of the subject property. When Apolonio III died, the said property
were inherited byhis mother Severina, who latter died, leaving a will
instituting her only daughter as her universal
heiress. Hereinappellants demands from Mercedes to deliver their
corresponding share in the reservable property but Mercedes refused.CFI
dismissed the complaint of specific performance.
HELD:
REVERSED. Even if Severina left in her will said property together with her
own property to her only daughter,nevertheless, this property had not lost
their reservable nature in as much as it originated from the common ancestor
of herein appellants. The property was inherited by the son and was
transmitted by operation of law to his mother.Any ascendant who inherits
from his descendant any property while there are living within the 3
rd
degree relative of thelatter, is nothing but a life usufructuary or a
fiduciary of the reservable property received. But if afterwards, all
of suchrelative die, the said property become free property by operation of
law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of theascendant heir who can
transmit it at his death to his legal succession.There are seven reservatoris
who are entitled to the reservable property left at the death of Apolonio III:
(1)
3 children of the 1
st
marriage;(2)3 children who are represented by their own children (nephews/
nieces);( 3 ) M e r c e d e s A l l o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s a r e t h e r e l a t i v e s
of the posthumous son within the third degree. Hence, they
a r e e n t i l e d a s reservatarios to the property which came from the common
ancestors.
Sumaya v. IAC appeared in the deed of sale.Unless the registration of the limitations is
effected, no third persons shall be prejudiced thereby.Prescription: only
when the reservoir dies does the reservee acquire the reserved
property. The cause of actioncommence upon the death of the reservoir,
Consuelo on June 3, 1968 and not upon the death of the propositus Raul
onJune 13, 1952. Action= March 4, 1970.

FACTS:

Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different ascendants two sets

of property: (1) 1/3 pro-indiviso in Liliw,Laguna from his father Jose;
and (2) 1/7 pro-indiviso in 10 parcels of land from his maternal
grandmother. He died singleand was survived by his mother, Consuelo and
five brothers and three nephews and nieces. The mother was the
solesurviving compulsory heir and adjudicated unto herself the said property
in an affidavit stating therein that she was thesole heir/ ascendant of Raul,
who died leaving property inherited from other ascendant. Thereafter, she
sold 1/3 of theproperty to Marquita Sumaya, who later on sold the same to
Villa Honorio Dev. Corp. VHDC thereafter sold the propertyto Agro-Industrial
Cooperative. The other 1/7 of the property was likewise sold to Villa which
later on sold the same toAgro.The certificates of title do not contain any
annotation of its reservable character. The five brothers and three nephews
andnieces filed a case for recovery as the property was subject to a reserva
troncal in their favor.RTC: in favor of Balantakbos CA: affirmed

HELD
: Affirmed. It was established during the trial that the reservista, Consuelo,
caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of
Raul, wherein it was clearly stated therein that the property were inherited by
Raul fromhis father and grandmother. Although the certificate of titles
were free from any liens and encumbrance at the time of sale, the fact
remains that the affidavit which was registered with the register of
deeds Laguna, constitute a sufficient notice to the whole world. Under
the rule of notice in the Property Registration Decree, it is presumed that the
purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such
presumption is irrebutable.The failure of the register of deeds to annotate the
reservable character of the property in the certificate of title cannot
beattributed to Consuelo. Moreover, it is sufficient proof that the buyers had
actual knowledge of the reservable character of the property. Such fact
De Papa v. Camacho

\
FACTS:
Romana donated four parcels of land to Toribia. W hen
T o r i b i a d i e d i n 1 9 1 5 , s h e l e f t t h e s a i d p r o p e r t y t o Faustino and
Trinidad, her children. When Balbino died in 1928, three percels of land were
adjudicated to Toribia andsince she predeceased her father, the same was
given to her children Faustino and Trinidad. Faustino died in 1937 andleft his
½ pro-indiviso share in the seven lands to his father Eustacio Dizon, subject
to reserve troncal. When Trinidaddied in 1939, all her ½ pro-indiviso share
were inherited by Dalisay, subject to usufruct of Primo Tongko. Eustacio died
in1965, survived by his only granddaughter Dalisay. Dalisay claims the ½ by
virtue of the reserva troncal implied by lawupon the death of
Faustino. Plaintiffs, as uncles and aunts, also clain ¾ of the ½ pro-indiviso
share, being a third relativeof Faustino.CFI: plaintiffs and defendant are all
entitled as reservatarios
HELD:
Reversed. Reserva Troncal merely determines the group of relatives
[reservatarios] to whom the property shouldb e r e t u r n e d . B u t w i t h i n
that group, the individual right to the property should be
decided by the applicable rules
of o r d i n a r y i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n , s i n c e A r t . 8 9 1 d
oes not
specify otherwise. This condition strengthened by
t h e circumstances that the reserve being an exceptional case, its
application should be limited to what is strictly needed toa c c o m p l i s h t h e
purpose of the law. Hence, reservation of the reservable
p r o p e r t y b e i n g g o v e r n e d b y t h e r u l e s o n intestate succession,
plaintiffs-appellee must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt
and uncles of Faustino[propositus], they are excluded from the succession by
his niece, the latter being the nearest relative. {the nearest relativeexcludes
that of the one more remote]