fourth list - wills.docx

8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 1/16

FOURTH LIST

SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS

Perez v. Garchitorena

54 Phil. 431

FACTS: The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the

plaintiff's name with the association known as La

Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liuidated

c!edit of "na Ma!ia "lcanta!a, deceased, whose hei!ess is

said plaintiff, a#ainst "nd!es $a!chito!ena, also

deceased, !ep!esented %y his son, the defendant Ma!iano

$a!chito!ena.

"nd as said Ma!iano $a!chito!ena held a &ud#ment fo!

P,82.23 a#ainst (oauin Pe!e) "lcanta!a, hus%and of

the plaintiff, *a!men $. de Pe!e), the she!iff pu!suant to

the w!it of e+ecution issued in said &ud#ment, leied an

attachment on said amount deposited withLa Urbana.

The plaintiff, alle#in# that said deposit %elon#s to the

fideicommissa!y hei!s of the decedent "na Ma!ia

"lcanta!a, secu!ed a p!elimina!y in&unction !est!ainin# the

e+ecution of said &ud#ment on the sum so attached. The

defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's

unie!sal hei!ess, and p!ay fo! the dissolution of the

in&unction.

ISSUE: -hethe! the amount deposited is the p!ope!ty of

the child!en of the late "na Ma!ia "lcanta!a as

fideicommissa!y.

HELD: ideicommissa!y su%stitution !eui!es th!ee

thin#s/

1. " fi!st hei! called p!ima!ily to the en&oyment of the

estate.

2. "n o%li#ation clea!ly imposed upon him to p!ese!e

and t!ansmit to a thi!d pe!son the whole o! a pa!t of the

estate.

3. " second hei!.

The fideicommissa!ius o! second hei! should %e entitledto the estate f!om the time of the testato!'s death, which in

the instant case, is, !athe! than a !euisite, a necessa!y

conseuence de!ied f!om the natu!e of the

fideicommissa!y su%stitution, in which the second hei!

does not inhe!it f!om the hei! fi!st instituted, %ut f!om the

testato!.

0y i!tue of this conseuence, the inhe!itance in uestion

does not %elon# to the hei!ess instituted, the plaintiff

he!ein, as he! a%solute p!ope!ty, %ut to he! child!en, f!om

the moment of the death of the testat!i+, "na Ma!ia

"lcanta!a.

The!efo!e, said inhe!itance, of which the amount !efe!!ed

to at the %e#innin#, which is on deposit with the

association known as La Urbana in the plaintiff's name, is

a pa!t, does not %elon# to he! no! can it %e su%&ect to the

e+ecution of the &ud#ment a#ainst (oauin Pe!e), who is

not one of the fideicommissa!y hei!s.

Phii!!ine Co""ercia an# In#$%tria Ban& v. E%coin

$.. os. 286 7 28

9no fideicommissa!y su%stitution:

FACTS: innie (ane ;od#es died in <loilo leain# a wil

whe!ein she %eueathed all of he! p!ope!tied to he

hus%and, *ha!les ewton ;od#es =*.. ;od#es>. The

will contained a disposition sayin# ?at the death of my

said hus%and, < #ie, deise and %eueath all of the !est

!esidue and !emainde! of my estate, %oth !eal andpe!sonal, whe!ee! situated, to %e eually diided amon#

my %!othe!s and siste!s, sha!e and sha!e alike.

*.. ;od#es was appointed e+ecuto! and when

he died, (oe ;od#es and e!nando Mi!asol !eplaced him

which in tu!n was !eplaced %y P*<0 pu!suant to an

a#!eement of all the hei!s of ;od#es.

@n the othe! hand, the ;i#dons, composed of

%!othe!s and siste!s of innie (ane ;od#es now claims

thei! sha!e to he! estate.

P*<0, howee!, contends that the!e was no

su%stitution in this case and that the testamenta!y

disposition in fao! of the %!othe!s and siste!s a!e

inope!atie and inalid.

ISSUES:

1. -A the!e is a alid simple su%stitution

2. -A the!e is a fideicommissa!y su%stitution

HELD:

1. @B. The!e is no ul#a! o! simple su%stitution. <no!de! that a ul#a! o! simple su%stitution can %e alid

th!ee alte!natie conditions must %e p!esent, namely, tha

the fi!st desi#nated hei! =1> should die %efo!e the testato!

o! =2> should not wish to accept the inhe!itanceC o! =3>

should %e incapacitated to do so. one of these

conditions apply to *. . ;od#es, and, the!efo!e, the

su%stitution p!oided fo! %y the a%oeuoted p!oision of

the -ill is not autho!i)ed %y the *ode, and, the!efo!e, it is

oid.

1



2. @B. The!e is neithe! a fideicommissa!y su%stitution

%ecause no o%li#ation is imposed the!e%y upon *ha!les

to p!ese!e the estate o! any pa!t the!eof fo! anyone else.

<f no o%li#ation is imposed upon the fi!st hei! to p!ese!e

the p!ope!ty and to t!ansmit it to the second hei!, then

the!e is no fideicomisa!ia.

The %!othe!s and siste!s of M!s. ;od#es a!e not

su%stitutes fo! *ha!les %ecause, unde! he! will, they a!e

not to inhe!it what ;od#es cannot, would no o! may not

inhe!it, %ut would inhe!it what he would not dispose of

f!om his inhe!itance.

CONDITIONS' (ODES' AND TER(S

(iciano v. Bri"o

56 Phil. 8 =124>

9oid condition:

FACTS: (uan Miciano, the &udicial administ!ato! of theestate of deceased (oseph 0!imo, filed the scheme of

pa!tition of the said estate. The cou!t app!oed the

scheme despite of the opposition of "nd!e 0!imo, %!othe!

of the deceased. (oseph 0!imo is a Tu!kish citi)en.

<n the will left %y (oseph 0!imo, he said that

althou#h he is a Tu!kish citi)en, he wished that the

dist!i%ution of his p!ope!ty and ee!ythin# in connection

with his will %e made and disposed in acco!dance with the

laws in fo!ce in the Philippines. ;e also !euested all his

!elaties to !espect said wish, othe!wise he annuls and

cancels %efo!ehand whatee! disposition found in the will

fao!a%le to the pe!son o! pe!sons who fail to comply with

said !euest.

"nd!e 0!imo contends that the scheme of

pa!tition puts into effect the p!oisions of (oseph 0!imoDs

will which a!e not in acco!dance with the laws of his

Tu!kish nationality, fo! which !eason they a!e oid as

%ein# in iolation of "!ticle 16 of the *iil *ode.

ISSUE: -hethe! "nd!e 0!imoDs e+clusion as a le#atee is

alid.

HELD: o, "nd!e 0!imoDs e+clusion as a le#atee is not

alid.

The institution of le#atees in this will is

conditional, and the condition is that the instituted

le#atees must !espect the testato!'s will to dist!i%ute his

p!ope!ty, not in acco!dance with the laws of his

nationality, %ut in acco!dance with the laws of the

Philippines.

<f this condition as it is e+p!essed we!e le#al and

alid, any le#atee who fails to comply with it, as the

he!ein opposito! who, %y his attitude in these p!oceedin#s

has not !espected the will of the testato!, as e+p!essed, is

p!eented f!om !eceiin# his le#acy.

;owee!, said condition is oid, %ein# cont!a!y to

law. "!ticle 2 of the *iil *ode p!oides ?<mpossi%le

conditions and those cont!a!y to law o! #ood mo!als shal

%e conside!ed as not imposed and shall not p!e&udice the

hei! o! le#atee in any manne! whatsoee!, een should

the testato! othe!wise p!oide.

"nd said condition is cont!a!y to law %ecause i

e+p!essly i#no!es the testato!'s national law when

acco!din# to "!ticle 16 of the *iil *ode such national law

of the testato! is the one to #oe!n his testamenta!y

dispositions.

Eaid condition then is conside!ed unw!itten, and

the institution of le#atees in said will is unconditional and

conseuently alid and effectie een as to the he!ein

opposito!.The second clause of the will !e#a!din# the law

which shall #oe!n it, and to the condition imposed upon

the le#atees, is null and oid, %ein# cont!a!y to law. "ll of

the !emainin# clauses of said will with all thei

dispositions and !euests a!e pe!fectly alid and effectie

it not appea!in# that said clauses a!e cont!a!y to the

testato!'s national law.

Ra)a#ia v. Co$rt o* A!!ea%

$ o. 11325, (une 2, 2666

9condition, effectC mode:

FACTS: <n a codicil to the last will and testament of

testat!i+ "le&a 0ellesa, F!. (o!de a%adilla was instituted

as a deisee of a pa!cel of land su%&ect to the o%li#ation

of delie!in# to Ma!ia Ma!tena *oscuella y 0elle)a 166

piculs of su#a! ee!y yea! until Ma!ia Ma!tena dies and

should F!. a%adilla die, the o%li#ation shall %e passed to

his hei!s. The!e was also an o%li#ation to any t!ansfe!ee

to delie! to Ma!ia Ma!tena to sei)e the p!ope!ty and tu!n

it oe! to "le&a 0elle)aDs descendants.

F!. a%adilla died and was su!ied %y his wifeand fou! child!en, one of which was the petitione! (ohnny

a%adilla. Ma!ia filed a complain to comply wit the

o%li#ation. " comp!omise a#!eement was !eached %u

due to noncompliance, Ma!ia filed anothe! complaint %ut

was also dismissed fo! lack of cause of action.

The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the decision of the

lowe! cou!t and o!de!ed the !econeyance f!om the

modal hei!, F!. a%adillaDs hei!s, of the p!ope!ty to Ma!ia.

2



ISSUE: -hethe! the!e was a modal institution of hei!s as

held %y the *ou!t of "ppeals.

HELD: Ges. The contention of the petitione!s a!e

untena%le. <t is not a simple institution. The *ou!t of

"ppeals found that the p!iate !espondents had a cause

of action a#ainst petitione!s. The desi#nation was made

as modal institution. This was p!ecisely to st!ess that the

p!iate !espondents had a le#ally demanda%le !i#ht

a#ainst the petitione!s pu!suant to the su%&ect codicil.

