MICIANO v. BRIMO 50 PHIL 867
FACTS: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish national, died leaving a will which one of the clauses states that the law of the Philippines shall govern the partition and not the law of his nationalit, and that legatees have to respect the will, otherwise the dispositions accruing to them shall !e annulled" annulled" B virtue of such condition, his !rother, Andre Brimo, an instituted heir was thus e#cluded !ecause, ! his action of having opposed the partition scheme, he did not respect the will" Andre sued sued contending contending that that the conditions conditions are are void !eing !eing contrar contrar to law which which provides provides that the the will shall !e pro!ated according to the laws of the nationalit of the decedent" $SS%&: 'hether or not the condition as set ! the testator valid" (&)*: +o" A foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall !e distri!uted in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot !e ignored in regard to those matters that Article - of the Civil Code states said national law should govern" Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions a!ove cited, is considered unwritten, unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is unconditional and conse.uentl conse.uentl valid and effective even as to the herein oppositor"
SANTOS vs. BUENAVENTURA 18 SCRA 47
FACTS: /osalina /osal ina Santos Santos fil filed ed a fo forr the pro!ate pro!ate of the last wil willl all alleg eged edl l e# e#ecu ecuted ted ! the deceased 0a#ima Santos 1da" de Blas" The nearest of kin of the deceased were her !rothers and a sister, nephews and nieces" /osalinda Santos, is one of said nieces" Among devisees mentio men tioned ned in the will is Flo Flora ra Bla Blas s de Bu Buen enave aventu ntura" ra" She is no nott rel relate ated d ! !l !loo ood d to th the e deceased" (owever, Flora Blas de Buenaventura and Justo 2arcia filed an opposition to the pro!ate of said will" After the pro!ate court had received the evidence for !oth the petitioner and oppositors, opposito rs, !ut !efore the latter could close their evidence, Flora Blas filed a manifestation that she is withdrawing her opposition to the pro!ate of the will, however, the proceedings continued however as to the opposition of Justo 2arcia" Thereafter the court issued an order allowing the pro!ate of the will" After the order had !ecome final and e#ecutor, Flora Blas filed a petition praing for the deliver to her of a fishpond as a specific devise in her"
To this petition, inspite of apparent understanding, /osalina Santos filed an opposition predicated on the ground that said specific devise in favor of Flora was forfeited in favor of the other residuar heirs, pursuant to a provision of the will that should an of the heirs, devisees or legatees contest or oppose its pro!ate, the latter shall lose his or her right to receive an inheritance or !enefit under it, which shall !e forfeited in favor of the other heirs, devisees and legatees" $SS%&: 'hether or not Flora3s actuations amount to the violation of the 4no contest and forfeiture5 clause of the will" (&)*: +o" From the foregoing premises it cannot !e said that Flora6s actuations impaired the true intention of the testatri# in regard to the 7no8contest and forfeiture7 clause of the will" Flora6s act of withdrawing her opposition !efore she had rested her case contri!uted to the speed pro!ation of the will" Since the withdrawal came !efore Flora had rested her case, it precluded the defeat of the pro!ate upon the strength of Flora6s evidence" Through said withdrawal, Flora conformed to the testatri#6s wish that her dispositions of her properties under the will !e carried out" $t follows that, taken as a whole, Flora6s actuations su!served rather than violated the testatri#6s intention" 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
VILLAFLOR-VILLANUEVA VS. JUICO 4 SCRA 550
FACTS: *on +icolas 1illaflor e#ecuted a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and !e.ueathing in favor of his wife, *ona Faustina of all his real and personal properties giving the other half to his !rother *on Fausto" Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widow3s death, she !ecame vested with the ownership of the properties !e.ueathed under clause ; pursuant to its < th clause of the will" $SS%&: 'hether or not the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of *ona Faustina"
