Reservatarios DIONISIA PADURA, et. al. vs. MELANIA BALDOVINO, et. al. G.R. No. L-1196 , De!

e"#er $%, 19&' (A)*S+ Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife, he had one child, Manule Padura, and with his second wife Benita padura, he had two children, Fortunato and Candelaria. Agustin died in 190 , lea!ing all of his properties to Benita and the three children. Four parcels of land were ad"uciated to Fortunato Padura. Fortunato Padura died without a will an# without an# issue, said parcels of land passed to his mother, Benita. $n 19%&, Candelaria also died, lea!ing as his onl# heirs four legitimate children, petitioners herein. 'hereafter Manuel also died, lea!ing as his onl# heirs se!en legitimate children, oppositors herein. $n 19(), Benita Padura died. 'hen the nephews and nieces of Fortunato from his full sister Candelaria and half*+rother Manuel were declared to +e the rightful reser!atarios. 'he instant petition is filed to ha!e the reser!a+le properties partitioned, such that 1,) of the same +e ad"udicated to the children of Candelaria on the +asis that the# inherit +# right of representation. 'he children of Manuel filed their opposition, maintaining that the# should all +e deemed as inheriting in their own right, and all inherit in e-ual shares. ISSUE+ Whether or not the properties +e apportioned among the nephews of the whole +lood and the nephews of the half*+lood e-uall#. ,ELD+ .o. 'he purpose of the reser!e is accomplished once the propert# has de!ol!ed to the specified relati!es in the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further occasion for its application. $n the relations +etween one reser!atario and another of the same degree, there is no call for appl#ing Art. 91 an# longer/ wherefore, the respecti!e shares of each re!ersionar# propert# should +e go!erned +# the ordinar# rules of intestate succession. 0pon the death of the ascendant reser!ista, the reser!a+le propert# should pass, not to all reser!atarios as a class, +ut onl# to those nearest in degree to the descendant 1propositus2, e3cluding those reser!atarios of more remote degree. Pro3imit# of degree and right of representation are +asic principles of ordinar# intestate succession/ so is the rule that whole +lood +rothers and nephews are entitled to a share dou+le that of +rothers and nephews of half*+lood. 'he reser!a troncal merel# determines the group of relati!es to whom the propert# should +e returned / +ut within that group the indi!idual right of the propert# should +e decided +# the ordinar# rules of intestate succession, since Art. 91 does not specif# otherwise.

IGNA)IO (RIAS ),UA !s. *,E )OUR* O( (IRS* INS*AN)E O( NEGROS O))IDEN*AL G.R. No. L-$99 1,A-.-st /1, 19%% ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

(A)*S+ 4uring the first marriage of 5ose Frias Chua with Patricia 6. Militar alias 6#
7uio he sired three children, namel#8 $gnacio, 9oren:o and Manuel, all surnamed Frias Chua. When Patricia 6. Militar died, 5ose Frias Chua contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la 'orre with whom he had a child +# the name of 5uanita Frias Chua. 'hen in 19)9, 5ose Frias Chua died intestate lea!ing his one*half 11,),2 portion of 9ot .o. %99 in fa!or of 5ose Frias Chua;s widow, Consolacion de la 'orre, the other half of 9ot .o. %99 in fa!or of 5uanito Frias Chua, his son in the second marriage . 9ater, 5uanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without an# issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion de la 'orre succeeded to his pro*indi!isio share of 9ot .o. %99. 'hen Consolacion de la 'orre died intestate lea!ing no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line e3cept her +rother and sisters. Petitioners herein, $gnacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage and 4ominador and <emedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased 9oren:o Frias Chua, also of the first marriage filed the complaint pra#ing that the one*half 11,)2 portion of 9ot .o. %99 +e declared as a reser!a+le propert# for the reason that the lot in -uestion was su+"ect to reserval troncal pursuant to Article 9 1 of the .ew Ci!il Code. ISSUE+ Whether or not the su+"ect propert# was ac-uired gratuitousl#. ,ELD+ =es. $n Cabardo v. Villanueva, && Phil. 1 >, ?'he transmission is gratuitous or +# gratuitous title when the recipient does not gi!e an#thing in return.? $t matters not whether the propert# transmitted +e or +e not su+"ect to an# prior charges/ what is essential is that the transmission +e made gratuitousl#, or +# an act of mere li+eralit# of the person ma@ing it, without imposing an# o+ligation on the part of the recipient/ and that the person recei!ing the propert# gi!es or does nothing in return/ or, as a+l# put +# an eminent Filipino commentator, ?the essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitousl#, from pure generosit#, without re-uiring from the transferee an# prestation.? $t is e!ident from the record that the transmission of the propert# in -uestion to 5uanito Frias Chua of the second marriage upon the death of his father 5ose Frias Chua was +# means of a hereditar# succession and therefore gratuitous. 'hus, the foregoing re-uisites for reser!e troncal to e3ist are present. 5uanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate in 19()/ he died withour lea!ing an# issue/ his pro* indi!iso of 1,) share of 9ot .o. %99 was ac-uired +# his mother, Consolacion de la 'orre died, 5uannnito Frias Chua who died intestate had relati!es within the third degree. 'hese relati!es are $gnacio Frias Chua and 4ominador Chua and <emidios Chua, the suppose legitimate children of the deceased 9oren:o Frias Chua, who are the petitioners herein.