The o%li#ations imposed %y the codicil on F!.

a%adilla we!e t!ansmitted to his compulso!y hei!s upon

his death. Eince the o%li#ation is clea!ly imposed %y the

testat!i+ not only in the instituted hei! %ut also in his

successo!ininte!est, the sanction imposed %y the

testat!i+ in nonfulfillment of said o%li#ation should eually

apply to the instituted hei! and his successo!ininte!est.

The petition is dismissed and the decision of the

*ou!t of "ppeals is affi!med.

Le+iti"e ,In Genera-

Ra"$n#o v. /#a De S$arez

$.. o. 1461, oem%e! 28, 2668

9compulso!y succession defined:

FACTS: Epouses Ma!celo and Teofista Eua!e) had fie

child!en namely Fanilo, Buf!ocina, Ma!celo (!, Belyn and

e##ineo. Epouses acui!ed see!al p!ope!ties includin#

a pa!cel of land in Pasi#, a p!ope!ty in Pina#%uhatan

Pasi# and ots 5, and . -hen Ma!celo E!. died,

Teofista, to#ethe! with the othe! !espondents, and Blpidio

Eua!e) e+ecuted an B+t!a&udicial Eettlement of Bstate.

Fespite the said pa!tition, the p!ope!ties !emained unde!

the name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administe!

and mana#e said p!ope!ties.

<n a case a#ainst Halente aymundo and othe!s,

the cou!t o!de!ed Teofista and i)al ealty *opo!ation to

pay aymundo P6,666.66 fo! dama#es. The su%&ect

p!ope!ties we!e leied to satisfy the &ud#ment. 0efo!e the

e+pi!ation of the !edemption pe!iod, he!ein !espondents

filed a !eindicato!y action a#ainst Halente fof theannulment of the auction sale. Meanwhile, T* o!de!ed

Teofista to acate the p!emises and leae Halente in

peaceful possession the!eof.

espondents filed a Motion fo! econside!ation

which was denied. They then filed a patition fo! ce!tio!a!i

%efo!e the *ou!t of "ppeals which also dismissed the said

petition.

<n anothe! liti#ation, a w!it of p!elimina!y in&uction

was issued %y the T* of Pasi# en&oinin# petitione!

Halente f!om t!ansfe!!in# to thi!d pe!sons the leied

p!ope!ties %ased on its p!elimina!y findin#s that the

auctioned p!ope!ties a!e coowned %y Teofista and the

!espondents.

Halente now contends that the !espondents mus

fi!st %e decla!ed as hei!s %efo!e they can file an action to

annul the &udicial sale.

ISSUE: -hethe! the p!ope!ties in uestion can %e su%&ec

of ley.

HELD: o, the p!ope!ties in uestion cannot %e su%&ect of

ley to satisfy the &ud#ment a#ainst Teofista Eu

a!e).

Petitione! Halente, alon# with Hioleta, Hi!#inia and

Ma!ia *oncepcion, %ecame owne!s of the su%&ec

p!ope!ties only %y i!tue of an e+ecution sale to !ecoe!TeofistaDs &ud#ment o%li#ation. This &ud#ment o%li#ation is

solely TeofistaDs, and payment the!efo! cannot %e made

th!ou#h an e+ecution sale of p!ope!ties not a%solutely

owned %y he!. These p!ope!ties we!e eidently con&u#a

p!ope!ties and we!e, in fact, een titled in the name of

Ma!celo, E!. ma!!ied to Teofista. Thus, upon Ma!celo E!.Ds

death, %y i!tue of compulso!y succession, Ma!celo E!.Ds

sha!e in the con&u#al pa!tne!ship was t!ansmitted %y

ope!ation of law to his compulso!y hei!s.

*ompulso!y succession is a distinct kind o

succession, al%eit not cate#o!i)ed as such in "!ticle 8of the *iil *ode. <t !ese!es a po!tion of the net estate o

the decedent in fao! of ce!tain hei!s, o! #!oup of hei!s, o!

com%ination of hei!s, p!eailin# oe! all kinds o

succession. The po!tion that is so !ese!ed is the

le#itime. "!ticle 88 of the *iil *ode defines le#itime as

?that pa!t of the testato!Ds p!ope!ty which he canno

dispose of %ecause the law has !ese!ed it fo! ce!tain

hei!s who a!e, the!efo!e, called compulso!y hei!s.I ;e!ein

!espondents a!e p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s, e+cludin#

seconda!y compulso!y hei!s, and p!efe!!ed oe

concu!!in# compulso!y hei!s in the dist!i%ution of the

decedentDs estate.

Co"!$%or Heir

La!$z v. E$*e"io

$.. o. 36 (anua!y 31, 12

9when le#al sepa!ation is pendin#:

FACTS: @n "u#ust 153, *a!men apu) Ey filed a

petition fo! le#al sepa!ation a#ainst Bufemio E. Bufemio

on the #!ound that she found out that he! hus%and

3



a%andoned he! and coha%itated with a *hinese woman

$o ;iok. The spouses do not hae a child.

<n his amended answe!, Bufemio alle#ed

affi!matie and special defenses. ;e also filed a counte!

claim fo! the decla!ation of nullity a% initio of his ma!!ia#e

with *a!men on the #!ound of his p!io! and su%sistin#

ma!!ia#e with $o ;iol alias #o ;iok in acco!dance with

*hinese law and cutoms.

0efo!e the t!ial can %e completed, *a!men died in

a ehicula! accident. Bufemio then mo%%ed to dismiss the

petition f!o le#al sepa!ation sayin# that the petition was

filed %eyond the oneyea! pe!iod p!oided in "!ticle 162 of

the *iil *ode and that the death of *a!men a%ated the

action fo! le#al sepa!ation.

*ounsel of *a!men moed to su%stitute the

deceased %y he! fathe! Maca!io apu). Bufemio opposed

the motion. The lowe! cou!t dismissed the case statin#

that the motion to dismiss and the motion fo! su%stitutionhad to %e !esoled on the uestion of whethe! the

plaintiffDs cause of action has su!ied which was !uled in

the ne#atie.

Petitione!s then filed a !eiew %y ce!tio!a!i %efo!e

the Eup!eme *ou!t. ;ence this appeal.

ISSUE: -hethe! the death of the plaintiff, %efo!e final

dec!ee in an action fo! le#al sepa!ation, a%ate the action

and will it also apply if the action inoled p!ope!ty !i#hts.

HELD: Ges, the death of the plaintiff %efo!e the finaldec!ee in an action fo! le#al sepa!ation a%ate the action.

"n action fo! le#al sepa!ation which inoles

nothin# mo!e than the %edand%oa!d sepa!ation of the

spouses is pu!ely pe!sonal. The *iil *ode of the

Philippines !eco#ni)es this in its "!ticle 166, %y allowin#

only the innocent spouse to claim le#al sepa!ationC and in

its "!ticle 168, %y p!oidin# that the spouses can, %y thei!

!econciliation, stop o! a%ate the p!oceedin#s and een

!escind a dec!ee of le#al sepa!ation al!eady !ende!ed.

0ein# pe!sonal in cha!acte!, it follows that the death of

one pa!ty to the action causes the death of the action

itself J actio personalis moritur cum persona.

This also applied if the action inoled p!ope!ty

!i#hts.

" !eiew of the !esultin# chan#es in p!ope!ty

!elations %etween spouses shows that they a!e solely the

effect of the dec!ee of le#al sepa!ationC hence, they can

not su!ie the death of the plaintiff if it occu!s p!io! to the

dec!ee.

The loss of !i#ht %y the offendin# spouse to any

sha!e of the p!ofits ea!ned %y the pa!tne!ship o

community, o! his disualification to inhe!it %y intestacy

f!om the innocent spouse as well as the !eocation of

testamenta!y p!oisions in fao! of the offendin# spouse

made %y the innocent one, a!e all !i#hts and disa%ilities

that, %y the e!y te!ms of the *iil *ode a!ticle, a!e

ested e+clusiely in the pe!sons of the spousesC and %y

thei! natu!e and intent, such claims and disa%ilities a!e

difficult to conceie as assi#na%le o! t!ansmissi%le

;ence, a claim to said !i#hts is not a claim that Kis not

the!e%y e+tin#uishedK afte! a pa!ty dies, unde! Eection

1, ule 3, of the ules of *ou!t, to wa!!ant continuation

of the action th!ou#h a su%stitute of the deceased pa!ty.

Barit$a v. CA

$.. o. 82233 Ma!ch 22, 16

9est!an#ement L not a le#al #!ound fo! disualification:

FACTS: " t!icycle d!ien %y 0ienenido aca!io collidedwith a (0 0us d!ien %y Bd#a! 0itanco! and owned and

ope!ated %y (ose 0a!itua. "s a !esult of the accident

0ienenido and his passen#e! died.

"n e+t!a&udicial settlement was e+ecuted %y

he!ein petitione!s and Philippine i!st <nsu!ance

*ompany, <nc. and "licia aca!io, 0ienenidoDs widow. <n

conside!ation of the amount she !eceied, "licia e+ecuted

a ?!elease of claimI in fao! of petitione!s and P<*<. Ehe

also e+ecuted an affidait of desistance.

"%out a yea! afte! the accident, the pa!ents o

0ienenido filed a complaint fo! dama#es a#ainst the

petitione!s. They alle#ed that in acco!dance with the

e+t!a&udicial settlement that they e+ecuted, the

petitione!s p!omised to indemnify them fo! the death of

the!e son, fo! the fune!al e+penses they incu!!ed and fo!

the dama#e of the t!icycle, the pu!chase p!ice of which

was loaned %y them in fao! of thei! son. ;owee!

instead of indemnifyin# them, the petitione!s ne#otiated

with the lon#est!an#ed wife of thei! late son.

The lowe! cou!t dismissed the complaint sayin#that the payment %y the petitione!s to the widow and he

child, who a!e the p!efe!!ed hei!s and successo!sin

inte!est of the deceased e+tin#uished any claims a#ains

the petitione!s. The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the

&ud#ment of the t!ial cou!t. <t said that the !elease

e+ecuted %y "licia did not discha!#e the lia%ility of the

petitione!s %ecause the case was instituted %y the

!espondents in thei! own capacity as ?hei!s

!ep!esentaties, successo!s and assi#ns of "licia and tha

"licia could not hae alidly waied the dama#es p!ayed

4



fo! since she was not the one who suffe!ed these

dama#es.

