Gonzales vs.

CFI
BEATRIZ GONZALES V. CFI MANILA, 104 SCRA 481 (1981)
DOCTRINE: Gonzales gives an extended discussion on the nature and effects of reserva troncal.
Among other things, it stresses that the reservable property does not form part of the estate of the
reservor, if upon his or her death he or she is survived by qualified reservees. As such, the reservor
cannot will or bequeath the reservable property in his or her will, nor can the reservor choose who
or discriminate among the reservees should get the property. The reservees inherit the reservable
property not from the reservor, but from the prepositus. Thus, Gonzales affirms the ruling in Padura
v Baldovino and follows the theory of delayed intestacy in the matter of distributing the reservable
property among the reservees. It should be noted that the Court relied heavily on the ruling in
Florentino and quotes substantially from the text of the said decision. However, there is a failure to
note the oversight committed by the Court when it failed to distinguish between full-blood brothers
from half-blood brothers. The opportunity to rectify an error was lost.
Benito Legarda Tuason
Consuelo
Rita
+Benito Legarda de la Paz

Filomena Roces
Beatriz
Rosario
Teresa
+Filomena
Benito
Alejandro
Jose

Carmen Legarda y Fernandez

Ramon Legarda y Hernandez
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.
ISSUE: WON the properties could be conveyed by will to the 16 grandchildren (reservees
within the third degree) to the exclusion of the 6 children (reservees within the second degree)
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.