Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14603

April 29, 1961

RICARDO LARCERNA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO, defendant-appellee.
JACOBA MARBEBE, intervenor-appellee.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo declaring
that the parcels of land in litigation are property of intervenor Jacoba
Marbebe.
This action was instituted by Ricardo, Patrocinia, Patria, Faustino,
Leonor, Ramona, Asuncion, Emiliana, Arsenio and Felipe, all
surnamed Lacerna, for the recovery of three parcels of unregistered
lands, situated in the municipality of Maasin, Iloilo, and more
specifically described in the complaint, upon the ground that said
lands belonged to the deceased Juan Marbebe, and that his cousins,
plaintiffs herein, are his sole heirs.
In her answer, defendant Agatona Vda. de Corcino alleged, inter alia,
that Juan Marbebe might still be alive; that she held the disputed lands
under a power of attorney executed by Juan Marbebe; and that, if he
has died, she is entitled to succeed him in the same manner as
plaintiffs herein, she being related to him in the same manner as
plaintiffs are.

With the court's permission, Jacoba Marbebe filed an answer in

intervention alleging that she is a half sister of Juan Marbebe who died
intestate, leaving neither ascendants nor descendants, and that, as
his half sister, she is entitled, by succession, to the properties in
dispute.
After due trial, the court rendered judgment for the intervenor. Hence,
this appeal by the plaintiffs.
The lower court found, and appellants do not question, that the lands
described in the complaint belonged originally to Bonifacia Lacerna.
Upon her death in 1932, they passed, by succession, to her only son,
Juan Marbebe who was, subsequently, taken to Culion where he died
intestate, single and without issue on February 21, 1943. The question
for determination is: who shall succeed him?
It appears that his mother, Bonifacia Lacerna, had a sister, Agatona
Paurillo Vda. de Corcino, the defendant herein; that Catalino Lacerna
died in 1950 and was survived by his children, plaintiffs Ricardo,
Patrocinia and Patria, all surnamed Lacerna; and that Marcelo
Lacerna who died in 1953, was survived by his children, the other
plaintiffs herein, namely, Ramona, Faustino, Leonor, Asuncion
Emiliano, Arsenio and Felipe, all surnamed Lacerna. Upon the other
hand, intervenor Jacoba Marbebe is daughter, by first marriage, of
Valentin Marbebe, husband of Bonifacia Lacerna and father of Juan
Marbebe, who, accordingly, is a half brother of said intervenor.
With this factual background, the issue is narrowed down to whether
Jacoba Marbebe, as half sister of Juan Marbebe, on his father's side,
is his sole heir, as held by His Honor, the Trial Judge, or whether
plaintiffs herein, as first cousins of Juan Marbebe, on his mother side,
have a better right to succeed him, to the exclusion of Jacoba
Marbebe, as plaintiffs-appellants maintain.

The latter's pretense is based upon the theory that, pursuant to Article
891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, establishing what is known as
"reserva troncal", the properties in dispute should pass to the heirs of
the deceased within the third degree, who belong to the line from
which said properties came, and that since the same were inherited by
Juan Marbebe from his mother, they should go to his nearest relative
within the third degree on the material line, to which plaintiffs belong,
not to intervenor, Jacoba Marbebe, despite the greater proximity of her
relationship to the deceased, for she belongs to the paternal line.
Jacoba Marbebe contends, however, and the lower court held, that
brothers and sisters exclude all other collateral relatives in the order of
intestate succession, and that, as Juan Marbebe's half-sister, she has,
accordingly, a better right than plaintiffs herein to inherit his properties.
The main flaw in appellants' theory is that it assumes that said
properties are subject to the "reserva troncal", which is not a fact, for
Article 891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, provides:
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. (Emphasis
supplied.)
This article applies only to properties inherited, under the conditions
therein set forth, by an ascendant from a descendant, and this is not
the case before us, for the lands in dispute were inherited by a
descendant, Juan Marbebe, from an ascendant, his mother, Bonifacia
Lacerna. Said legal provision is, therefore, not in point, and the
transmission of the aforementioned lands, by inheritance, was
properly determined by His Honor, the Trial Judge, in accordance with

the order prescribed for intestate succession, particularly Articles 1003

to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, pursuant to which a sister,
even if only a half-sister, in the absence of other sisters or brothers, or
of children of brothers or sisters, excludes all other collateral relatives,
regardless of whether or not the latter belong to the line from which
the property of the deceased came.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs against plaintiffs-appellants. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12957

March 24, 1961

CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
FIDEL ESPARCIA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Proceso R. Remollo for plaintiffs-appellants.
Leonardo D. Mancao for defendants-appellees.
DIZON, J.:
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.
After trial upon the issues thus joined, the lower court rendered
judgment as follows:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, 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.
There is no dispute as to the following facts:
Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife,
Teresa Ruales, he had four children named Agaton, Fernando,
Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he
had an only son named Francisco. According to the cadastral records
of Ayuquitan, the properties left by Saturnino upon his death the
date of which does not clearly appear of record were left to his
children as follows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to Fernando, Lot
3375 to Agaton, Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina, and Lot 3368
(western portion) to Francisco. As a result of the cadastral
proceedings, Original Certificate of Title No. 10275 covering Lot 3368
was issued in the name of Francisco. Because Francisco was a minor
at the time, his mother administered the property for him, declared it in
her name for taxation purposes (Exhs A & A-1), and paid the taxes
due thereon (Exhs. B, C, C-1 & C-2). When Francisco died on May 29,
1932 at the age of 20, single and without any descendant, his mother,
as his sole heir, executed the public instrument Exhibit F entitled
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE whereby, among other
things, for and in consideration of the sum of P800.00 she sold the
property in question to appellants. When thereafter said vendees
demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband Jose Esparcia, the
surrender of Original Certificate of Title No. 10275 which was in

their possession the latter refused, thus giving rise to the filing of
the corresponding motion in the cadastral record No. 507. The same,
however, was denied (Exhs. 8 & 9).
Thereafter, or more specifically, on July 30, 1951, Cipriana and
Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who as
such had declared the property in their name, on January 1, 1951
executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and
Paulina Sienes (Exh. 2) who, in turn, declared it in their name for tax
purposes and thereafter secured the issuance in their name of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2141 (Exhs. 5 & 5-A).
As held by the trial court, it is clear upon the facts already stated, that
the land in question was reservable property. Francisco Yaeso
inherited it by operation of law from his father Saturnino, and upon
Francisco's death, unmarried and without descendants, it was
inherited, in turn, by his mother, Andrea Gutang. The latter was,
therefore, under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property
came, if any survived her. The record discloses in this connection that
Andrea Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee
surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13,
1952 (Exh. 10).
In connection with reservable property, the weight of opinion is that the
reserve creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the
ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of his
death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which the property came (6 Manresa 268-269; 6 Sanchez Roman
1934). This Court has held in connection with this matter that the
reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property
but subject to a resolutory condition; that he is like a life usufructuary
of the reservable property; that he may alienate the same but subject

to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the revocable and

conditional ownership of the reservists, the rights acquired by the
transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios
at the time of the death of the reservista (Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil.
295; Lunsod vs. Ortega, 46 Phil. 664; Florentino vs. Florentino, 40
Phil. 480; and Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 65 Phil. 279).
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.
Bengzon, Actg. C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Paredes, JJ.,concur.