VALERIANA VELA0O BERNARDO !s. MIGUEL SIO1O G.R. No. L-/6 %' Mar!2 11, 19//

ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

(A)*S+ 'he spouses, Marcelo Aela#o Bernardo and Florentina de los 6antos, had two
daughters named Aaleriana, the appellant herein, and Maria 'rinidad, who was married to Miguel 6io"o, the defendant herein, li@ewise died without lea!ing an# children. 'he lands proceeded from the Aela#o spouses and were inherited +# Ma3imina Aguirre in the following manner/ parcels A, B, C, 4 and F, from her grandfather and B and C, from her grandmother. $n her will which was allowed to pro+ate, Ma3imina Aguirre +e-ueathed two*thirds 1),%2 of said propert# to her father, Pa+lo Aguirre, and the remaining one*third 11,%2 to her hus+and, Miguel 6io"o. 6ometime later, Pa+lo Aguirre +rought an action against the appellee herein for partition of the lands in -uestion which action was withdrawn through a compromise agreement +etween the parties +# !irtue of which 6io"o was to remain in possession of all the lands which +elonged to his wife in lieu of pa#ment +# him to Pa+lo Aguirre of the sum of P%,)(0. Aaleriana Aela#o Bernardo +rought an action to compel her nephew, Miguel 6io"o, to partition the se!en parcels of land descri+ed in the complaint/ to ha!e her declared entitled to a share consisting in fi!e*si3ths 1(,>2 thereof/ to ha!e the appellee render an accounting of all the fruits deri!ed +# him therefrom since the death of his father*in*law, Pa+lo Aguirre, on Ma# )0, 19) , and to deli!er to her the amount corresponding to her said share, with costs against the appellee.

ISSUE+ Whether or not the alleged compromise agreement constituted a transfer or

wai!er +# the appellant of her right to the reser!a+le propert#.

,ELD+ .o. 'he Court concluded that, strictl# spea@ing, the appellant did not inter!ene
in ci!il case .o. )9(& and was not a part# to the action for partition or in the compromise agreement entered into +# the parties to that suit, and e!en in the supposition that she had !oluntaril# gi!en her consent thereto, the contract thus e3ecuted was null and !oid or without effect for the reason that it anticipated the transfer or wai!er of reser!a+le propert# during the lifetime of the reser!er thereof. D!en if the appellee o+tain the

certificate of title and transfer certificate of title corresponding to parcels A and B, respecti!el#, he is, ne!ertheless, +ound to transfer herein appellant the portion to which she is entitled in !iew of the fact that he o+tained said certificates of title thereto @nowing that such properties did not +elong to him +ut to the reser!ee, the appellant herein.