ISSUE: -hethe! the !elease e+ecuted %y "licia

discha!#ed the lia%ility of the petitione!s.

HELD: Ges, the petitione!s a!e discha!#ed f!om the

lia%ility %y i!tue of the !elease e+ecuted %y "licia.

@%li#ations a!e e+tin#uished %y a!ious modes

amon# them %ein# %y payment. The!e is no denyin# that

the petitione!s had paid thei! o%li#ation petition a!isin#

f!om the accident. The only uestion now is whethe! o!

not "licia, the spouse and the one who !eceied the

petitione!s' payment, is entitled to it.

The!e can %e no uestion that "licia and he! son

with the deceased a!e the successo!s in inte!est !efe!!ed

to in law as the pe!sons autho!i)ed to !eceie payment.

<t is patently clea! that the pa!ents of thedeceased succeed only when the latte! dies without a

le#itimate descendant. @n the othe! hand, the su!iin#

spouse concu!s with all classes of hei!s. "s it has %een

esta%lished that 0ienenido was ma!!ied to "licia and that

they %e#ot a child, the p!iate !espondents a!e not

successo!sininte!est of 0ienenidoC they a!e not

compulso!y hei!s. The petitione!s the!efo!e acted

co!!ectly in settlin# thei! o%li#ation with "licia as the

widow of 0ienenido and as the natu!al #ua!dian of thei!

lone child. This is so een if "licia had %een est!an#ed

f!om 0ienenido. Me!e est!an#ement is not a le#al

#!ound fo! the disualification of a su!iin# spouse as an

hei! of the deceased spouse.

Ra"$n#o v. /#a De S$arez'

$.. o. 1461, oem%e! 28, 2668

9p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s and seconda!y compulso!y

hei!s:

FACTS: Epouses Ma!celo and Teofista Eua!e) had fie

child!en namely Fanilo, Buf!ocina, Ma!celo (!, Belyn and

e##ineo. Epouses acui!ed see!al p!ope!ties includin#

a pa!cel of land in Pasi#, a p!ope!ty in Pina#%uhatanPasi# and ots 5, and . -hen Ma!celo E!. died,

Teofista, to#ethe! with the othe! !espondents, and Blpidio

Eua!e) e+ecuted an B+t!a&udicial Eettlement of Bstate.

Fespite the said pa!tition, the p!ope!ties !emained unde!

the name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administe!

and mana#e said p!ope!ties.

<n a case a#ainst Halente aymundo and othe!s,

the cou!t o!de!ed Teofista and i)al ealty *opo!ation to

pay aymundo P6,666.66 fo! dama#es. The su%&ec

p!ope!ties we!e leied to satisfy the &ud#ment. 0efo!e the

e+pi!ation of the !edemption pe!iod, he!ein !espondents

filed a !eindicato!y action a#ainst Halente fof the

annulment of the auction sale. Meanwhile, T* o!de!ed

Teofista to acate the p!emises and leae Halente in

peaceful possession the!eof.

espondents filed a Motion fo! econside!ation

which was denied. They then filed a patition fo! ce!tio!a!

%efo!e the *ou!t of "ppeals which also dismissed the said

petition.

<n anothe! liti#ation, a w!it of p!elimina!y in&uction

was issued %y the T* of Pasi# en&oinin# petitione!

Halente f!om t!ansfe!!in# to thi!d pe!sons the leied

p!ope!ties %ased on its p!elimina!y findin#s that the

auctioned p!ope!ties a!e coowned %y Teofista and the

!espondents.

Halente now contends that the !espondents mus

fi!st %e decla!ed as hei!s %efo!e they can file an action to

annul the &udicial sale.

ISSUE: -hat a!e the !i#hts of a p!ima!y compulso!y hei!

and a seconda!y compulso!y hei!

HELD: *ompulso!y succession is a distinct kind o

succession, al%eit not cate#o!i)ed as such in "!ticle 8

of the *iil *ode. <t !ese!es a po!tion of the net estate o

the decedent in fao! of ce!tain hei!s, o! #!oup of hei!s, o!

com%ination of hei!s, p!eailin# oe! all kinds osuccession. The po!tion that is so !ese!ed is the

le#itime. "!ticle 88 of the *iil *ode defines le#itime as

?that pa!t of the testato!Ds p!ope!ty which he canno

dispose of %ecause the law has !ese!ed it fo! ce!tain

hei!s who a!e, the!efo!e, called compulso!y hei!s.I ;e!ein

!espondents a!e p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s, e+cludin#

seconda!y compulso!y hei!s, and p!efe!!ed oe

concu!!in# compulso!y hei!s in the dist!i%ution of the

decedentDs estate.

Ben without delin# into the B+t!a&udicia

Eettlement of Ma!celo E!.Ds estate in 15, it must %e

st!essed that he!ein !espondentsD !i#hts to the succession

ested f!om the moment of thei! fathe!Ds death. ;e!ein

!espondentsD owne!ship of the su%&ect p!ope!ties is no

lon#e! inchoateC it %ecame a%solute upon Ma!celoDs

death, althou#h thei! !espectie sha!es the!ein !emained

pro indiviso. <nelucta%ly, at the time the su%&ect p!ope!ties

we!e sold on e+ecution sale to answe! fo! TeofistaDs

&ud#ment o%li#ation, the inclusion of he!ein !espondents

sha!e the!ein was null and oid.

5



<n fine, TeofistaDs owne!ship oe! the su%&ect

p!ope!ties is not a%solute. Ei#nificantly, petitione! Halente

does not een attempt to dispute the con&u#al natu!e of

the su%&ect p!ope!ties. Eince Teofista owns only a po!tion

of the su%&ect p!ope!ties, only that po!tion could hae

%een, and was actually, leied upon and sold on auction

%y the p!oincial she!iff of i)al. Thus, a sepa!ate

decla!ation of hei!ship %y he!ein !espondents is not

necessa!y to annul the &udicial sale of thei! sha!e in the

su%&ect p!ope!ties.

Ree% v. CA

$.. o. 353, Ma!ch 1, 185

9natu!al and spu!ious child!en:

FACTS: Placida Fel#ado, to#ethe! with the othe! p!iate

!espondents, filed a complaint %efo!e the *< of 0atan#as

p!ayin# that <!ene Fel#ado =alias <!ene eyes and <!ene

ame!o> %e o!de!ed to e+ecute a deed of !econeyancein fao! of Placido, Fomin#o and Paula, all su!named

Fel#ado !espondents oe! fie pa!cels of land in Nue)on

and anothe! deed of !econeyance in fao! of Ma+imo

Fel#ado oe! th!ee pa!cels of land in 0atan#as.

;e!ein !espondents alle#ed that <!ene was a%le

to !e#iste! the lands unde! he! name %y lyin# that she

was the sole child of !ancisco Fel#ado and thus entitled

to inhe!it the pa!cels of land.

<!ene filed an answe! sayin# that she is the

ille#itimate dau#hte! of $enoea ame!o and deceased

!ancisco Fel#ado. "fte! he! mothe! and (ustino eyes

sepa!ated, he! mothe! coha%itated with !ancisco

Fel#ado. <!ene also filed a counte!claim ae!!in# that as

the ille#itimate dau#hte! of !ancisco, she has the !i#ht to

!ep!esent he! fathe! to the inhe!itance left %y he!

#!andmothe!, 0eni#na *astillo.

The *< of 0atan#as dismissed the action fo!

!econeyance and decla!ed <!ene Fel#ado as the lawful

owne! of the pa!cels of land. ;owee!, the counte!claim

of <!ene was dismissed fo! insufficiency of eidence. 0othpa!ties appealed to the *ou!t of "ppeals.

The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the !ulin# of the

lowe! cou!t. <t said that the selfad&udication e+ecuted %y

<!ene is null and oid. The t!ansfe! ce!tificates of title

issued in the name of <!ene we!e cancelled and the titles

coe!in# the pa!cels of land we!e !einstated in the name

of !ancisco. The *ou!t of "ppeals said that althou#h

<!ene was the spu!ious dau#hte! of !ancisco, she cannot

inhe!it %ecause she was not !eco#ni)ed withe! olunta!ily

o! %y cou!t action. u!the!mo!e, the titles of the lots

cannot %e e+ecuted in fao! of he!ein !espondents

%ecause in doin# so it will %e in effect a !eco#nition %y

the cou!t that he!ein !espondents a!e the only hei!s of

!ancisco to the p!e&udice of othe! possi%le hei!s o

c!edito!s of the deceased.

ISSUE: -hethe! <!ene Fel#ado could inhe!it the lot.

HELD: The doct!ine that fo! an ille#itimate child othe!

than natu!al to inhe!it must %e fi!st !eco#ni)ed olunta!ily

o! %y cou!t action is well settled in ou! &u!isp!udence

The!e is no !eason to oe!tu!n this doct!ine.

Thou#h the *iil *ode is silent with !espect to

spu!ious child!en as to thei! !eco#nition, this *ou!t, in

applyin# the !ules of !eco#nition, applica%le to natu!a

child!en, to said spu!ious child!en, decla!ed that the

conside!ations of fai!ness and &ustice that unde!lie the

time limit fi+ed in "!ticle 285 of the *iil *ode fo! actionsseekin# compulso!y acknowled#ment of natu!al child!en

a!e fully applica%le, if not mo!e, to actions to inesti#ate

and decla!e the pate!nity of ille#itimate child!en that a!e

not natu!al.

