Chua v.

CFI
G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977

FACTS:

In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia Militar he sired three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel.
When Patricia S. Militar died, Jose FriasChua contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a child by
the name of Juanita Frias Chua. Manuel, one of the children of Jose in his first marriage, died without leaving any issue.

Then in 1929, Jose Frias Chua died intestate. In the intestate proceeding, Consolacion and Juanito got 1/2 each of Lot No. 399. Jose’s
children in the first marriage got cash.

On February 27, 1952, JuanitoFrias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his mother
Consolacion de la Torresucceeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. Then on March 5, 1966, Consolacion de la
Torre died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters.

In the “Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre,” the petitioners herein, IgnacioFrias Chua, of the first marriage and dominador and
Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua, also of the first marriagefiled the
complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to JuanitoFrias but which passed to
Consolacion de la Torre upon the latter’s death, be declaredas a reservable property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complaint of petitioners to recover the one-half portion of Lot 399 which originally belonged to JuanitoFrias Chua has
already prescribed when it was filed on May 11, 1966, or 14 years after the death of Juanito (prepositus).

RULING:

NO. The Court held that the petitioners herein are claiming as reservees did not arise until the time the reservor, Consolacion de la Torre,
died in March 1966. When the petitioners therefore filed their complaint to recover the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot 399, they were very
much in time to do so.

Chua v. CFI
G.R No L-29901, August 31, 1977
Martin, J
Doctrine:
In order to make a property reservable, the ff requisites must be present:
a. Property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title
b. Said descendant died w/o an issue
c. Property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law.
d. There are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the said property came.
Facts
Jose Frias Chua (+)

1st Marriage 2nd Marriage

Patricia Millar (+) Consolacion De La Torre(+)

Ignacio Lorenzo(+) Manuel(+) Juanito (+)

Dominador Remedios
1. Jose Frias Chua died. In an instestate proceeding, ½ portion of Lot 399 to Consolacion, his wife by the 2 nd marriage; the other
half to Juanito. Lorenzo and Ignacio received money.
2. Juanito died w/o any issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro-indiviso share of Lot 399.
3. Consolacion De La Torre Died intestate leaving no direct heir in the descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters.
4. Petitioners (Ignacio, Remedios and Dominador)filed a complaint praying that the ½ portion of the lot that belonged to Juanito
but which passed to Consolacion upon his death be declared as reservable property as the said property was subject to reserva
troncal. Administratrix of the Estate of Consolacion De La Torre opposed on the ground that the property was not reservable as
 it was not received by gratuitous title but for a consideration which was to pay Jose Frias Chua’s obligation to Standard Oil Co.
of New York
Issue:
W/N the property was received by Juanito from his father gratuitously
Held: Yes
2. Manresa: “Transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return.”
3. In order to make a property reservable, the ff requisites must be present:
a. Property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title
b. Said descendant died w/o an issue
c. Property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law.
d. There are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the said property came
4. The obligation of paying Standard oil was imposed on Juanito and Consolacion was not imposed by Jose but by the court in a
separate testate proceeding. The transmission of the property from Jose to Juanito is therefore gratuitous; the property is
therefore reservable in favour of the third degree of Jose Frias Chua from which the property came. These relatives are
petitioners

Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez vs. CFI Manila, and Benito F. Legarda et. al.
19 May 1981; G.R. no. L-34395; Aquino, J. | Digest by Sam Tirthdas

FACTS
 In 1933, Benito Legarda y Dela Paz (hereinafter referred to as B.D.L.) died. He is survived by his widow Filomena Roces
(hereinafter referred to as F.Roces) and his 7 children (4 daughters: Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa, Filomena Legarda; 3 sons:
Benito, Alejandro, Jose)
 Benito Legarda y Tuason (hereinafter referred to as B.T.L) is the deceased father of B.D.L. In 1939, B.T.L.’s real properties
were partitioned in 3 equal portions: his 2 daughters and his SON B.D.L. (represented by his heirs).
 In 1943 Filomena Legarda died intestate and her sole heir was her mother F.Roces.
 In 1947 F.Roces extrajudicially adjudicated to herself the properties inherited from her daughter Filomena Legarda (herein
after referred to as F.Legarda). These properties are:
o P3,699.63 deposit in the National City Bank of New York
o 1,429 Shares in Benguet Mining
o 1/7 interest in shares in San Miguel, Tuason&Legarda, Philippine Guaranty Company, Insular Life, and Manila Times
o Shares of various undivided real properties
 F.Roces executed 2 handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties she inherited from her daughter
F.Legarda to her 16 grandchildren (children of her 3 sons).
 In 1967, F.Roces died. Her holographic will was admitted to probate.
 Beatriz (other daughter) wanted to exclude from the inventory of F.Roces’ estate the properties her mother inherited from her
sister F.Legarda.
 RTC ruled against Beatriz stating that: disputed properties lost their reservable character due to the non-existence of third-
degree relatives of Filomena Legarda at the time of the death of the reservor, Mrs. Legarda, belonging to the Legarda family,
"except third-degree relatives who pertain to both" the Legarda and Roces lines.

