BARITUA V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990

The petitioner Baritua, owned and operated a bus driven by Edgar Bitancor. The tricycle then
driven by Buenvinido Nacario figured in an accident with the latter resulting to the death of
Nacario, and his passenger. Subsequently, an extra-judicial settlement was entered into with
the petitioner and the wife of the deceased, herein named Alicia. Alicia executed a "Release
of Claim" in favor of the petitioners in consideration of the amount she received. Hence, she
executed an affidavit of desistance in which she formally manifested her lack of interest in
instituting any case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners.

Later, the parents of the deceased filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners. They
alleged that the petitioners, promised them to shoulder all the expenses for the funeral as well
as for the damages for the tricycle.

Partys Argument:

The parents of the deceased, argued that the extra-judicial settlement does not extinguished
the obligation of the petitioner, being the parents they also suffered by reason of the loss of
their son.

RTCs Ruling

Dismissed the complaint holding that the payment to the widow and her child, who are the
preferred heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased Bienvenido to the exclusion of his
parents, extinguished any claim against the petitioner.

CAs Ruling

It reversed the decision of the trial court. Alicia could not have validly waived the damages
being prayed for since she was not the one who suffered these damages arising from the
death of their son.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the extra-judicial settlement entered into between the parties extinguishes
the obligation?

2. Whether or not Alicia is entitled to receive the petitioners payment?

HELD:

The petition is GRANTED; the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED.

RATIONALE:

1. Article 1231 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides the various mode of
extinguishing the obligation, among others, through payment or performance. Hence,
there is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation petition arising from the
accident that occurred on November 7, 1979.
2. Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom
payment to extinguish an obligation should be made. Payment shall be made to the
person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or
any person authorized to receive it.

Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;

2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to

their legitimate children and decendants;

3. The widow or widower;

4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction; 5. Other
illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.

In the case at bar, Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest
referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. Pursuant to Article 887 (2),
parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant.
As it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child,
the private respondents are not successors-in- interest of Bienvenido. Henceforth, they are
not compulsory heirs. The payment of the petitioner is therefore valid and obligation is
extinguished.

EDROSO v. SABLAN
25 Phils 295

Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan who begot a son named, Pedro
Victoriano Sablan. Upon death of his father, Pedro inherited 2 parcels of land which was
acquired by his father from his ascendants Mariano Sablan and Maria Fernandez. However,
Pedro also died unmarried and without issue. Thus, the two parcels of land passed through
inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso.

Therefore, Marcelina Edroso, inherited the 2 parcels of land applied registration of ownership.
Yet, Pablo and Basilio Sablan, brothers of Victorian (uncles of Pedro) opposed registration or
assuming registration was granted, that the right reserved by law to them be recorded.

Partys Argument:

Appelants, Marcelina Edroso, impugns and denies that the land which are the subject matter
of the application are required by law to be reserved.

Court of Land 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. Absolute title to the two
parcels of land undoubtedly belongs to the applicant and the two uncles of the deceased
Pedro Sablan, and the application cannot be made except in the name of all of them in
common.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the parcels of land partake nature of the nature, required by law, to be
reserved?
2. Whether or not the application for registration can only be presented jointly in the names
of Marcelina and Pablo and Basilio?

HELD:

Therefore, we reverse the judgment appealed from and in lieu thereof decide and declare that
the 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 article 811
to be reserved to either or both of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan, should
they survive her; without special findings as to costs

RATIONALE:

1. Article 811( 891) provides that:

"The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired
without 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 the relatives who are within
the third degree and belong to the line whence the property proceeded."

Pablio and Basilio Uncles, within the 3rd degree of blood relationship and Marcelina
Edroso being the ascendant of Pedro, inherited the land, through inheritance from his father,
which is without valuable consideration.

Therefore, Marcelina Edroso is obligated to reserve the land for the claimants who may
be uncles or relatives within the third degree and which land belongs to the line of Mariano
Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez.

2. The ascendants who inherits from a descendants, whether by the latter's 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. This absolute ownership, which is inherent in the
hereditary title, is not altered in the least, if there be no relatives within the third degree in the
line whence the property proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir who is the possessor
and absolute owner of the property. If there should be relatives within the third degree who
belong to the line whence the property proceeded, then a limitation to that absolute ownership
would arise.

If the person whom article 811 requires to reserve the right 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.Therefore,
the heir of the property required by law to reserved can himself alone register the ownership
of the property he has inherited, when the persons in whose favor the reservation must be
made degree thereto, the right reserved to them in the two parcels of land be recorded.

Henceforth, in the case at bar, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan are the reservees, the
paternal uncles of Pedro Sablan. Marcelina, the prepositus could register the land under the
Torrens system in her name but the fact that the land was reservable property in favor of her
two brothers-in-law, should they survive her, should be noted in the title.
 GONZALEZ V. LEGARDA
G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981

Benito Legarda y De la Paz, Consuelo and Rita are siblings being the children of Benito
Legarda y Tuason. On July 12, 1939, the real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason
were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters and Benito F. Legarda, the
representative of the deceased Benito Legard y Dela Paz.

Benito Legarda y De la Paz, died on June 17, 1933 and was was survived by his widow,
Filomena Races, and their seven children.

On March 19, 1943, Filomena Legarda, his daughter died intestate and without issue. Her
sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Races Vda. de Legard inherited all the properties of
the deceased child. Later, executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she
disposed of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of his
grandchildren.

Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, herein petitioner, a daughter of the testatrix opposed and filed a
motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties which she inherited
from her deceased daughter. She alleged that said properties are reservable properties which
could not bequeath in her holographic will to her grandchildren.

RTCs Ruling

The lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. Gonzales. Hence, Beatriz Gonzales, appealed
the decision of the lower court and contends that the lower court erred in not regarding the
properties in question as reservable properties under article 891 of the Civil Code.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the subject properties are subject to reserva troncal?

2. Whether or not Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda could validly dispose the properties in
question in her will in favor of her grandchildren to the exclusion of her six children?

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision is reversed and set aside. lt is hereby adjudged that
the properties inherited by Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda from her daughter Filomena
Legarda, with all the fruits and accessions thereof, are reservable properties which belong to
Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Benito, Alejandro and Jose, all surnamed Legarda y Roces, as
reservees.

RATIONALE:

1. The subject properties are subject to reserva troncal.

ART. 891 of the Civil Code provides that:

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.

In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property

from an ascendant or from a brother or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by another
ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant, and (3) the
said ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are within the
third degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from
which the said property came.

In the instant case, the properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in
the hands of Mrs. Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The subject properties was
inherited by Mrs. Legarda from her daughter through operation of law. Thus, being the
reservor, she is obligated to reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are
within the third degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line
from which the said property came which in this case the siblings of Filament Legard and not
to her nephews and nieces. Hence, the reservation became a certainty when at the time of
her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena
Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda. Since at the time of her death, there were
(and still are) reservees belonging to the second and third degrees, the disputed properties
did not lose their reservable character.

2. Mrs. Legarda could not dispose of in her will the properties.

Under Article 891, the said properties should go to Mrs. Legarda's six children as
reservees within the second degree from Filomena Legarda. Mrs. Legarda could not convey
in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable properties which she had
inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of
her estate. The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties
as long as the reservees survived the reservor.