P-r3ose o4 Reserva *ro5!al (RAN)IS)A *IO)O DE PAPA !s. DALISA0 *ONG6O )AMA),O G.R. No. L-$' /$, Se3te"#er $7, 19'6 ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

(A)*S8 <omana 'ioco during her lifetime gratuitousl# donated four 1&2 parcels of land to her niece 'ori+ia 'ioco. 'ori+ia 'ioco died intestate in l9l(, sur!i!ed +# her hus+and, Dustacio 4i:on, and their two legitimate children, Faustino 4i:on and 'rinidad 4i:on 1mother of defendant 4alisa# 4, 'ong@o*Camacho2 and lea!ing the afore*mentioned four 1&2 parcels of land as the inheritance of her said two children in e-ual pro*indi!iso shares. 4efendant 4alisa# 4. 'ong@o*Camacho owns one*half 11,)2 of all the se!en 1E2 parcels of land as her inheritance from her mother, 'rinidad 4i:on*'ong@o and +# !irtue of the reser!a troncal imposed thereon upon the death of Faustino 4i:on and under the laws on intestate succession. 'he plaintiffs oppose said claim +ecause the# claim three* fourths 1%,&2 of the one*half pro*indi!iso interest in said parcel of land, which interest was inherited +# Dustacio 4i:on from Faustino 4i:on, or three*eights 1%, 2 of the said parcels of land, +# !irtue of their +eing also third degree relati!es of Faustino 4i:on. ISSUE+ Whether or not all relati!es of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reser!a+le propert# upon the death of the reservista. ,el8+ .o. 'hat -uestion has alread# +een answered in Padura vs. Baldovino, where the reservatario was sur!i!ed +# ele!en nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole +lood and se!en of half +lood, and the claim was also made that all ele!en were entitled to the re!ersionar# propert# in e-ual shares. 'he Court, declared the principles of intestac# to +e controlling, and ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole +lood were each entitled to a share dou+le that of each of the nephews and nieces of half +lood in accordance with Article 100> of the Ci!il Code. <e!ersion of the reser!a+le propert# +eing go!erned +# the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs* appellees must +e held without an# right thereto +ecause, as aunt and uncles, respecti!el#, of Faustino 4i:on 1the praepositus2, the# are e3cluded from the succession +# his niece, the defendant*appellant, although the# are related to him within the same degree as the latter. 'he the defendant*appellant 4alisa# 'ong@o*Camacho is entitled to the entiret# of the re!ersionar# propert# to the e3clusion of the plaintiffs*appellees.

Ri.2ts o4 Reservista MAR)ELINA EDROSO !s. PABLO a58 BASILIO SABLAN G.R. No. 6'%' , Se3te"#er 1/, 191/

ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

(A)*S+ Petitioner Marcelina Ddroso applied for registration and issuance of title to two parcels of land situated in the municipalit# of Pagsan"an, Pro!ince of 9aguna, one of 1 hectare EE ares and >% centares, and the other 1 hectare > ares and )> centares. 'wo applications were filed, one for each parcel, +ut +oth were heard and decided in a single "udgment. Marcelina Ddroso was married to Aictoriano 6a+lan the# had a son named Pedro who inherited the two said parcels. Pedro also died, unmarried and without issue and +# this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Ddroso. Cence the hereditar# title whereupon is +ased the application for registration of her ownership. 'wo legitimate +rothers of Aictoriano 6a+lan F that is, two uncles german of Pedro 6a+lan F appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things8 Dither that the registration +e denied, ?or that if granted to her the right reser!ed +# law to the opponents +e recorded in the registration of each parcel.? 'he Court of 9and <egistration denied the registration +ecause the trial court held that the parcels of land in -uestion parta@e of the nature of propert# re-uired +# law to +e reser!ed and that in such a case application could onl# +e presented "ointl# in the names of the mother and the said two uncles of Pedro 6a+lan. ISSUE+ Whether or not petitioner is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land. ,ELD+ =es. Petitioner is entitled to register in her own name the two parcels of land which are the su+"ect matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the right re-uired +# article 11 to +e reser!ed to either or +oth of the opponents, Pa+lo 6a+lan and Basilio 6a+lan, should the# sur!i!e her. 'he conclusion is that the person re-uired +# article 11 to reser!e the right has, +e#ond an# dou+t at all, the rights of use and usufruct. Ce has, moreo!er, for the reasons set forth, the legal title and dominion, although under a condition su+se-uent. Clearl# he has, under an e3press pro!ision of the law, the right to dispose of the propert# reser!ed, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a condition. Ce has the right to reco!er it, +ecause he is the one who possesses or should possess it and ha!e title to it, although a limited and re!oca+le one. $n a word, the legal title and dominion, e!en though under a condition, reside in him while he li!es. After the right re-uired +# law to +e reser!ed has +een assured, he can do an#thing that a genuine owner can do. 6ince the reser!ation thus not impl# co* ownership of an# @ind +etween the reser!er and the reser!ees, if the# outli!e the heir who must ma@e the reser!ation, such reser!ees, with onl# the e3pectation of inheriting, are not in law entitled to act and +e regarded as though the# actuall# participated in the ownership of the propert# to +e registered +# ta@ing part or pretending to ta@e part in the application for registration which reser!oir presents/ the fact +eing that with such e3pectation of inheriting, which is neither a real or a personal right, +ut at most legitimate e3pectation of a right, the# cannot +e +etter off than a mortgagee who has a real right to the propert# that his de+tor attempts to register, and #et the 9and <egistration Act 1.o. &9>, 6ec. 19 +2 onl# grants him the right that the application of the mortgagor cannot +e presented without his consent in writing. (RAN)IS)O D. LUNSOD, E* AL. !s. SIN(OROSO OR*EGA, E* AL. G.R. No. 179 7, Se3te"#er 19, 19$1 (A)*S+ Rufina Medel, widow, sold to Francisco Lunsod, petitioner husband of abina !e"a#onte, with the ri$ht to repurchase for two "ears, three parcel of ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