(&)*: The intention of the testator here was to merel give usufructuar right to his wife *o=a Fausta !ecause in his will he provided that *o=a Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to !ear a child and !ecause she died without having !egotten an children with the deceased then it means that *o=a Fausta never ac.uired ownership over the propert" %pon her death, !ecause she never ac.uired ownership over the propert, the said properties are not included in her estate" Those properties actuall !elong to 1illaflor" That was the intention of the testator" >therwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to *o=a Fausta then he should have specificall stated in his will that ownership should !elong to *o=a Fausta without mentioning an condition"
GALA VS. ELLICE AGRO-INUSTRIAL CORP. 418 SCRA 4!1
Facts: The spouses 0anuel and Alicia 2ala and their children 2uia *omingo, >felia 2ala, /aul 2ala and /ita Benson, and their encargados" 1irgilio 2aleon and Julian Jader, formed and organi?ed &llice Agro $ndustrial Corporation @&llice" A spament for their su!scriptions the Spouses 2ala transferred several parcles of land to &llice" Su!se.uentl, the children and the encargados formed and organi?ed another corporation, 0argo 0anagement and *evelopment Corporation @0argo" The father, 0anuel 2ala, sold his shares in &llice to 0argo" Su!se.uentl, Alicia transferred her shares to 0argo" $n an attempt to !olster their theor that the organi?ation of the respondent corporations was illegal, the petitioners aver that the legitime pertaining to petitioners /ita 2" Benson and 2uia 2" *omingo from the estate of their father had !een su!ect to unwarranted reductions as a result thereof" $n sum, the claim that stockholdings in &llice which the late 0anuel 2ala had assigned to them were insufficient to cover their legitimes, since Benson was onl given two shares while *omingo received onl si#teen shares out of a total num!er of D,--- issued shares" $ssue: 'hether or not the completion of estate of the petitioners raised in the instant case !e disregarded"
(eld: Ees" The reliefs sought ! petitioners should have !een raised in a proceeding for settlement of estate, rather than in the present intra8corporate controvers" $f the are genuinel interested in securing that part of their late father propert which has !een reserved for them in their capacit as compulsor heirs, then the should simpl e#ercise their actio ad supplendam legitimam , or their right of completion of legitime" Such relief must !e sought during the distri!ution and partition stage of a case for the settlement of the estate of 0anuel 2ala, filed !efore a court which has taken urisdiction over the settlement of said estate" 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
EROSO vs. SABLAN "5 SCRA "#5 FACTS$
Spouses 0arcelina &droso and 1ictoriano Sa!lan had a son named, Pedro who inherited two parcels of land upon the death of his father" Su!se.uentl, Pedro died, unmarried and without issue, the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother" (ence the hereditar title whereupon is !ased the application for registration of her ownership" The two uncles of Pedro, Pa!lo and Basilio Sa!lan @legitimate !rothers of 1ictoriano opposed the registration claiming that either the registration !e denied or if granted to her, the right reserved ! law to them !e recorded in the registration of each parcel" The Court of )and /egistration denied the registration holding that the land in .uestion partake of the nature of propert re.uired ! law to !e reserved and that in such a case application could onl !e presented ointl in the names of the mother and the said two uncles" (ence, this appeal" ISSUES$
" 'hether or not the propert in .uestion is in the nature of a reserva!le propert" " 'hether or not 0arcelina &droso has the a!solute title of the propert to cause its registration" RULING$
A ver definite conclusions of law is that the hereditar title is one without a valua!le consideration @gratuitous tile, and it is so characteri?ed in Article GH< of the Civil Code, for he who ac.uires ! inheritance gives nothing in return for what he receivesI and a ver definite conclusion of law also is that the uncles are within the third degree of !lood relationship" Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired without a valuable consideration from another descendant, or form a brother or sister, is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law for the relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line where the property proceeded.