ISSUE

W/N properties inherited by mother F.Roces from daughter F.Legarda are subject to reserva troncal? YES. Subject to reserve troncal

Consequently, W/N F.Roces could dispose of subject properties in favor of her 16 grandchildren to the exclusion of her 6 children?
NO. She cannot dispose of subject properties mortis causa in her will.

RATIO
reserva 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.

3 Transmissions involved in reserva troncal:

(1) first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant;
(2) posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la
reserva) in favor of another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation, and
(3) third transmission of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or
the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the
deceased descendant

Persons involved in reserva troncal:

(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 (propositus) 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 reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea o tronco)
from which the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.

The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant, or the one at the end of the line from which the property
came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent (Prepositus).

Reserva contemplates a LEGITIMATE relationship (illegitimate & relationship by affinity excluded)

2 Resolutory Conditions created by Reserva Troncal:

(1) death of the ascendant obliged to reserve
(2) survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came

The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is
extinguished if the reservoir predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it
subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferee's rights are
revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservoir but become indefeasible when the reservees
predecease the reservor. (reservor's title has been compared with that of the vendee a retro in a pacto de retro sale or to a fideicomiso
condicional)

The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is subject to a resolutory condition, meaning that if at the time of the reservor's
death, there are reservees, the transferee of the property should deliver it to the reservees. If there are no reservees at the time of the
reservor's death, the transferee's title would become absolute.

*renunciation of the reservee's right to the reservable property is illegal for being a contract regarding future inheritance.

DICTUM: Reservee's right is a real right which he may alienate and dispose of conditionally. The condition is that the
alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the reservoir.

The reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant (prepositus), said property merely reverting to the line of
origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista's lifetime. The authorities are all agreed that there
being reservatarios that survive the reservista, the latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest in the reservable
property.

In the instant case, the properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of F.Roces. Undoubtedly, she was a
reservor. 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 F.Roces.

F.Roces, as reservor, could NOT convey the reservable properties by will or mortis causa to the reservees within the third degree (her
sixteen grandchildren) to the exclusion of the reservees in the second degree, her three daughters and three sons. Reservable
Properties did NOT form part of F.Roces’ estate.

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 F.Roces. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable
property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein.

INVOKING DOCTRINE IN FLORENTINO CASE: as long as during the reservor' s lifetime and upon his death there are relatives within
the third degree of the prepositus, regardless of whether those reservees are common descendants of the reservor and the ascendant
from whom the property came, the property retains its reservable character. The property should go to the nearest reservees. The
reservoir cannot, by means of his will, choose the reservee to whom the reservable property should be awarded.

REGARDING CONTENTION OF DEFENDANTS (Reserva Troncal has been satisfied by properties going to the grandchildren): while it
is true that by giving the reservable property to only one reservee it did not pass into the hands of strangers, nevertheless, it is likewise
true that the heiress of the reservor was only one of the reservees and there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other
reservees should be deprived of their shares in the reservable property.

REGARDING RTC’s RULING: That holding is erroneous. The reservation could have been extinguished only by the absence of
reservees at the time of Mrs. Legarda's death. 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. The disposition of the said properties should
be made in accordance with article 891 or the rule on reserva troncal and not in accordance with the reservor's holographic will. The
said properties did not form part of Mrs. Legarda's estate.