land planted with coconut trees, situated in the barrio of %ta. &atalina, %an !ablo La$una. !etitioner filed a co#plaint a$ainst %inforoso 'rte$a and &andido &aria$a that he was ille$all", and b" #eans of strate$" and stealth, turned out of the possession of said lands. In answer to said co#plaint, the defendant 'rte$a denied the alle$ations and clai#ed that he was, to$ether with his sister Francisca 'rte$a, a pro indiviso owner thereof, and that his possession was not obtained ille$all" and was inherited fro# their first cousin Anacleta 'rte$a and that defendant Rufina Medel had onl" the usufruct of said parcels of land durin$ her lifeti#e. (he case was dis#issed as to the defendant &aria$a. ISSUE+ Whether or not the alienation of the three parcels of land is !alid. ,ELD+ .o. A mother who, +# operation of law, inherits a propert# from her daughter, who in turn has ac-uired the same +# inheritance from her father, is o+liged, under Article 11 of the Ci!il Code, to reser!e such propert# in fa!or of the uncles of said daughter, +ut this does not render said mother a mere usufructuar# of said propert#F she is the owner thereof su+"ect to resolutor# condition, to wit, the e3istence at her death of relati!es of her daughter within the third degree +elonging to the line where said propert# came. 6he ma#, therefore, alienate said propert#, pro!ided she sa!es the right of the reser!es +# securing the latter the !alue thereof, according to the pro!isions Articles 9E& and 9E( of the Ci!il Code in connection with Article 109 of the Mortgage 9aw, and in the manner esta+lished in this article, the pro!isions of the first two articles +eing applica+le to reser!a+le propert# mentioned in article 11 of the Ci!il Code. But if the alienation is made without compliance with said pro!isions, the same will +e null and !oid as against the uncles of said daughter who ma# ha!e sur!i!ed her mother. 'hus, <ufina Medel not ha!ing complied with the pro!isions of said article in effecting the sale of said parcels in fa!or of Francisco 9unsod, inasmuch as the document e3ecuted for the purpose was not recorded in the registr# of propert#, and she could not, therefore, ha!e made in the corresponding record the e3press reser!ation of the right of 6inforoso and Francisca Grtega o!er said propert#, and said <ufina Medel not ha!ing e!en mentioned in said document the fact that said propert# was reser!a+le, said alienation is !oid and can ha!e no effect as against the persons entitled to ha!e such propert# reser!ed, who are 6inforoso and Francisca Grtega.