The!e a!e two =2> #ene!al classifications o

ille#itimate child!en o! those who a!e conceied and %o!n

out of wedlock. They may %e eithe! natu!al =actually o! %y

fiction> o! spu!ious =the incestuous, adulte!ous o! illicit>

atu!al child!en a!e defined as those %o!n outside o

wedlock of pa!ents, who at the time of conception of the

fo!me!, we!e not disualified %y any impediment to ma!!yeach othe! ="!ticle 2, ew *iil *ode>. @n the othe

hand, spu!ious child!en a!e those %o!n of pa!ents, who a

the time of thei! conception, a!e disualified to ma!!y

each othe! on account of ce!tain impediment. 0ecause of

this %asic distinction %etween these child!en, it is no

le#ally possi%le to classify un!eco#ni)ed natu!al child!en

unde! the class of spu!ious child!en. 0esides

commentato!s const!ue the ph!ase Kille#itimate child!en

othe! than natu!alK as e+cludin# f!om the #!ants of !i#hts

unde! "!ticle 28 of the ew *iil *ode those child!en

who a!e natu!al child p!ope! %y %i!th and who hae not

secu!ed olunta!y o! compulso!y !eco#nition. They fa#

within the scope of the definition of natu!al child!en

enume!ated in "!ticle 2, ew *iil *ode astly, to

follow petitione!s' contention win not %e in acco!dance

with the consistent p!onouncements of this *ou!t. <t is an

elementa!y and %asic p!inciple unde! the old and new

*iil *ode, that an un!eco#ni)ed natu!al child has no

!i#hts whatsoee! a#ainst his pa!ent o! his estate. ;is

!i#hts sp!in# not f!om the filiation itself, %ut f!om the

child's acknowled#ment %y the natu!al pa!ent.

6



Re%erva Tronca

Pa#$ra v. Ba#ovino

$.. o. 116, Fecem%e! 158

FACTS: "#ustin Padu!a cont!acted two ma!!ia#es du!in#

his lifetime. -ith his fi!st wife $e!acia andi#, he had

one child, Manuel Padu!a. -ith the second wife, 0enita

$a!in#, he had two child!en, o!tunato and *andela!ia

Padu!a. "#ustin died on "p! 2, 168, leain# a last will

and testament, duly p!o%ated, whe!ein he %eueathed his

p!ope!ties amon# his th!ee child!en and his su!iin#

spouse, 0enita $a!in#.

o!tunato was ad&udicated fou! pa!cels of land. ;e died

unma!!ied on May 28, 168, without hain# e+ecuted a

willC and not hain# any issue, the pa!cels of land we!einhe!ited e+clusiely %y his mothe! 0enita. 0enita was

issued a To!!ens *e!tificate of Title in he! name, su%&ect

to the condition that the p!ope!ties we!e !ese!a%le in

fao! of !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee %elon#in# to the

line f!om which said p!ope!ty came.

@n "u# 2, 134, *andela!ia died, leain# as he! hei!s

he! fou! le#itimate child!en/ *!isteta, Melania, "nicia, and

Pa%lo 0aldoino =@pposito!sappellants>. @n @ct , 146,

Manuel also died, su!ied %y his le#itimate child!en

Fionisia, elisa, lo!a, *o!nelio, !ancisco, (uana, and

Eee!ino Padu!a =Petitione!sappellees> Opon the deathof 0enita =the !ese!ista> on @ct 15, 152, the hei!s took

possession of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties. *< a#una

decla!ed the child!en of Manuel and *andela!ia to %e the

!i#htful !ese!ees, and as such, entitled to the !ese!a%le

p!ope!ties =the o!i#inal !ese!ees, *andela!ia and

Manuel, hain# p!edeceased the !ese!ista>

The 0aldoino hei!s filed a petition seekin# to hae the

p!ope!ties pa!titioned, such that onehalf %e ad&udicated

to them, and the othe! half to the appellees, alle#edly on

the %asis that they inhe!ited %y !i#ht of !ep!esentation

f!om thei! !espectie pa!ents, the o!i#inal !ese!ees.

Padu!a hei!s opposed, maintainin# that they should all %e

deemed as inhe!itin# in thei! own !i#ht, unde! which, they

claim, each should hae an eual sha!e.

=<n essence, the 0aldoino hei!s, who a!e whole %lood

!elaties of the !ese!ista, we!e contendin# that they

should #et mo!e than thei! half%lood !elaties, the

Padu!a hei!s. They ancho! thei! claim on "!ticles 166

and 1668 of the *iil *ode>

RTC RULING

Fecla!ed all the !ese!ees, without distinction, ?co

owne!s, p!oindiiso, in eual sha!es of the pa!cels of

land.I

ISSUE: -@ the !ese!ed p!ope!ties should, as the t!ia

cou!t held, %e appo!tioned amon# the hei!s eually.

HELD: @.The nephews of the whole %lood should take

a sha!e twice as la!#e as that of the nephews of the half

%lood. The !ese!a t!oncal is a special !ule desi#ned

p!ima!ily to assu!e the !etu!n of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty to

the thi!d de#!ee !elaties %elon#in# to the line f!om which

the p!ope!ty o!i#inally came, and aoid its %ein#

dissipated into and %y the !elaties of the inhe!itin#

ascendant =!ese!ista>. "!ticle 81 of the *ode p!oides/

ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his

descendant any property which the latter may have

acquired by ratuitous title from another ascendant! or abrother or sister! is oblied to reserve such property as he

may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of

relatives who are within the third deree and who belon

to the line from which said property came.

The pu!pose of the !ese!a t!oncal is accomplished once

the p!ope!ty has deoled to the specified !elaties of the

line of o!i#in. 0ut f!om this time on, the!e is no fu!the

occasion fo! its application. <n the !elations %etween one

!ese!ata!io and anothe! of the same de#!ee, the!e is no

call fo! applyin# "!t 81 any lon#e!C the !espectie sha!e

of each in the !ee!siona!y p!ope!ty should %e #oe!ned%y the o!dina!y !ules of inte!state succession.

lo!entino lo!entino =as !estated in the case>/ upon the

death of the ascendant !ese!ista, the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty

should pass, not to all the !ese!ato!ios as a class, %ut

only to those nea!est in de#!ee to the descendan

=p!epositus>, e+cludin# those !ese!ata!ios of mo!e

!emote de#!ee... "nd within the thi!d de#!ee o

!elationship f!om the descendant =p!epositus>, the !i#ht of

!ep!esentation ope!ates in fao! of nephews.

P!o+imity of de#!ee and !i#ht of !ep!esentation a!e %asic

p!inciples of o!dina!y intestate successionC so is the !ule

that whole %lood %!othe!s and nephews a!e entitled to

sha!e dou%le that of %!othe!s and nephews of half%lood

<f in dete!minin# the !i#hts of the !ese!ata!ios inte! se

p!o+imity of de#!ee and the !i#ht of !ep!esentation o

nephews a!e made to aply, the !ule of dou%le sha!e fo!

immedaite collate!als of the whole %lood should likewise

%e ope!atie.

7



<n othe! wo!ds, !ese!a t!oncal me!ely dete!mines the

#!oup of !elaties =!ese!ata!ios> to whom the p!ope!ty

should %e !etu!nedC %ut within that #!oup, the indiidual

!i#ht to the p!ope!ty should %e decided %y the applica%le

!ules of o!dina!y intestate succession, since "!t 81 does

not specify othe!wise. The !ese!a %ein# an e+ceptional

case, its application should %e limited to what is st!ictly

needed to accomplish the pu!pose of the law.

Ben du!in# the !ese!istaDs lifetime, the !ese!ata!ios,

who a!e the ultimate acui!e!s of the p!ope!ty, can

al!eady asse!t the !i#ht to p!eent the !ese!ista f!om

doin# anythin# that mi#ht f!ust!ate thei! !ee!siona!y !i#ht/

and fo! this pu!pose they can compel the annotation of

thei! !i#ht in the e#ist!y of P!ope!ty een while the

!ese!ista is alie. This !i#ht is incompati%le with the me!e

e+pectancy that co!!esponds to the natu!al hei!s of the

!ese!ista. <t is also clea! that the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty is

not pa!t of the estate of the !ese!ista, who may not

dispose of them %y will, so lon# as the!e a!e !ese!ata!iose+istin#. The latte!, the!efo!e, do not inhe!it f!om the

!ese!ista, %ut f!om the descendant p!epositus, of whom

the !ese!ata!ios a!e the hei!s mo!tis causa, su%&ect to

the condition that they must su!ie the !ese!ista.

Gonzae% v. CFI (ania

$.. o. 3435, May 1, 181

9pu!pose:

FACTS: 0enito F. e#a!da =<<> p!edeceased his fathe!

0enito T. e#a!da =<>. 0enito =<<> was su!ied %y his

widow, ilomena aces Hda. de e#a!da =<>, and thei!

seen child!en namely 0eat!i), osa!io, Te!esa, ilomena

=<<>, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose.

-hen 0enito T. e#a!da =<> died, his !eal

p!ope!ties we!e diided in th!ee eual po!tions %y his

dau#hte!s, *onsuelo and ita and the hei!s of his

deceased son 0enito =<<> who we!e !ep!esented %y 0enito

. e#a!da =<<<>.

ilomena . e#a!da =<<>, died intestate and

without issue. ;e! sole hei! was he! mothe!, ilomenaaces Hda. de e#a!da. M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted an

affidait ad&udicatin# e+t!a&udicially to he!self the

p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! deceased

dau#hte!, ilomena e#a!da =<<>. "s a !esult of the

affidait of ad&udication, ilomena aces =<> succeeded

he! deceased dau#hte! ilomena e#a!da =<<> as co

owne! of the p!ope!ties held proindiviso %y he! othe! si+

child!en.

<n 153, M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted two handw!itten

identical documents whe!ein she disposed of the

p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! dau#hte! in fao!

of he! si+teen #!andchild!en, the child!en of he! th!ee

sons, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose. !om (uly 158 to

e%!ua!y 15, M!s. e#a!da and he! si+ su!iin#

child!en pa!titioned the p!ope!ties consistin# of the 1A3

sha!e in the estate of 0enito T. e#a!da =<> which the

child!en inhe!ited in !ep!esentation of thei! fathe!, 0enito

F. e#a!da =<<>.

M!s. e#a!da died in 1 and left a holo#!aphic

will. The said will was admitted to p!o%ate. <n the testate

p!oceedin#, 0eat!i) e#a!da $on)ales, a dau#hte! o

M!s. e#a!da filed a motion to e+clude f!om the inento!y

of he! mothe!Ds estate the p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited

f!om he! deceased dau#hte!, ilomena =<<>, on the #!ound

that said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties which

should %e inhe!ited %y ilomenaDs =<<> th!ee siste!s and

th!ee %!othe! and not %y the child!en of 0enito, "le&and!oand (ose. The motion was opposed %y the administ!ato!