DIONISIA PADURA ET AL, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES

V.
MELANIA BALDOVINO, ET AL, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS
GR NO L-11960 DECEMBER 27, 1958
REYES, JBL,J.,
SV: Fortunato Padura without any heirs, hence the four parcels of land he received from his father were transmitted to her mother.
After her mother died, Fortunato’s nephews and nieces from his full sister and half-brother took possession of the property. The court
ruled that these nephews and nieces will have equal shares over the property.
SC: Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the relatives of Fortunato up to the third degree will get the reservable
property after his mother dies. The children of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the property by way of right of
representation. But after applying the rule, the reservatarios and their relationship will be considered in determining their shares. The
rules on ordinary intestate succession would be followed after the reservatarios have been determined.
1. Agustin Padura married twice. His first wife was Gervacio Landig with whom he had one child named Manuel Padura. His
second wife was Benita Garing with whom he had 2 children named Fortunato and Candelaria Padura
2. He died leaving a last will and testament duly probated wherein he bequeathed his properties among his children,
Manuel, CAndelaria and Fortunato, and his surviving spouse Benita (2nd wife). Fortunato was adjudicated 4 parcels of
land
a. Fortunato died unmarried and without having executed a will; and not having any issue, the 4 parcels of land
were inherited exclusively by Benita. Benita applied for an later was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her
name, BUT subject to the condition that the properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the 3rd degree
belonging to the line from which the property came (Fortunato)
b. Candelaria (Fortunato’s “full” sister) died leaving as her heirs her 4 legitimate children (the appellants) Melania,
Anicia and Pablo all surnamed Baldovino
c. Manuel (Fortunato’s half brother) also died. His heirs were his legitimate children (the appellees) Dionisia, Felisa,
Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana and Severino, all surnamed Padura1
3. Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and Fortunato took possession of the 4 parcels of land (the
reservable properties).
a. CFI Laguna issued a resolution declaring the legitimate children of Manuel and Candelaria are the rightful
reserves and as such entitled to the 4 parcels of land
4. The Baldovinos filed this present petition wherein they seek to have the properties partitioned suh that one-half of the
same be adjudicated to them, the other half to the Paduras on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from
their respective parents, the original reserves.
5. The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all (all 11 of them) be deemed inheriting in their own right hence, they
should have equal shares.
6. TC rendered judgment declaring them all reservees without distinction and have equal shares over the properties as co-
owners, pro indiviso.

ISSUE: should the properties be apportioned among the nephews 2 of the whole blood and nephews of the hald-blood equally? Or
should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half-blood? The nephews of the whole
blood get twice the share.

 The Baldovinos contend that notwithstanding the rule on Reservable character of the property under Art. 891, the
reservatarios nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a share twice as large as that of the others pursuant to Arts. 10063,
10084 on intestate succession.
 The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable property to the third degree
relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by their relatives
of the inheriting ascendant (reservista)
o Article 891. 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. (871)
o The motives for such rule were explained by D. Manuel Alonso Martinez in his book “El Codigo Civil en sus
relaciones con Las Legislaciones Forales” 5
 Summary of not so good translation: consider this sample case: father dies leaving his wife and lone son as
heirs. Wife remarries and had children with 2nd husband. Lone son dies and his mother (wife) inherits
whatever he got from the father. In case the wife dies, the relatives of the lone son are prejudiced since the
wife’s children from the second marriage will inherit the properties of the lone son as opposed to his uncle
(father’s brother)
 The code commission chose to give more importance to lineal succession than the presumed affection of
the deceased.
 The commission settled with the suggestion of Manresa, among others, to reserve the property in case the
ascendants inherit in favor of relatives up to the third degree. No reason was given why 3rd degree.
 Aside from the sample case, another reason why this rule was adopted was to make it the law more
democratic (Democracy was becoming a trend when the civil code was being made by the Spaniards, so
fetch).
 The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of
origin. After that, Art. 891 has nothing to do with the relations between one reservatario and another of the same degree.
Their shares should be foverned by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. Upon the death of the ascendant
reservista, the reservable property should pass, not to all reservatarios as a class, but only to those nearest in degree to the
descendant (prepositus), excluding those reseravatarios more remote in degree.
o The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming the same as a reservatario of the property is not
among those relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. Relatives of the
fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them
as such

1 You will see later, kung bakit lugi talaga yung mga Baldovinos.
2 or niblings kasi may nieces din na kasama
3 Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, the

former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. (949)

4 Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the

rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood. (915)
5 Passage was in Spanish. Google translate was not much help.
 o But there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law as in
the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came
 Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of intestate succession so is the rule that whole blood
brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.
o In determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews
are made to apply, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should likewise be operative.
 Reserva Troncal merely determines the group pof relatives to whom the property should be returned. Within the group, the
individual right to the property should be decided by applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession (since art. 891 is silent
on the matter).
 Reserva Troncal is an exceptional case and its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the
purpose of the law
 Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the reservatarios could compel the annotation of their right (over the property) in the
registry of property. The reservable property is no part of the estate of the reservista, who may not dispose them by will so
long as there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios are in fact inheriting from the descendant prepositus from whom the
reservista inherited the property.
 If the nephews of whole and half-blood inherited the prepositus directly, the whole bloods would receive a double share
compared to those of the half-blood. Why then should the half-bloods inherit equally just because of the delay in the
transmission of the property (when it was with the reservista)? The hereditary portions should not change
 Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this despite the contrary opinions of authors such as Sanchez Roman and
Mucius Scaevola.