O#li.atio5 o4 Reservista PEDRO DI9ON a58 SEVERINA DI9ON !s. VI)EN*E GALANG, 1UAN MEDINA a58 *EODORO 1URADO ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

G.R. No. L-$/177, 1a5-ar: 17, 19$6

(A)*S+ <ufina 4i:on, who was married to Aicente Balang and +# whom she had a son named Francisco, inherited from her parents the three parcels of land, her son Francisco inherited from her the said land. Francisco Balang died in 190&, and his father Aicente Balang, +# operation of law, inherited from him the said land. $n accordance with article 11 of the Ci!il Code these three parcels of land are considered as reser!a+le propert# although the# do not appear as such in the registr# of deeds. $n 191%, Aicente Balang sold the first two parcels to 5uan Medina and in 1909 the third to 'eodoro 5urado, without informing them that the# were reser!a+le propert#. 'he plaintiffs Pedro and 6e!erino 4i:on, +rother and sister of the deceased <ufina 4i:on, +eing related to her within the third degree, +rought this action against Aicente Balang, 5uan Medina and 'eodoro 5urado. 'he complaint pra#s that the sales of this land +# Aicente Balang to 5uan Medina and 'eodoro 5urado +e ordered to return the said parcels of land/ that Aicente Balang +e compelled to record in the registr# of deeds the reser!a+le character of this land and to e3ecute a mortgage to secure its !alue. ISSUE+ Whether or not Aicente Balang can +e compelled to record in the registr# of the deeds the reser!a+le character of said land. ,ELD+ .o. 6ince these parcel of land ha!e +een legall# transferred to third persons, Aicente Balang has lost ownership thereof and cannot now register nor record in the registr# of deeds their reser!a+le character/ neither can he affect the fee simple, which does not +elong to him, to the damage of 5uan Medina and 'eodoro 5urado, who ac-uired the said land in good faith, free of all incum+rances. $n a reser!ation +# the widowed spouse there are two distinct stages, one when the propert# goes to the widower without +eing reser!a+le, and the other when the widower contracts a second marriage, whereupon the propert#, which theretofore had +een in his possession free of an# incum+rance, +ecomes reser!a+le. $f the propert# is sold during the first stage, it is transferred a+solutel# free, and upon contracting another marriage, the widowed spouse must secure its !alue with a mortgage, in order to gi!e efficac# of the reser!ation when the time comes for its enforcement. $n the second stage, the propert# is transferred su+"ect to the reser!ation, and the law does not re-uire such mortgage, since the propert# itself answers for the reser!ation. For this reason the rules esta+lished for reser!ation +# a widowed spouse to secure the !alue of the propert# sold +# the widower, +efore +ecoming reser!a+le, are not applica+le to the reserva troncal where the propert# goes to the ascendant alread# reser!a+le in character. A sale in the case of reserva troncal might +e analogous to a sale made +# the widower after might +e analogous to a second marriage in the case of reser!ation +# the widowed spouse.

Ri.2ts o4 Reservatarios MAGIN RIOSA !s. PABLO RO),A, MAR)ELINA )ASAS, MARIA )ORRAL a58 )ONSOLA)ION R. DE )ALLE1A G.R. No. L-$/%% , (e#r-ar: 1', 19$6 ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