0enito . e#a!da =<<<>.

0efo!e the cou!t could issue a !esolution, 0eat!i)

$on)ales filed an o!dina!y ciil action a#ainst he

%!othe!s, siste!s, nephews and nieces and he! mothe!Ds

estate fo! the pu!pose of secu!in# a decla!ation that the

said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties.

The lowe! cou!t dismissed the action of 0eat!i)

$on)ales. ;ence this appeal.

ISSUE: -hat is the pu!pose of reverva troncal

HELD: The !ationale of reserve troncal is to aoid Kthe

!isk that assets possessed %y a family pass fo! centu!ies

suddenly #!atuitously to fo!ei#n hands %y !andom links

and p!ematu!e deaths o! impede! that fo! a !andom

st!an#e people ide a family to acui!e p!ope!ty without

that would hae %een the!ein.I

<n reserve troncal =1> a descendant inhe!ited o

acui!ed %y #!atuitous title p!ope!ty f!om an ascendant o!

f!om a %!othe! o! siste!C =2> the same p!ope!ty is inhe!ited

%y anothe! ascendant o! is acui!ed %y him %y ope!ation

of law f!om the said descendant, and =3> the said

ascendant should !ese!e the said p!ope!ty fo! the %enefi

of !elaties who a!e within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the

deceased descendant = prepositus> and who %elon# to the

line f!om which the said p!ope!ty came.

Eo, th!ee t!ansmissions a!e inoled/ =<> a fi!st

t!ansmission %y luc!atie title =inhe!itance o! donation

8



f!om an ascendant o! %!othe! o! siste! to the deceased

descendantC =2> a poste!io! t!ansmission, %y ope!ation of

law =intestate succession o! le#itime> f!om the deceased

descendant =causante de la reserve> in fao! of anothe!

ascendant, the !ese!o! o! reservista, which two

t!ansmissions p!ecede the !ese!ation, and =3> a thi!d

t!ansmissions of the same p!ope!ty =in conseuence of

the !ese!ation> f!om the !ese!o! to the !ese!ees

=reservatarios> o! the !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee

f!om the deceased descendant %elon#in# to the line of

the fi!st ascendant, %!othe! o! siste! of the deceased

descendant.

<n the instant case, the p!ope!ties in uestion

we!e indu%ita%ly !ese!a%le p!ope!ties in the hands of

M!s. e#a!da. Ondou%tedly, she was a !ese!o!. The

!ese!ation %ecame a ce!tainty when at the time of he!

death the !ese!ees o! !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee of

the prepositus ilomena e#a!da we!e liin# o! they

su!ied M!s. e#a!da.

Eo, the ultimate issue in this case is whethe! M!s.

e#a!da, as !ese!o!, could coney the !ese!a%le

p!ope!ties %y will o! mortis causa to the !ese!ees within

the third deree =he! si+teen #!andchild!en> to the

e+clusion of the !ese!ees in the second deree, he!

th!ee dau#hte!s and th!ee sons.

-e hold that M!s. e#a!da could not coney in

he! holo#!aphic will to he! si+teen #!andchild!en the

!ese!a%le p!ope!ties which she had inhe!ited f!om he!

dau#hte! ilomena %ecause the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties didnot fo!m pa!t of he! estate. The !ese!o! cannot make a

disposition mortis causa of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties as

lon# as the !ese!ees su!ied the !ese!o!.

"!ticle 81 clea!ly indicates that the !ese!a%le

p!ope!ties should %e inhe!ited %y all the nea!est !elaties

within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the prepositus who in this

case a!e the si+ child!en of M!s. e#a!da. Ehe could not

select the !ese!ees to whom the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty

should %e #ien and dep!ie the othe! !ese!ees of thei!

sha!e the!ein.

To allow the !ese!o! in this case to make a

testamenta!y disposition of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties in

fao! of the !ese!ees in the third deree and,

conseuently, to i#no!e the !ese!ees in the second

deree would %e a #la!in# iolation of a!ticle 81. That

testamenta!y disposition cannot %e allowed.

E#ro%o v. Sa)an

$ o. 88, Eeptem%e! 13, 113

9Pu!pose ese!a T!oncal:

FACTS: Hicto!iano Ea%lan and Ma!celina Bd!oso we!e

ma!!ied and had a son, Ped!o Ea%lan. Opon the death of

his fathe!, Ped!o inhe!ited two pa!cels of land in a#una.

These pa!cels of land we!e acui!ed %y Hicto!iano %y

inhe!itance f!om his ascendants, Ma!iano Ea%lan and

Ma!ia ita e!nande), they hain# %een ad&udicated to

him in the pa!tition of he!edita!y p!ope!ty %etween him

and his %!othe!s. @n (uly 162, Ped!o died unma!!ied

and without any child. The two pa!cels of land passed

th!ou#h inhe!itance to his mothe!, Ma!celina Bd!oso

Ma!celina then applied fo! the !e#ist!ation and issuance

of title of the two lots.

Pa%lo and 0asilio Ea%lan, the le#itimate %!othe!

of Hicto!iano, opposed the !e#ist!ation of the lots. They

claimed that withe! the !e#ist!ation %e denied o! if #!anted

to Ma!celina, the !i#ht !ese!ed %y law to them %e

!eco!ded in the !e#ist!ation of each pa!cel.

The *ou!t of and e#ist!ation denied the

!e#ist!ation holdin# that the land in uestion pa!take of

the natu!e of p!ope!ty !eui!ed %y law to %e !ese!ed and

that in such a case application could only %e p!esented

&ointly in the names of Ma!celina Bd!oso and Pa%lo and

0asilio Ea%lan. ;ence this appeal.

ISSUE: -hethe! the two pa!cels of land is in the natu!e of

a !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.

HELD: Ges, the pa!cels of land a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties. " e!y definite conclusions of law is that the he!edita!y

title is one without a alua%le conside!ation =#!atuitous

tile>, and it is so cha!acte!i)ed in "!ticle 8 of the *iil

*ode, fo! he who acui!es %y inhe!itance #ies nothin# in

!etu!n fo! what he !eceiesC and a e!y definite conclusion

of law also is that the uncles a!e within the thi!d de#!ee of

%lood !elationship.

"!ticle 811. The ascendant who inhe!its f!om his

descendant p!ope!ty which the latte! acui!ed without a

alua%le conside!ation f!om anothe! descendant, o! fo!ma %!othe! o! siste!, is unde! o%li#ation to !ese!e what he

has acui!ed %y ope!ation of law fo! the !elaties who a!e

within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the line whe!e the

p!ope!ty p!oceeded.

Ma!celina Bd!oso, ascendant of Ped!o Ea%lan, inhe!ited

f!om him the two pa!cels of land which he had acui!ed

without a alua%le conside!ation L that is, %y inhe!itance

f!om anothe! ascendant, his fathe! Hicto!iano. ;ain#

acui!e them %y ope!ation of law, she is o%li#ated to

9



!elaties within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the line of

Ma!iano Ea%lan and Ma!ia ita e!nande) =pa!ents of

Hicto!iano>, whe!e the lands p!oceeded. The t!ial cou!tDs

!ulin# that they pa!take of the natu!e p!ope!ty !eui!ed %y

law to %e !ese!ed is the!efo!e in acco!dance with the

law.

The conclusion is that the pe!son !eui!ed %y

"!ticle 811 to !ese!e the !i#ht has, %eyond any dou%t at

all, the !i#hts to use and usuf!uct. ;e has, mo!eoe!, the

le#al title and dominion, althou#h unde! a condition

su%seuent. *lea!ly he has unde! an e+p!ess p!oision of

the law the !i#ht to dispose of the p!ope!ty !ese!ed, and

to dispose of is to alienate, althou#h unde! a condition.

;e has the !i#ht to !ecoe! it, %ecause he is the one who

possesses o! should possess it and hae title to it,

althou#h a limited and !eoca%le one. <n a wo!d, the le#al

title and dominion, een thou#h unde! a condition, !eside

in him while he lies. "fte! the !i#ht !eui!ed %y law to %e

!ese!ed has %een assu!ed, he can do anythin# that a

#enuine owne! can do.

@n the othe! hadnDt, the !elaties within the thi!d

de#!ee in whose fao! of the !i#ht is !ese!ed cannot

dispose of the p!ope!ty, fi!st %ecause it is no way, eithe!

actually o! const!uctiely o! fo!mally, in thei! possessionC

and mo!eoe!, %ecause they hae no title of owne!ship o!

of the fee simple which they can t!ansmit to anothe!, on

the hypothesis that only when the pe!son who must

!ese!e the !i#ht should die %efo!e them will they acui!e

it.

Gonzae% v. CFI (ania

$.. o. 3435, May 181

9pe!sons inoled:

FACTS: 0enito F. e#a!da =<<> p!edeceased his fathe!

0enito T. e#a!da =<>. 0enito =<<> was su!ied %y his

widow, ilomena aces Hda. de e#a!da =<>, and thei!

seen child!en namely 0eat!i), osa!io, Te!esa, ilomena

=<<>, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose.

-hen 0enito T. e#a!da =<> died, his !eal

p!ope!ties we!e diided in th!ee eual po!tions %y hisdau#hte!s, *onsuelo and ita and the hei!s of his

deceased son 0enito =<<> who we!e !ep!esented %y 0enito

. e#a!da =<<<>.

ilomena . e#a!da =<<>, died intestate and

without issue. ;e! sole hei! was he! mothe!, ilomena

aces Hda. de e#a!da. M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted an

affidait ad&udicatin# e+t!a&udicially to he!self the

p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! deceased

dau#hte!, ilomena e#a!da =<<>. "s a !esult of the

affidait of ad&udication, ilomena aces =<> succeeded

he! deceased dau#hte! ilomena e#a!da =<<> as co

owne! of the p!ope!ties held proindiviso %y he! othe! si+

child!en.