0arcelina &droso, ascendant of Pedro Sa!lan, inherited from him the two parcels of land which he had ac.uired without a valua!le consideration that is, ! inheritance from another ascendant, his father 1ictoriano" (aving ac.uire them ! operation of law, she is o!ligated to relatives within the third degree and !elong to the line of 0ariano Sa!lan and 0aria /ita Fernande? @parents of 1ictoriano, where the lands proceeded" The trial court3s ruling that the partake of the nature propert re.uired ! law to !e reserved is therefore in accordance with the law" The conclusion is that the person re.uired ! Article < to reserve the right has, !eond an dou!t at all, the rights to use and usufruct" (e has, moreover, the legal title and dominion, although under a condition su!se.uent" Clearl he has under an e#press provision of the law the right to dispose of the propert reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a condition" (e has the right to recover it, !ecause he is the one who possesses or should possess it and have title to it, although a limited and revoca!le one" $n a word, the legal title and dominion, even though under a condition, reside in him while he lives" After the right re.uired ! law to !e reserved has !een assured, he can do anthing that a genuine owner can do" >n the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the right is reserved cannot dispose of the propert, first !ecause it is no wa, either actuall or constructivel or formall, in their possessionI and moreover, !ecause the have no title of ownership or of the fee simple which the can transmit to another, on the hpothesis that onl when the person who must reserve the right should die !efore them will the ac.uire it" 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
SIENES vs. ESPARCIA 1 SCRA 750
FACTS: )ot H< originall !elonged to Saturnino Eaeso" 'ith his first wife, Teresa /uales, he had four children named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second wife, Andrea 2utang, he had an onl son named Francisco" According to the cadastral records of Au.uitan, the properties left ! Saturnino upon his death were left to his children as follows: )ot HH to Cipriana, )ot H; to Fernando, )ot ;D to Agaton, )ot ;; @southern portion to Paulina, and )ot H< @western portion to Francisco" As a result of the cadastral proceedings, an >CT covering )ot H< was issued in the name of Francisco" Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the propert for him, declared it in her name for ta#ation purposes, and paid the ta#es due thereon" 'hen Francisco died at the age of -, single and without an descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, e#ecuted the pu!lic instrument and sold the propert in .uestion to appellants in consideration of the sum of P<--"--" Andrea 2utang died on *ecem!er , GD, the lone reservee surviving her !eing Cipriana Eaeso who died onl on Januar , GD" Said vendees demanded from Paulina and
her hus!and, the surrender of the >CT which was in their possession, the latter refused, thus giving rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral, which was denied" $SS%&: 'hether or not the reserva!le propert in .uestion is part of and must !e reverted to the estate of Cipriana Eaeso" /%)$+2: The reserve instituted ! law in favor of the heirs within the third degree !elonging to the line from which the reserva!le propert came, constitutes a real right which the reservee ma alienate and dispose of, al!eit conditionall, the condition !eing that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee onl if and when the reservee survives the person o!liged to reserve" $n the present case, Cipriana Eaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea 2utang, the person o!liged to reserve, died" Thus the former !ecame the a!solute owner of the reserva!le propert upon Andrea6s death" 'hile it ma !e true that the sale made ! her and her sister prior to this event, !ecame effective !ecause of the occurrence of the resolutor condition, we are not now in a position to reverse the appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion of the propert in .uestion to the &state of Cipriana Eaeso, !ecause the vendees did not appeal therefrom" 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
PAURA vs. BALOVINO GR. N%. L-1160 &'&()&* "7+ 1#58
FACTS: Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime" 'ith his first wife 2ervacia )andig, he had one child, 0anuel Padura" 'ith the second wife, Benita 2aring, he had two children, Fortunato and Candelaria Padura" Agustin died on Apr H, G-<, leaving a last will and testament, dul pro!ated, wherein he !e.ueathed his properties among his three children and his surviving spouse, Benita 2aring" Fortunato was adudicated four parcels of land" (e died unmarried on 0a <, G-<, without having e#ecuted a willI and not having an issue, the parcels of land were inherited e#clusivel ! his mother Benita" Benita was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, su!ect to the condition that the properties were reserva!le in favor of relatives within the third degree !elonging to the line from which said propert came" >n August H, GK, Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate children: Cristeta, 0elania, Anicia, and Pa!lo Baldovino @>ppositors8appellants" >n >cto!er H, GK-, 0anuel also died, survived ! his legitimate children *ionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and Severino Padura@Petitioners8appellees %pon the