(A)*S+ Maria Corral was married to Mariano <iosa, the# had three children named 6antiago, 5ose and 6e!erina. 'he latter died during infanc# and the other two sur!i!ed their father. 6antiago <iosa, deceased, married Francisca Aillanue!a, the# had two children Magin and Consolacion <iosa. 5ose <iosa, also deceased, married Marcelina Casas without issue. Mariano <iosa left a will di!iding his propert# +etween 6antiago and 5ose <iosa, gi!ing the latter the ele!en parcels of land descri+ed in the complaint. 0pon the death of 5ose <iosa he left a will in which he named his wife, Marcelina Casas, as his onl# heir. 'he will of 5ose <iosa was filed for pro+ate. .otwithstanding the fact that Marcelina Casas was the onl# heir named in the will, on account of the preterition of Maria Corral, Marcelina Casas and Maria Corral, on the same date of the filing of the will for pro+ate, entered into a contract +# which the# di!ided +etween themsel!es the propert# left +# 5ose <iosa, the ele!en parcels of land descri+ed in the complaint +eing assigned to Maria Corral. Maria Corral sold parcels .os. 1, ), %, &, (, >, 10 and 11 to Marcelina Casas. 'hen Marcelina Casas sold these eight parcels of land to Pa+lo <ocha. An action was +rought +# Magin <iosa, for whom the propert# should ha!e +een reser!ed, against Maria Corral, whose dut# it was to reser!e it, and against Marcelina Casas and Pa+lo <ocha as purchasers of parcels 10 and 11. ISSUE+ Whether or not the defendant Maria Corral can +e compelled to ma@e the reser!ation in fa!or of the plaintiff. ,ELD+ .o. 'he dut# of Maria Corral of recording the reser!a+le character of lots 10 and 11 has +een transferred to Pa+lo <ocha and the reser!ees ha!e an action against him to compel him to compl# with this o+ligation. $n the transmission of reser!a+le propert# the law imposes the reser!ation as a resolutor# condition for the +enefit of the reser!ees 1article 9E(, Ci!il Code2. 'he fact that the resol!a+le character of the propert# was not recorded in the registr# of deed at the time that it was ac-uired +# Marcelina Casas and Pa+lo <ocha cannot affect the right of the reser!ees, for the reason that the transfers were made at the time when it was the o+ligation of the reser!or to note onl# such reser!ation and the reser!ees did not them ha!e an# right to compel her to fulfill such an o+ligation. Marcelina Casas, as well as Pa+lo <ocha, @new of the reser!a+le character of the propert# when the# +ought it. Pa+lo <ocha was one of the legatees in the will. Marcelina Casas was the one who entered into the contract of partition with Maria Corral, where+# these parcels were ad"udicated to the latter, as a legitimate heir of 5ose <iosa. Pa+lo <ocha was the !er# person who drafted the contracts of sale of these parcels of land +# Maria Corral to Marcelina Casas and +# the latter to himself. 'hese facts, together with the relationship e3isting +etween Maria Corral and Marcelina Casas and Pa+lo <ocha, the former a daughter*in*law and the latter a nephew of Maria Corral, ampl# support the conclusion that +oth of them @new that these parcels of land had +een inherited +# Maria Corral, as her legitime from her son 5ose <iosa who had inherited them, +# will, from his father Mariano <iosa, and were reser!a+le propert#. )ONS*AN)IO SIENES, E* AL. !s. (IDEL ESPAR)IA, E* AL. G.R. No. L-1$9&%, Mar!2 $7, 1961

(A)*S+ 9ot %%> originall# +elonged to 6aturnino =aeso. With his first wife, 'eresa <uales, he had four children named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second wife, Andrea Butang, he had an onl# son named Francisco. Because ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the propert# for him, when he died, single and without an# descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, e3ecuted the pu+lic instrument and she sold the propert# in -uestion to appellants. When thereafter said !endees demanded from Paulina =aeso and her hus+and 5ose Dsparcia, the surrender of Griginal Certificate of 'itle .o. 10)E( the latter refused, thus gi!ing rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral record .o. (0E. 'hereafter, Cipriana and Paulina =aeso, the sur!i!ing half*sisters of Francisco, e3ecuted a deed of sale in fa!or of the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes who, in turn, declared it in their name for ta3 purposes and thereafter secured the issuance in their name of 'ransfer Certificate of 'itle. Appellants commenced an action to secure "udgment 112 declaring null and !oid the sale e3ecuted +# Paulina and Cipriana =aeso in fa!or of appellees, the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes/ 1)2 ordering the Dsparcia spouses to recon!e# to appellants 9ot %%> of the Cadastral 6ur!e# of A#u-uitan 1now Amlan2, Griental .egros/ and 1%2 ordering all the appellees to pa#, "ointl# and se!erall#, to appellants the sum of P(00.00 as damages, plus the costs of suit. $n their answer appellees disclaimed an# @nowledge or information regarding the sale and said propert# had ne!er +een in possession of appellants. ISSUE+ Whether or not the rights of the reser!atario can +e alienated. ,ELD+ =es. $t is clear that the sale e3ecuted +# the sisters Paulina and Cipriana =aeso in fa!or of the spouses Fidel Dsparcia and Paulina 6ienes was su+"ect to a similar resolutor# condition. $n connection with reser!a+le propert#, the weight of opinion is that the reser!e creates two resolutor# conditions, namel#, 112 the death of the ascendant o+liged to reser!e and 1)2 the sur!i!al, at the time of his death, of relati!es within the third degree +elonging to the line from which the propert# came. 'he reser!e instituted +# law in fa!or of the heirs within the third degree +elonging to the line from which the reser!a+le propert# came, constitutes a real right which the reser!ee ma# alienate and dispose of, al+eit conditionall#, the condition +eing that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the !endee onl# if and when the reser!ee sur!i!es the person o+liged to reser!e. $n the present case, Cipriana =aeso, one of the reser!ees, was still ali!e when Andrea Butang, the person o+liged to reser!e, died. 'hus the former +ecame the a+solute owner of the reser!a+le propert# upon Andrea;s death. While it ma# +e true that the sale made +# her and her sister prior to this e!ent, +ecame effecti!e +ecause of the occurrence of the resolutor# condition, the Courts is not in a position to re!erse the appealed decision, in so far as it orders the re!ersion of the propert# in -uestion to the Dstate of Cipriana =aeso, +ecause the !endees the Dsparcia spouses did not appeal therefrom.