<n 153, M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted two handw!itten

identical documents whe!ein she disposed of the

p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! dau#hte! in fao!

of he! si+teen #!andchild!en, the child!en of he! th!ee

sons, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose. !om (uly 158 to

e%!ua!y 15, M!s. e#a!da and he! si+ su!iin#

child!en pa!titioned the p!ope!ties consistin# of the 1A3

sha!e in the estate of 0enito T. e#a!da =<> which the

child!en inhe!ited in !ep!esentation of thei! fathe!, 0enito

F. e#a!da =<<>.

M!s. e#a!da died in 1 and left a holo#!aphic

will. The said will was admitted to p!o%ate. <n the testate

p!oceedin#, 0eat!i) e#a!da $on)ales, a dau#hte! o

M!s. e#a!da filed a motion to e+clude f!om the inento!yof he! mothe!Ds estate the p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited

f!om he! deceased dau#hte!, ilomena =<<>, on the #!ound

that said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties which

should %e inhe!ited %y ilomenaDs =<<> th!ee siste!s and

th!ee %!othe! and not %y the child!en of 0enito, "le&and!o

and (ose. The motion was opposed %y the administ!ato!

0enito . e#a!da =<<<>.

0efo!e the cou!t could issue a !esolution, 0eat!i)

$on)ales filed an o!dina!y ciil action a#ainst he

%!othe!s, siste!s, nephews and nieces and he! mothe!Ds

estate fo! the pu!pose of secu!in# a decla!ation that thesaid p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties.

The lowe! cou!t dismissed the action of 0eat!i)

$on)ales. ;ence this appeal.

ISSUE: -ho a!e the pe!sons inoled in reserva troncal

HELD: The pe!sons inoled in reserve troncal a!e =1

the ascendant o! %!othe! o! siste! f!om whom the p!ope!ty

was !eceied %y the descendant %y luc!atie o! #!atuitous

title, =2> the descendant o! prepositus = prepositus> who

!eceied the p!ope!ty, =3> the !ese!o! =reservista> the

othe! ascendant who o%tained the p!ope!ty f!om the

= prepositus> %y ope!ation of law and =4> the !ese!es

=reservatario> who is within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the

prepositus and who %elon#s to the =line o tronco> f!om

which the p!ope!ty came and fo! whom the p!ope!ty

should %e !ese!ed %y the !ese!o!.

The !ese!ees may %e half%!othe!s and siste!s

ou!th de#!ee !elaties a!e not included.

10



The pe!son f!om whom the de#!ee should %e

!eckoned is the descendant, o! the one at the end of the

line f!om which the p!ope!ty came and upon whom the

p!ope!ty last !eoled %y descent. ;e is called the

prepositus.

The reservatario !eceies the p!ope!ty as a

conditional hei! of the descendant = prepositus> said

p!ope!ty me!ely !ee!tin# to the line of o!i#in f!om which it

had tempo!a!ily and accidentally stayed du!in# the

reservista"s lifetime. The autho!ities a!e all a#!eed that

the!e %ein# reservatarios that su!ie the !ese!ists, the

latte! must %e deemed to hae en&oyed no mo!e than a

than inte!est in the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.

Forentino v. Forentino

46 Phill 486

=4th ciil de#!ee Le+cludedC cannot inhe!it the !ese!ed

p!ope!ty>

FACTS: "polonio <sa%elo lo!etino << ma!!ied "ntonia a)

de eon. They had nine child!en namely (ose, (uan,

Ma!ia, Bnca!nacion, <sa%el, Bspi!ita, $a%!iel, Ped!o and

Ma#dalena. -hen "ntonia died, "polonio ma!!ied

Eee!ina a) de eon. They had two child!en namely

Me!cedes and "polonio <<<. -hen "polonio << died, he was

su!ied %y his second wife Eee!ina and his ten child!en.

;is youn#est son, "polonio <<< was %o!n a month afte! he

died.

"polonioDs child!en, (uan, Ma!ia and <sa%el died

sin#le without any ascendants o! descendants. (ose, one

of "polonioDs child!en had th!ee sons named amon,

Mi#uel and Hicto!ino and a dau#hte! named osa!io.

Bspi!ita ma!!ied Bu#enio Ein#son and was %lessed with

fie child!en namely Bmilia, (esus, ou!des, *a!idad and

Folo!es. Ped!o had two child!en named (ose and

"suncion.

0efo!e "polonio << died, he e+ecuted a will %efo!e

the nota!y pu%lic institutin# as his unie!sal hei!s his ten

child!en, his to %e %o!n son "polinio <<<, and Eee!ina. ;e

also said that his p!ope!ty should %e diided amon# all of

his child!en in %oth ma!!ia#es. "polonio <<< p!edeceased his mothe! Eee!ina.

Eee!ina then succeeded to all his p!ope!ty. -hen

Eee!ina died, he left a will institutin# as he! unie!sal

hei! his only liin# dau#hte! Me!cedes. Me!cedes then

took possession of all the p!ope!ty includin# the p!ope!ty

which Eee!ina inhe!ited f!om he! son "polonio <<<. The

su%&ect p!ope!ty is said to %e a !ese!a%le p!ope!ty held

%y Eee!ina in fao! of he! son "polonio <<<.

Bnca!nacion lo!entino, dau#hte! of "polinio <<

f!om the fi!st ma!!ia#e, to#ethe! with the he!ein

petitione!s, asked Me!cedes to delie! thei

co!!espondin# pa!t of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty. ;owee!

despite see!al demands, Me!cedes !efuse to delie! the

p!ope!ty o! pay its alue to Bnca!nacion. Thus

Bnca!nacion to#ethe! with the othe! petitione!s filed a

complaint in the *ou!t of i!st <nstance of <locos Eu!

They p!ayed that the su%&ect p!ope!ty %e decla!ed as a

!ese!a%le p!ope!ty and Me!cedes and he! hus%and %e

o!de!ed to delie! to them thei! sha!e of the p!ope!ty in

uestion.

Me!cedes contended that she inhe!ited the

p!ope!ty inhe!ited %y Eee!ina f!om he! son "polonio <<<

This %ein# the case, the p!ope!ty did not pass into the

hands of st!an#e!s. Ehe also contended that "!ticle 811 o

the *iil *ode is not applica%le in this case %ecause

when she, %y ope!ation of law, ente!ed into and

succeeded to the possession of the p!ope!ty, said

p!ope!ty had, while in the possession of he! mothe!, lost

the cha!acte! of !ese!a%le p!ope!ty L the!e %ein# a

le#itimate dau#hte! of Eee!ina with the !i#ht to succeedhe! in all he! !i#hts, p!ope!ty and actions. Me!cedes

alle#ed that the!e is no p!ope!ty !ese!ed fo! Bnca!nacion

and othe!s since the!e is a fo!ced hei!ess entitled to the

p!ope!ty left %y the death of Eee!ina.

The *< of <locos Eu! dismissed the complaint

and o!de!ed he!ein petitione!s to pay the costs. The

&ud#ment was affi!med on appeal.

ISSUE: -ho has the !i#ht to inhe!it the p!ope!ty

HELD: "ny ascendant who inhe!its f!om his descendan

any p!ope!ty acui!ed %y the latte! #!atuitously f!om someothe! ascendant, o! f!om a %!othe! o! siste!, is o%li#ed to

!ese!e such of the p!ope!ty as he may hae acui!ed %y

ope!ation of law fo! the %enefit of !elaties within the thi!d

de#!ee %elon#in# to the line f!om which such p!ope!ty

came.

ollowin# the o!de! p!esc!i%ed %y law in

le#itimate succession, when the!e a!e !elaties of the

descendant within the thi!d de#!ee, the !i#ht of the

nea!est !elatie, called !ese!ata!io, oe! the p!ope!ty

which the !ese!ista =pe!son holdin# it su%&ect to

!ese!ation> should !etu!n to him, e+cludes that of the one

mo!e !emote. The !i#ht of !ep!esentation cannot %e

alle#ed when the one claimin# same as a !ese!ata!io of

the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty is not amon# the !elaties within

the thi!d de#!ee %elon#in# to the line f!om which such

p!ope!ty came, inasmuch as the !i#ht #!anted %y the *ii

*ode in a!ticle 811 is in the hi#hest de#!ee pe!sonal and

fo! the e+clusie %enefit of desi#nated pe!sons who a!e

the !elaties, within the thi!d de#!ee, of the pe!son f!om

whom the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty came. The!efo!e, !elaties

of the fou!th and the succeedin# de#!ees can nee! %e

11



conside!ed as !ese!ata!ios, since the law does not

!eco#ni)e them as such.

The!e a!e then seen ?!ese!ata!iosI who a!e

entitled to the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty left at the death of

"polonio <<<C the posthumos son of the afo!ementioned

"polonio <sa%elo <<, to wit, his th!ee child!en of his fi!st

ma!!ia#e L Bnca!nacion, $a%!iel, Ma#dalenaC his th!ee

child!en, (ose, Bspi!ita and Ped!o who a!e !ep!esented

%y thei! own twele child!en !espectielyC and Me!cedes

lo!entino, his dau#hte! %y a second ma!!ia#e. "ll of the

plaintiffs a!e the !elaties of the deceased posthumos

son, "polonio lo!entino <<<, within the thi!d de#!ee =fou!

of whom %ein# his half%!othe!s and the !emainin# twele

%ein# his nephews as they a!e the child!en of his th!ee

half%!othe!s>. "s the fi!st fou! a!e his !elaties within the

thi!d de#!ee in thei! own !i#ht and the othe! twele a!e

such %y !ep!esentation, all of them a!e indisputa%ly

entitled as !ese!ata!ios to the p!ope!ty which came f!om

the common ancesto!, "polonio <sa%elo, to "poloniolo!entino <<< %y inhe!itance du!in# his lifetime, and in

tu!n %y inhe!itance to his le#itimate mothe!, Eee!ina a)

de eon, widow of the afo!ementioned "polonio <sa%elo

lo!entino <<.

The p!ope!ty inhe!ited %y Eee!ina f!om he! son

"polonio lo!entino <<<, is !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.

Bnca!nacion, et al. %ein# !elaties of the deceased

"polonio <<< within the thi!d de#!ee, a!e entitled to si+

seenths of said !ese!a%le p!ope!ty. Me!cedes is entitled

to the !emainin# seenth pa!t the!eof.