Appealed order REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Whole blood nephews will get twice the share of those who are nephews of Half-blood.

Justin Benedict A. Moreto

Francisca Tioco De Papa, et. al. v. Dalisay Tongko Camacho

G.R. No. L-28032, September 24, 1986

FACTS:

Appellees and appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of
Romana Tioco), father of appellees and great grandfather of defendant. During her lifetime, Romana gratuitously donated four parcels
of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of appellees). When Toribia died, she was survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon,
and their two legitimate children Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay). The 4 parcels of land were left as inheritance of Toribia‟s two
children in equal pro-indiviso shares. They too inherited 3 parcels of land which was supposed to be the inheritance of the late
Toribia Tioco from her father Balbino. However, when Faustino died intestate, single and without issue, the ½ pro-indiviso share in the 7
parcels of land was left to his father Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property subject to a reserve troncal.
Subsequently, Trinidad died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of land were inherited by her only legitimate
childe, appellant Dalisay. Eustacio thereafter died intestated, survived by his only legitimate defendant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho.

The lower Court declared that the appellees as well as appellant Dalisay were entitled as reservatarios to ½ of the seven parcels of land
in dispute, in equal proportions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not all relatives of the prepositus (Faustino) within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the
reservable property upon the death of the reservista.

RULING:

No. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees must be held
without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), they are excluded from the
succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. As held in the
case of Abellana v. Ferraris, under the Article 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a
precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. Hence, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may
not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed, similar to the
case at hand.

Sumaya v. IAC G.R. No. 68843-44, September 2, 1991

FACTS:

Raul Balantakbo inherited from two (2) different ascendants the two (2) sets of properties subject of this case: 1) 1/3 interest of a parcel
of land from his father Jose, Sr., who died on January 28, 1945; and 2) 1/7 interest from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista, who
died on November 3, 1950. On June 13, 1952, Raul died intestate, single, without any issue, and leaving only
his mother, Consuelo Joaquin Vda. deBalantakbo, as his sole surviving heir to the subject real properties.

Vda. de Balantakbo caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated that the
properties were inherited by Raul from his father Jose, Sr. and from his maternal grandmother, Luisa Bautista.
Vda de Balantakbo sold the property to Sumaya which was subsequently sold to Villa Honorio Development Corporation. Villa then
transferred and assigned its rights over the property to Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative.

The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering the above described properties do not contain any annotation of its reservable
character.

On March 4, 1970,five brothers in full blood of Raul Balantakbo and three surviving children of deceased Jose Balantakbo, Jr., another
brother of the first named Balantakbos, filed civil cases to recover the subject properties which they claimed were subject to a
reservatroncal in their favor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelostating the source of the properties thereby showing the reservable
nature of the properties is sufficient annotation of the reservable nature of the same.

RULING:

NO. The Court disagreed with the disposition of the appellate court that there is no need to register the reservable character of the
property, if only for the protection of the reservees (reservatarios), against innocent third persons.

In this case, the affidavit of self adjudication executed by Consuelo Vda. de Balantakbo which contained a statement that the property
was inherited from a descendant, Raul, which has likewise inherited by the latter from another ascendant, was registered with
the Registry of Property. The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the reservable character of the property in the certificate of title
cannot be attributed to Consuelo.

As to the sale of subject properties, the Court affirmed the order of lower courts against plaintiff Agro Industrial Coconut Cooperative to
convey the subject properties back to reservatarios. The Court held that there is sufficient proof that the petitioners had actual knowledge
of the reservable character of the properties before they bought the same from Consuelo as evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed by
the parties.

Moreover, the Court a quo found that the petitioners and private respondents were long time acquaintances and that they knew all along
that the properties litigated in this case were inherited by Raul Balantakbo from his father and from his maternal grandmother, and
that Consuelo Vda. deBalantakbo inherited these properties from his son Raul.