;2e5 reservatario a!<-ires ri.2t= e44e!t MARIA )ANO !s. DIRE)*OR O( LANDS, EUS*A>UIA GUERRERO, E* AL. G.R. No. L-1 % 1, 1a5-ar: 16, 19&9 (A)*S+ $n an amended decision, issued in 9and <egistration Case .o. 1), B.9.<.G. <ec. .o. ) %(, the Court of First $nstance of 6orsogon decreed the registration of 9ots .os. 1E9 and 1E99 of the 5u+an 16orsogon2 Cadastre issued in the name of Maria Cano, su+"ect to reserva troncal in fa!or of Dusta-uia Buerrero. $n 19((, Buerrero filed a ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A

motion with the Cadastral Court, alleging the death of the original registered owner and reservista, Maria Cano, and pra#ing that the original Certificate of 'itle +e ordered cancelled and a new one issued in fa!or of mo!ant Dusta-uia Buerrero/ and that the 6heriff +e ordered to place her in possession of the propert#. 'he motion was opposed +# 5ose and 'eotimo Fernande:, sons of the reservista Maria Cano, who contended that the application and operation of the reserva troncal should +e !entilated in an ordinar# contentious proceeding, and that the <egistration Court did not ha!e "urisdiction to grant the motion. 'he oppositors, heirs of the reservista Maria Cano, dul# appealed from the order, insisting that the ownership of the reservatorio can not +e decreed in a mere proceeding under sec. 11) of Act &9>, +ut re-uires a "udicial administration proceedings, wherein the rights of appellee, as the reservatorio entitled to the reser!a+le propert#, are to +e declared. ISSUE+ Whether or not intestac# proceeding is necessar# to determine the rights of the reser!atario. ,ELD+ .o. 'he contention that an intestac# proceeding is still necessar# rests upon the assumption that the reservatario will succeed in, or inherit, the reserva+le propert# from the reservista. 'his is not true. 'he reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is the reserva+le propert# part of the reservista;s estate/ the reservatario recei!es the propert# as a conditional heir of the descendant 1 prepositus2, said propert# merel# re!erting to the line of origin from which it had temporaril# and accidentall# stra#ed during the reservista;s lifetime. 'he authorities are all agreed that there +eing reservatarios that sur!i!e the reservista, the latter must +e deemed to ha!e en"oined no more than a life interest in the reserva+le propert#. $t is a conse-uence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus 1the appellee in this case2 +ecomes, automaticall# and +# operation of law, the owner of the reser!a+le propert#. As alread# stated, that propert# is no part of the estate of the reservista, and does not e!en answer for the de+ts of the latter. Cence, its ac-uisition +# the reservatario ma# +e entered in the propert# records without necessit# of estate proceedings, since the +asic re-uisites therefor appear of record. $t is e-uall# well settled that the reserva+le propert# can not +e transmitted +# a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa,1li@e appellants herein2 so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the prepositus and +elonging to the line whence the propert# came, is in e3istence when the reservista dies.

Note+ *2e !ase o4 Marti5 v. Re:es is 5ot releva5t to s-!!essio5 t2-s, I o"itte8 it. I a88e8 t2e !ase o4 Sie5es v. Es3ar!ia so t2at I !a5 !o"3lete ": 1 re<-ire8 !ases. I?" s-33ose8 to 2ave 11 #-t, t2e !ase o4 L-5so8 v. Orte.a 2as o5l: o5e relate8 iss-e i5 Ri.2ts o4 Reservista, 5ot reservatarios to3i!.

ABDURAHIM, FHARHANA M. LLB III A