Nieva v. Acaa

$.. o. 1338 @cto%e! 2, 126

9!ese!a t!oncal applies only to le#itimate family:

FACTS: !ancisco Feocampo ma!!ied (uliana iea.

They had a child named "lfeo Feocampo. (uliana is the

alle#ed natu!al mothe! of Ee#unda Ma!ia iea. <n 188,

(uliana died intestate and "lfeo inhe!ited two pa!cels of

land. <n 186, "lfeo Feocampo also died intestate and

without issue. The two pa!cels of land which "lfeo

inhe!ited f!om his mothe! passed to his fathe! !ancisco

%y intestate succession.

!ancisco late! ma!!ied Manuela "lcala. They had

a child named (ose Feocampo. !ancisco died in 114.

Manuela and (ose Feocampo took possession of the

pa!cels of land in uestion.

" yea! afte!, Ee#unda Ma!ia iea, claimin# to %e

an acknowled#ed natu!al dau#hte! of (uliana iea, filed

an action to !ecoe! the pa!cels of land %efo!e the *ou!t

of i!st <nstance of Taya%as. The *< held that, een

#!antin#, that Ee#unda was an acknowled#ed dau#hte! i

(uliana, she was not entitled to the p!ope!ty %ecause an

ille#itimate !elatie has no !i#ht to the reserva tronca

unde! the p!oisions of "!ticle 811 of the *iil *ode.

ISSUE: -hethe! Ee#unda Ma!ia iea has a !i#ht oe!

the pa!cels of land.

HELD: o, Ee#unda does not hae a !i#ht oe! the

pa!cels of land in uestion. Reserva troncal applies only

to le#itimate family.

"cco!din# to Man!esa, ?pe!sons in whose fao

the !ese!ation is esta%lishedI is one of the most delicate

points in the inte!p!etation of "!ticle 811. "cco!din# to the

said a!ticle, the !ese!ation is esta%lished in fao! o

pa!ents who a!e within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the

line f!om which the p!ope!ties came.

Reserva troncal t!eats of %lood, !elationship. <could not %e othe!wise, %ecause !elationship %y affinity is

esta%lished %etween each spouse and the family of the

othe!, %y ma!!ia#e, and to admit it, would %e to fao! the

t!ansmission of the p!ope!ties of the family of one spouse

to that of the othe!, which is &ust what this a!ticle intends

to p!eent.

Reserva troncal also t!eats of le#itimate

!elationship. The pe!son o%li#ed to !ese!e it a le#itimate

ascendant who inhe!its f!om a descendant p!ope!ty which

p!oceeds f!om the same le#itimate family, and this %ein#

t!ue, the!e can %e no uestion, %ecause the line f!om

which the p!ope!ties p!oceed must %e the line of that

family and only in fao! of that line is the !ese!ation

esta%lished. u!the!mo!e, we hae al!eady said, the

o%&ect is to p!otect the pat!imony of the le#itimate family

followin# the p!ecedents of the fo!al law. "nd it could not

%e othe!wise. "!ticle 43 denies to le#itimate pa!ents the

!i#ht to succeed the natu!al child and icee!sa, f!om

which it must %e deduced that natu!al pa!ents neithe!

hae the !i#ht to inhe!in# f!om le#itimate onesC the law in

the a!ticle cited esta%lished a %a!!ie! %etween the two

familiesC p!ope!ties of the le#itimate family shall nee

pass %y ope!ation of law to the natu!al family.

S$"aa v. IAC

$.. os. 884344, Eeptem%e! 2, 11

9upon the death of the !ese!ista:

FACTS: (ose 0alantak%o E!. ma!!ied *onsuelo (oauin

They we!e %lessed with seen child!en namely "madeo

Eancho, Fonato, uis, B!asto, (ose, (!. and aul.

12



aul 0alantak%o inhe!ited f!om two diffe!ent

ascendants two sets of p!ope!ties. ;e inhe!ited 1A3

inte!est oe! a pa!cel of land in iliw a#una f!om his

fathe!, (ose E!. ;e also inhe!ited a 1A inte!est oe! ten

pa!cels of land f!om his mate!nal #!andmothe!, uisa

0autista.

aul died intestate, sin#le, without any issue. ;e

was su!ied %y his mothe! *onsuelo. *onsuelo

ad&udicated unto he!self the su%&ect p!ope!ties. Ehe then

sold the p!ope!ty which aul inhe!ited f!om his fathe! to

Ma!iuita Eumaya. Eumaya then sold the p!ope!ty to Hilla

;ono!io Feelopment *o!po!ation, <nc. Hilla ;ono!io

Feelopment *o!po!ation t!ansfe!!ed and assi#ned its

!i#hts oe! the p!ope!ty in fao! of "#!o<ndust!ial

*oconut *oope!atie, <nc.

*onsuelo sold the othe! p!ope!ty to Hilla ;ono!io

Feelopment *o!po!ation, <nc. The latte! then t!ansfe!!ed

and assi#ned all its !i#hts to the p!ope!ties to a#una "#!o<ndust!ial *oconut *oope!atie, <nc. 0oth ce!tificate

of titles coe!in# the su%&ect p!ope!ties do not contain any

annotation of its !ese!a%le cha!acte!.

-hen *onsuelo died, "madeo and his %!othe!s

to#ethe! with uisa, (ose and Folo!es, child!en of thei!

deceased %!othe! (ose (!., filed a complaint %efo!e the

*< of a#una to !ecoe! the p!ope!ties claimin# that

such we!e su%&ect to a reserva troncal in thei! fao!.

The *< of a#una o!de!ed a#una "#!o

<ndust!ial *oconut *oope!atie to coney the p!ope!ties

to "madeo et al. The *ou!t of "ppeals affi!med said

decision.

ISSUE: -hethe! the p!ope!ty in uestion should %e

!etu!ned to he!ein !espondents.

HELD: Ges, the p!ope!ty should %e !etu!ned to the

!espondents as it is su%&ect to reserva troncal. Mo!eoe!,

he!ein petitione!s cannot %e conside!ed as innocent

pu!chase!s fo! alue.

Opon the death of the p!opositus, aul

0alantak%o, the reservista, *onsuelo caused the

!e#ist!ation of an affidait of selfad&udication of the estate

of aul, whe!ein it was clea!ly stated that the p!ope!ties

we!e inhe!ited %y aul f!om his fathe! (ose, E!., and f!om

his mate!nal #!andmothe!, uisa 0autista. The said

affidait was, in its fo!m, decla!ation and su%stance, a

!eco!din# with the e#ist!y of Feeds of the !ese!a%le

cha!acte! of the p!ope!ties. <n Epanish lan#ua#e, the

affidait clea!ly stated that the affiant, *onsuelo, was a

loneascendant and hei! to aul 0alantak%o, he! son,

who died leain# p!ope!ties p!eiously inhe!ited f!om

othe! ascendants and which p!ope!ties we!e inento!ied

in the said affidait.

;owee!, the Eup!eme *ou!t did not a#!ee with

the disposition of the appellate cou!t that the!e is no need

to !e#iste! the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of the p!ope!ty, if only

fo! the p!otection of the !ese!ees, a#ainst innocent thi!d

pe!sons. <n one of the cases decided %y the Eup!eme

*ou!t, it !uled that the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of a p!ope!ty

may %e lost to innocent pu!chase!s fo! alue. "dditionally

it was !uled the!ein that the o%li#ation imposed on a

widowed spouse to annotate the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of

a p!ope!ty su%&ect of reserva viudal is applica%le to

reserva troncal .

0ut he!ein petitione!s cannot %e conside!ed as

innocent pu!chase!s fo! alue. This is eidenced %y the

affidait e+ecuted %y *onsuelo and %y othe! p!oofs

showin# that petitione!s knew of the !ese!a%le cha!acte!

of the p!ope!ties.

Cario v. De Paz

$.. o. 2261, @cto%e! 28, 1

9p!esc!iptie pe!iod:

FACTS: Epouses Eee!ino Ealak and Pet!a $a!cia

owned ot o. 221 located in Ta!lac. They mo!t#a#ed the

said p!ope!ty fo! the sum of P 1,266.66 to spouses Ped!o

Ma#at and ilomena Eila. Eaid mo!t#a#e was

!e#iste!ed. ate! on, spouses Ma#at assi#ned thei

mo!t#a#ed !i#hts to ;ona!ia Ealak fo! P 1,32.66 with the

consent of the su!iin# de%to!, Eee!ino.

<n 143, Eee!ino t!ansfe!!ed of his inte!est in

the p!ope!ty to ;ona!ia Ealak fo! P 12.66. This

t!ansaction and assi#nment of the mo!t#a#e c!edit we!e

not !e#iste!ed in the office of the e#iste! of Feeds no!

annotated in the title.

"n intestate p!oceedun# was instituted fo! the

settlement of the estate of Eee!ino Ealak and Pet!a$a!cia. The said p!oceedin# included ot o. 221. Eaid

lot was ad&udicated to B!nesto 0autista, "u!ea Eaha#un

ita Eaha#un and !ancisca Ealak. !ancisca Ealak then

acui!ed the sha!es of the othe! hei!s %y i!tue of which

T*T o. 6 coe!in# ot o. 221 was issued in he!

name. Meanwhile, ;ona!ia Ealak died sin#le liin# as

sole hei! "#ustina de $u)man.

" lease was e+ecuted %y !ancisca in fao! o

$a%ino de eon and "suncion eyes coe!in# ot o.

13



221. " mo!t#a#e was also e+ecuted the!eon %y the

lessees in fao! of the eha%ilitation inance

*o!po!ation.

"#ustina de $u)man then filed an action a#ainst

!ancisca in the *< of Ta!lac seekin# the !econeyance

to "#ustina of po!tion of ot o. 221. The lowe! cou!t

dismissed the complaint sayin# that the cou!t has no

&u!isdiction to ente!tain any collate!al attack in the p!esent

action a#ainst the p!oceedin#s taken in the p!o%ate

p!oceedin#s coe!in# ot o. 221.

ISSUE: -hethe! the action had al!eady p!esc!i%ed.

HELD: o, the action had not yet p!esc!i%ed. The lowe!

cou!t e!!ed in dismissin# the complaint.