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER PASCUAL RIGOR. THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH OF VICTORIA, TARLAC, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
BELINA RIGOR, NESTORA RIGOR, FRANCISCA ESCOBAR DE RIGOR and JOVITA ESCOBAR DE FAUSTO, respondents-
appellees.
G.R. No. L-22036 April 30, 1979
FACTS:
AQUINO, J.:
Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, 1935, leaving a will executed on October 29, 1933 which was
probated by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in its order of December 5, 1935. In addition to the devices contained therein, the will
had a provision to the effect that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a priest. It
was stated therein that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: one, during the interval of time
that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood and two, in case the testator's nephew became a priest and
he was excommunicated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a device in favour of a person whose identity at the time of the testator’s death cannot be ascertained, may be
efficacious.
RULING:
No.
The Supreme Court held that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not to any
indefinite time thereafter. "In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession
opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper" (Art. 1025, Civil Code).
The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To construe them as referring to the testator's nearest
male relative at anytime after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his
estate. That could not have been his intention.
The reasonable view is that he was referring to a situation whereby his nephew living at the time of his death, who would like to
become a priest, was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in the seminary. In that case, the parish priest of Victoria
would administer the ricelands before the nephew entered the seminary. But the moment the testator's nephew entered the seminary,
then he would be entitled to enjoy and administer the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof. In that event, the trusteeship would be
terminated.
Following that interpretation of the will the inquiry would be whether at the time Father Rigor died in 1935 he had a nephew who was
studying for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. That query is categorically answered in
paragraph 4 of appellant priest's petitions of February 19, 1954 and January 31, 1957. He unequivocally alleged therein that "not male
relative of the late (Father) Pascual Rigor has ever studied for the priesthood."
Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in
question was ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria, as envisaged in
the wilt was likewise inoperative.
It should be understood that the parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew living at the time of
his death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet entered the seminary or, having been ordained a priest, he was
excommunicated. Those two contingencies did not arise, and could not have arisen in this case because no nephew of the testator
manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article 888 of the old Civil Code, now article 956, which provides that if
"the bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and those in which
the right of accretion exists."
This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil Code, now article 960 (2), which provides that legal succession takes place
when the will "does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator." There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the
same should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said
ricelands.

Tomas Corpus, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Administrator and/or Executor of the Estate of Teodoro R. Yangco, Rafael Corpus,
Amalia Corpus, Jose A.V. Corpus, Ramon L. Corpus, Enrique J. Corpus, S.W. Stagg, Soledad Asprer, and Cipriano Navarro,
defendants-appellees.

GR No. L-22469 | October 23, 1978 | J. Aquino

FACTS: Teodoro Yangco is the testator. He died in April 20, 1939. His will was probated in 1934. Yangco had no forced heirs. At the
time of his death, his nearest relatives were (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2) his half sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio
(3) Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus, and (4) Juana (Juanita)
Corpus, the daughter of his half brother Jose Corpus. (Juanita had a legit son whose name was Tomas Corpus. Siya yung Tomas Corpus
na Respondent) Juanita died in October, 1944 at Palauig, Zambales.

Teodoro R. Yangco was the (natural) son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles, the widow of Tomas Corpus. Before her union
with Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona had begotten five children with Tomas Corpus (the first and the LEGIT husband), two of whom were
the aforenamed Pablo Corpus and Jose Corpus (Jose is the mother of Juanita. Tomas Jr. is the legit. son of Juanita).

The testate heirs of Teodoro had a PARTITION AGREEMENT. Tomas Corpus Jr. signed a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT as the sole
heir of Juanita Corpus. The estate of Teodoro Yangco entered into a similar compromise with Tomas Jr. This agreement was approved
by the court and became F&E in 1947. After this agreement was signed, Tomas Jr. signed receipt wherein he acknowledged his receipt
of P2,000 as compromise.

Subsequently, however, in 1951, Tomas Jr., as SOLE HEIR OF JUANITA, filed an ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF YANGCO’s WILL,
alleging that it is void because it PERPETUALLY PROHIBITED ALIENATION OF YANGCO’s properties (see NCC 785). Such will being
void, the partition is also void, and the estate should have been distributed according to INTESTATE SUCCESSION.
ISSUE: WON Juanita Corpus, as REPRESENTED by TOMAS JR., may inherit from Teodoro Yangco as a forced heir

HELD: No. Juanita cannot be a forced heir of Teodoro Corpus in the first place. Hence, Tomas has no right of representation.

Here, the RTC found that Teodoro Yangco is ONLY A NATURAL CHILD.

