Florentino vs Florentino, 40 Phil 480

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 by
his mother Severina, who latter died, leaving a will instituting her only
daughter as her universal heiress. Herein appellants 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 3rd degree relative of the latter, is nothing but a life
usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reservable property received. But if
afterwards, all of such relative die, the said property become free property
by operation of law, and is thereby converted into the legitime of the
ascendant 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 1st marriage;
(2)3 children who are represented by their own children (nephews/
nieces);
(3)Mercedes
All of the appellants are the relatives of the posthumous son within the third
degree. Hence, they are entiled as reservatarios to the property which came
from the common ancestors