-hile the *ou!t admits that the sale made %y

Eee!ino Ealak of his undiided inte!est in the p!ope!ty

to ;ono!ia Ealak, p!edecesso! in inte!est of the plaintiff,has not %een !e#iste!ed in the office of the e#iste! of

Feeds, no! annotated on the To!!ens Title coe!in# it,

such technical deficiency does not !ende! the t!ansaction

ineffectie, no! does it cone!t it into a me!e moneta!y

o%li#ation. 0ut it simply !ende!s the t!ansaction not

%indin# a#ainst a thi!d pe!son %ecause, %ein# a

!e#iste!ed land, the ope!atie act to %ind the land is the

act of !e#ist!ation. Eaid t!ansaction howee! is alid and

%indin# %etween the pa!ties and can se!e as %asis to

compel the !e#iste! of deeds to make the necessa!y

!e#ist!ation. Euch %ein# the case, it is e!!o! to say that

plaintiff should hae filed he! claim in the intestatep!oceedin#s of the late Eee!ino Ealak if she wanted to

p!otect he! inte!est in the land fo!, the t!ansaction %ein#

%indin# %etween the pa!ties, the same can %e inoked

a#ainst them o! thei! p!iies. This means that plaintiff can

still p!ess he! claim a#ainst the hei!s of the deceased

Eee!ino Ealak who we!e made pa!tiesdefendants in this

case. These hei!s cannot escape the le#al conseuence

of this t!ansaction %ecause they hae inhe!ited the

p!ope!ty su%&ect to the lia%ility affectin# thei! common

ancesto!. The fact that !ancisca Ealak %ou#ht the sha!es

of he! cohei!s in said p!ope!ty is of no moment %ecause

in so fa! as the po!tion of the land acui!ed %y ;ono!ia

Ealak is conce!ned, !ancisca Ealak can !ecoup what she

has pa!ted with f!om he! cohei!s when the time fo! !ead

&ud#ment comes. This matte! can %e th!eshed out when

the case is decided on the me!its. o! the p!esent suffice

it to state that the lowe! cou!t e!!ed in dismissin# the

complaint fo! the !easons set fo!th in its o!de! su%&ect of

the p!esent appeal.

Co"!$tation o* Le+iti"e

Pa+&ati!$nan v. IAC

$.. o. 622, (uly 3, 11

9manne! of computation:

FACTS: (ose Helasue), E!. was ma!!ied to Hicto!ina

eal. They had fie child!en. -hen Hicto!ina died, no

dissolution of con&u#al p!ope!ty was made. (ose E!

en&oyed full possession, use, usuf!uct and administ!ation

of the whole con&u#al p!ope!ty. (ose E!. then ma!!ied his

second wife, *anuta Pa#katipunan with whom he had 13

child!en.

(ose E!. died intestate and was su!ied %y his

second wife *anuta Pa#katipunan and thei! 13 child!en

and his two child!en (ose (!. and ou!des f!om his fi!st

ma!!ia#e. ;is othe! th!ee child!en we!e "melia, $uille!mo

and ut#a!da. "melia died without ant issue. $uille!mo

was su!ied %y his fie child!en and ut#a!da was

su!ied %y he! si+ child!en.

;e!ein p!iate !espondents filed a complain

a#ainst the petitione!s fo! accion !einindicato!ia

annulment of deeds of sale, pa!tition and dama#es.

0The t!ial cou!t appointed two sets of commissions J one

fo! the pu!pose of makin# an inento!y of the estate of

(ose Helasue), E!., and the othe!, to dete!mine which o

the pa!cels of land listed in such inento!y su%mitted %y

the fi!st set of commissione!s %elon# to the con&u#a

pa!tne!ship of the fi!st ma!!ia#e o! to the con&u#a

pa!tne!ship of the second ma!!ia#e.

<t was found out that afte! the death of (ose E!.

*anuta Pa#katipunan acui!ed full possession of two

pa!cels of land in 0a#um%ayan, a#una amon# othe

p!ope!ties. The said pa!cels of land we!e sold %y *anuta

to Epouses Moises Eantos and Ma#dalena. The spouses

late! !esold the same p!ope!ty to *anuta Pa#katipunan

Fu!in# the pendency of this suit, the su%&ect p!ope!ty was

su%diided and assi#ned %y *anta in fao! of he! 13

child!en. The 13 child!en caused the issuance of sepa!ate

f!ee patent titles in thei! fao! coe!in# the su%diided

lots.

"nothe! p!ope!ty, which is the -est "enue

p!ope!ty is a !esidential lot pu!chased on installments %y

spouses (ose E!. and *anuta. -hen (ose E!. died

*anuta shoulde!ed the payment of the !emainin#

installment until the p!ope!ty was paid in full. " deed of

a%solute sale coneyin# the house was issued in fao! of

*anuta.

The lowe! cou!t !uled in fao! of he!ein

!espondents. <t decla!ed the sale of the lots in a#una in

fao! of Moises and Ma#dalena null and oid. The deeds

14



of assi#nments e+ecuted %y *anuta in fao! of he!

child!en we!e also decla!ed null and oid. The house and

lot in -est "enue was also o!de!ed to %e diided amon#

*anuta and he! child!en and (ose E!.Ds hei!s f!om his fi!st

ma!!ia#e. The !ulin# was appealed %efo!e the

<nte!mediate "ppellate *ou!t. The <"* affi!med the

decision of the t!ial cou!t with the modification that the

enti!e house and lot in -est "enue %e diided into two L

alue to *anuta and the 13 child!en to the e+tent of

thei! !espectie p!opo!tional cont!i%utions and the othe!

half alue to the second con&u#al pa!tne!ship of (ose

Helasue), E!. and *anuta Pa#katipunan to %e

pa!titioned onefou!th to the wife and the othe! onefou!th

appe!tainin# to the deceased (ose E!. to %e diided

eually amon# his hei!s.

ISSUE: ;ow should le#itime %e computed

HELD: <t is a %asic !ule that %efo!e any conclusion a%out

the le#al sha!e due to the hei!s may %e !eached, it isnecessa!y that ce!tain steps %e taken fi!st. <n the assailed

decision, the !espondent cou!t affi!med the t!ial cou!t's

!ulin#, that (ose Helasue), E!. had al!eady disposed of

and e+hausted his co!!espondin# sha!e in the con&u#al

pa!tne!ship owned %y him and Hicto!ina eal, so that his

hei!s hae nothin# mo!e to inhe!it f!om him, and that

acco!din#ly, whatee! !emainin# po!tion of the con&u#al

p!ope!ty must necessa!ily appe!tain only to the p!iate

!espondents as hei!s of the deceased Hicto!ina eal. The

pe!tinent p!oisions of the *iil *ode p!oide/

"!t. 68. To dete!mine the le#itime, the alue of the p!ope!ty left at the death of the testato! shall %e

conside!ed, deductin# all de%ts and cha!#es, which shall

not include those imposed in the will.

To the net alue of the he!edita!y estate, shall %e

added the alue of all donations %y the testato! that a!e

su%&ect to collation, at the time he made them.

"!t. 161. Be!y compulso!y hei!, who succeeds

with othe! compulso!y hei!s, must %!in# into the mass of

the estate any p!ope!ty o! !i#ht which he may hae

!eceied f!om the decedent, du!in# the lifetime of the

latte!, %y way of donation, o! any othe! #!atuitous title, in

o!de! that it may %e computed in the dete!mination of the

le#itime of each hei!, and in the account of the pa!tition.

<t is undenia%le that nume!ous donations inter

vivos we!e made %y (ose Helasue), E!. in fao! of some

of his compulso!y hei!s.

<t appea!s that the!e was no dete!mination

whatsoee! of the #!oss alue of the con&u#al p!ope!ties

of (ose Helasue), E!. and Hicto!ina eal. @%iously it is

impossi%le to dete!mine the con&u#al sha!e of (ose

Helasue), E!. f!om the said p!ope!ty !elationship

ikewise, no collation of the donations he e+ecuted du!in#

his lifetime was unde!taken %y the t!ial cou!t. Thus, it

would %e e+t!emely difficult to asce!tain whethe! o! not

such donations t!enched on the hei!s' le#itime so that the

same may %e conside!ed su%&ect to !eduction fo! %ein#

inofficious.

"!ticle 6 of the *iil *ode p!oides/

"!t. 6. Fonations #ien to child!en shall %e

cha!#ed to thei! le#itime.

Fonations made to st!an#e!s shall %e cha!#ed to

that pa!t of the estate of which the testato! could hae

disposed %y his last will.

<nsofa! as they may %e inofficious o! may e+ceed

the disposa%le po!tion, they shall %e !educed acco!din# to

the !ules esta%lished %y this *ode.

Heir% o* (arceino Doronio v. Heir% o* Fort$nato

Doronio'

$.. o. 1454, Fecem%e! 2, 266

9manne! of computation:

FACTS: Epouses Eimeon Fo!onio and *o!nelia $ante

we!e the !e#iste!ed owne!s of a pa!cel of land in

Pan#asinan. They had see!al child!en, two of which

we!e Ma!celino Fo!onio and o!tunato Fo!onio.

<n 11, a p!iate deed of donation propter

nuptias was e+ecuted %y Eimeon and *o!nelia in fao! of

Ma!celino and his wife He!onica Pico. @ne of the

p!ope!ties su%&ect of said deed of donation is a !esidentia

lot in *a%alitian. The lot was desc!i%ed in the deed of

donation as %ound in the east %y o!tunato Fo!onio.

;owee!, it appea!s that the p!ope!ty desc!i%ed

was p!eiously coe!ed %y @*T o. 352. "cco!din# to the@*T the ad&acent lot in the east was owned %y Qaca!ias

and "le&and!o a&o!da %ut acco!din# to the deed o

donation, the p!ope!ty was owned %y o!tunato Fo!onio.

The hei!s of Ma!celino and the hei!s of o!tunato

hae %een occupyin# the su%&ect land fo! see!a

decades. ;e!ein petitione!s, the hei!s of Ma!celino

contend that they a!e the owne!s of the enti!e p!ope!ty in

iew of the p!iate deed of donation propter nuptias in

fao! of Ma!celino and He!onica. @n the othe! hand

15

fourth list - wills.docx

Documents