The basis of the trial court's conclusion that Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child and not a legitimate child was the
statement in the will of his father, Luis Rafael Yangco, dated June 14, 1907, that Teodoro and his three other children were
his acknowledged natural children. His exact words are: “First. I declare that I have four natural children recognized: Teodoro, Paz, Luisa,
and Luis, which are my only heirs.”

On the other hand, the children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus are presumed to be legitimate. A marriage is presumed to have
taken place between Ramona and Tomas. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.

Since Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus was the legitimate child of
Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas Corpus has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed
hereditary share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangco's estate. Juanita Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because
there is no reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. The trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint of
Tomas Corpus. (READ NCC 992)

Under articles 944 and 945 of the Spanish Civil Code, “xxx In default of natural ascendants, natural and legitimated children shall be
succeeded by their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established for legitimate brothers and sisters."

That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family
is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child. The law does not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds of resentment.

In the Matter of the Instestate Estate of Pedro Santillon,Claro SANTILLON,

petitioner-appellant,
vs.
Perfecta MIRANDA, Benito MIRANDA and RosarioCORRALES,
oppositors-appellees.
G.R. No. L-19281, June 30, 1965

FACTS:
Pedro Santillon died without testament leaving his wife, Perfecta Miranda and one son, Claro.
Four years after Pedro’s death, Claro filed a petition for letters of administration which was opposed by his mother and spouses Benito
Miranda and Rosario Corrales. The court appointed commissioners to draft a project of partition and distribution of all properties of Pedro.
Claro then filed a motion to declare share of heirs and to resolve conflicting claims of the parties invoking Art.892 of the New Civil Code
insisting that after deducting ½ from the conjugal properties (conjugal share of Perfecta), the remaining ½ must be divided as follows: ¼
for her and ¾ for him. On the other hand, Perfecta claimed besides her conjugal half, she was entitled under Art. 996 of the NCC to
another ½ of the remaining half. After due notice and hearing, the court held that Perfecta is entitled to ½ shares and the remaining ½
share for Claro after deducting the share of the widow as co-owner of the conjugal properties. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:
The manner of division of share of the estate of an intestate decedent when the only survivors are the spouse and one legitimate child.

RULING:
Intestate proceedings in the New Civil Code’s chapter on legal or intestate succession, the only article applicable is Art. 996.
Our conclusion (equal shares) seems a logical inference from the circumstance that whereas Article 834 of the Spanish Civil Code form
which Art. 996 was taken, contained two paragraphs governing two contingencies, the first, where the widow or widower survives with
legitimate children (general rule), and the second, where the widow or widower survives with only one child (exception), Art. 996 omitted
to provide for the second situation, thereby indicating the legislator’s desire to promulgate just one general rule applicable to both
situations.

 Surviving spouse concurring with a legitimate child entitled to one-half of the intestate estate.
 When an intestacy occurs, a surviving spouse concurring with only one legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to
one-half of the estate of the deceased spouse under Art. 996 of the Civil Code.
 Bicomong v. Almanza
G.R. No. L-37365 November 29, 1977
 FACTS:
 Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas and were born three children namely: Perpetua Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic,
and Ignacio Bagsic. Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra
Glorioso. Of this second marriage were born two children, Felipa Bagsic and Maura Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic and Silvestra
Glorioso died. Ignacio Bagsic died leaving the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by
the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, Maria Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic died and was survived by her heirs, the
plaintiffs Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong.
 Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died also leaving no heir as her husband died ahead of her. Felipa Bagsic,
the other daughter of the second Geronimo Almanza and her daughter Cristeta Almanza. But five (5) months before the present
suit was filed or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza died leaving behind her husband, the defendant herein Engracio Manese
and her father Geronimo Almanza. The subject matter concerns the one-half undivided share of Maura Bagsic in the following
described five (5) parcels of land which she inherited from her deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso. Three sets of plaintiffs filed
the complaint on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of
 Igmedia Bagsic; and (c) Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo
City against the defendants Geronimo Almanza and Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left
by Maura Bagsic.
 ISSUE:
 WON the nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.
 RULING:
 Yes. In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code
provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that Maura Bagsic died intestate
without an issue, and her husband and all her ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving collateral
relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood
in accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and
nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.
 Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no qualification as to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or
paternal line and without preference as to
whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole or half blood, the sole niece of
whole blood of the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews and n of half blood. The only difference in their right of
succession is provided in Art. 1008, NCC in relation to Article 1006 of the New Civil Code (supra), which provisions, in
effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood.