Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
,
Respondents
G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981
Facts: Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died. He was
survived by his widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children: (Beatriz, Rosario,
Teresa and Filomena, Benito, Alejandro and Jose). The real properties left by Benito
were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the
heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were represented by
Benito F. Legarda.
Filomena died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress was her mother,
Filomena Races. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena. As a result,
Filomena Races succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of
the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.
Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Identical documents wherein she disposed of
the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the children of her
sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all). Mrs. Legarda and her
six surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the one-third share in
the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in representation
of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.
Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. The decree
of probate was affirmed by the CA.
In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix, filed
a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties which
she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said
properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda's
three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito, Alejandro and
Jose. That motion was opposed by the administrator, Benito F. Legarda.
Without awaiting the resolution on that motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil action
against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate for the
purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable properties.
Lower court dismissed the action of Beatriz.
Issue: whether the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal under art.
The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the ascendant or brother or sister
from whom the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous
title, (2) the descendant or prepositus (prepositus) who received the property, (3)
the reservor (reservista) the other ascendant who obtained the property from the
(prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the reserves (reservatario) who is within the
third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the (line o tronco) from which
the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.
The reserva 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.
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.
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all
the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are
the six children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom the
reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share
therein.
Consuelo
Rita
+Benito Legarda de la Paz Filomena Roces
Beatriz
Rosario
Teresa
+Filomena
Benito Carmen Legarda y Fernandez
Alejandro Ramon Legarda y Hernandez
Jose Filomena Legarda y Lobregat
Jaime Legarda y Lobregat
Celso Legarda y Lobregat
Alejandro Legarda y Lobregat
Ma. Teresa Legarda y Lobregat
Ma. Antonia Legarda y Lobregat
Jose Legarda y Lobregat
Rosario Legarda y Lobregat
Benito Legarda y Lobregat
Eduardo Legarda y Lobregat
Trinidad Legarda
FACTS: Benito Legarda y dela Paz (Benito II), son of Benito Legarda y Tuazon (Benito
I), died and was survived by his widow, Filomena and their 7 children. The real
properties left by his deceased father, Benito I, were partitioned in 3 equal parts by Benito
IIs sisters and his heirs pro-indiviso. One of his daughters, Filomena, died without issue
and her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena vda de Legarda
1. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties she
inherited from her daughter as a result of which she succeeded her deceased
owner as co-owner of the properties held pro-indiviso by her other 6 children.
Later, Mrs. Legarda executed 2 handwritten documents disposing of the
properties which she inherited from her daughter in favor of her 16 grandchildren
(the children of her sons). Eventually, Mrs. Legarda and her 6 surviving children
partitioned the co-owned property
2. Mrs. Legarda died and in the testate proceeding of her estate, Beatriz Gonzales,
one of her daughters, filed a motion to exclude in the inventory of the properties
inherited from Filomena, the deceased daughter, on the ground that said properties
were reservable and should be inherited by Filomenas 3 sisters and 3 brothers,
not by the 16 grandchildren of Mrs. Legarda, or Filomenas nephews and nieces.
She also filed an action securing a declaration that the properties are reservable
which Mrs. Legarda could not bequeath in her holographic will to her
grandchildren to the exclusion of her 6 chidlren
3. It is contended here than the properties in question are not reservable properties
because only relatives within the third paternal line have survived and that when
Mrs. Legarda willed the properties to her grandchildren, who are third degree
relatives of Filomena and who belong to the paternal line, the reason for the
reserva troncal has been satisfied: to prevent persons outside a family from
securing, by some special accident of life, property that should otherwise have
remained therein.
HELD: No. Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her 16
grandchildren the reservable properties she inherited from her daughter because the
reservable properties did not form part of her estate. The reservoir cannot make a
disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees survived the
reservoir.
Art 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the
nearest within the third degree from prepositus who in this case are the 6 children of Mrs.
Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom to the reservable properties should
be given and deprive the other reservees of their shares therein. To allow the reservoir to
make a testamentary disposition of the reservable properties in favor the reservees in the
third degree and, consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a
glaring violation of Art 891, this cannot be allowed.
Mrs. Legarda could not dispose of the properties in question in her will even if the
disposition is in favor of relatives within the third degree from Filomena. The said
properties, by operation of Art 891, should go to Mrs. Legardas 6 children as reservees
within the second degree from Filomena. Reservees do not inherit from the reservor but
from the prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis causa subject to the
condition that they must survive the reservor.
The reservation could be extinguished only by the absence of reservees at the time of
Mrs. Legardas death. Since at the time of her death, there were reservees belonging to
the second and third degrees, the disputed properties did not lose their reservable
character. The disposition of the properties should be made in accordance with Art 891
and in accordance with the reservors holographic will.
Facts:
Jose Frias Chua had 2 marriages. First with Patricia, he had 3 children- Ignacio, Manuel and Lorenzo.
When Patricia died, he married Consolacion de la Torre and had one child- Juanito Frias Chua. Jose
Frias Chua died intestate. After the intestate proceeding the court adjudicated half of lot in question
to Consolacion and the other half to their only son, Juanito. The two sons in the first marriage,
Lorenzo and Ignacio, received P3k and P1550 respectively. (Manuel already died).
Juanito also died intestate without issue. Consolacion de la Torre executed a declaration of heirship
adjudicating in her favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito in the lot in question. When dela
Torre died, Ignacio and the heirs of Lorenzo filed a complaint praying that the one-half portion of the
Lot be declared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reserval
troncal pursuant to Article 981 NCC.
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: Yes
Ratio:
Inorderthatapropertymaybeimpressedwithareservable
characterthefollowingrequisitesmustexist,towit:(1)that
thepropertywasacquiredbyadescendantfromanasscendantor
fromabrotherorsisterbygratuitoustitle;(2)thatsaid
descendantdiedwithoutanissue;(3)thatthepropertyis
inheritedbyanotherascendantbyoperationoflaw;and(4)that
therearerelativeswithinthethirddegreebelongingtotheline
fromwhichsaidpropertycame.
Alloftheforegoingrequisitesarepresent.Thus,asborneoutby
therecords,JuanoitoFriasChuaofthesecondmarriagedied
intestatein1952;hediedwithourleavinganyissue;hispro
indivisoof1/2shareofLotNo.399wasacquiredbyhismother,
ConsolaciondelaTorredied,JuannnitoFriasChuawhodied
intestatehadrelativeswithinthethirddegree.Theserelatives
areIgnacioFriasChuaandDominadorChuaandRemidiosChua,the
supposelegitimatechildrenofthedeceasedLorenzoFriasChua,
whoarethepetitionersherein
AccordingtoManresa,"Thetransmissionisgratuitousorby
gratuitoustitlewhentherecipientdoesnotgiveanythingin
return."Itmattersnotwhetherthepropertytransmittedbeorbe
notsubjecttoanypriorcharges;whatisessentialisthatthe
transmissionbemadegratuitously,orbyanactofmereliberality
ofthepersonmakingit,withoutimposinganyobligationonthe
partoftherecipient;andthatthepersonreceivingtheproperty
givesordoesnothinginreturn.
"theessentialthingisthatthepersonwhotransmitsitdoesso
gratuitously,frompuregenerosity,withoutrequiringfromthe
transfereeanyprestation."Itisevidentfromtherecordthatthe
transmissionofthepropertyinquestiontoJuanitoFriasChuaof
thesecondmarriageuponthedeathofhisfatherJoseFriasChua
wasbymeansofahereditarysuccessionandthereforegratuitous.
Aslongasthetransmissionofthepropertytotheheirsisfree
fromanyconditionimposedbythedeceasedhimselfandthe
propertyisgivenoutofpuregenerosity,itgisgratuitous
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.