death of Benita @the reservista on >ct D, GD, the heirs took possession of the reserva!le properties" CF$ )aguna declared the children of 0anuel and Candelaria to !e the rightful reservees, and as such, entitled to the reserva!le properties @the original reservees, Candelaria and 0anuel, having predeceased the reservistaThe Baldovino heirs filed a petition seeking to have the properties partitioned, such that one8half !e adudicated to them, and the other half to the appellees, allegedl on the !asis that the inherited ! right of representation from their respective parents, the original reservees" Padura heirs opposed, maintaining that the should all !e deemed as inheriting in their own right, under which, the claim, each should have an e.ual share" $SS%&: 'hether or not the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, !e apportioned among the heirs e.uall" (&)*: +>" The nephews of the whole !lood should take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half !lood" The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primaril to assure the return of the reserva!le propert to the third degree relatives !elonging to the line from which the propert originall came, and avoid its !eing dissipated into and ! the relatives of the inheriting ascendant @reservista" Article
CANO vs. IRECTOR OF LANS 105 PHIL 1
Facts: >n Septem!er <, GDD, the reservista Cano, died" Thus, in >cto!er, GDD, the reservee @reservatorio &usta.uia applied for the cancellation of the original title and a new one issued in her favor" The motion was opposed ! the sons of Cano: Jose and Teotimo Fernande?" The contended that the application and operation of the reserva troncal should !e ventilated in an ordinar proceeding, not in the /egistration Court" (owever, the lower court granted the petition on the !asis of the recorded reserve" $t held that the issuance of a new certificate is proper, for the reason that the death of the reservista vested the ownership of the propert in the petitioner as the sole reservatario troncal"
The oppositors appealed and argued that the reversion in favor of the reservatario re.uires the declaration of the e#istence of the following facts: @ The propert was received ! a ascendant ! gratuitous titled from an ascendant or from a !rother or sisterI @ Said descendant dies without issueI @ The propert ascendant ! operation of lawI and @K The e#istence of relatives within the third degree !elonging to the line from which said propert came" $ssue: 'hether or not the Certificate of title was registered in the name of 0aria Cano is su!ect ti reserve troncal in favor of &usta.uia 2uerrero" (eld: The re.uisites enumerated ! appellants have alread !een declared to e#ist ! the decree of registration wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal were e#pressl recogni?ed" The propert was inherited ! Cano from her deceased daughter, )ourdes 2uerrero, who inherited the same from her father, &varisto 2uerrero" (ence, falls s.uarel within the provisions of Article
$t is e.uall well settled that the reserva!le propert cannot !e transmitted ! a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa, so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the prepositus, and !elonging to the line hence the propert came, is in e#istence when the reservista dies" >f course, where the registration decree merel specifies the reserva!le character of the propert, without determining the identit of the reservatario, or where several reservatarios dispute the propert among themselves, further proceedings would !e unavoida!le" But this is not the case" The rights of the reservataria &usta.uia 2uerrero have !een e#pressl recogni?ed, and it is nowhere claimed that there are other reservatarios of e.ual or nearer degree"
FLORENTINO vs. FLORENTINO 40 PHIL 480
FACTS: Apolonio $sa!elo Florentino $$, during his lifetime, married twice" The st time, with Antonia Fa? de )eon, with whom he !egot G children: Jose, Juan, 0aria, &ncarnacion, $sa!el, &spirita, 2a!riel, Pedro, and 0agdalena" >n !ecoming a widower, he married the nd time with Severina Fa? de )eon, with whom he had children: 0ercedes and Apolonio $$$" >n Januar ; and Fe!ruar ,
(&)*: " At the death of Apolonio $$, under a will, his children succeeded to the inheritance he left" $n
'ith full right, Severina Fa? de )eon could have disposed in her will of all her own propert in favor of her onl living daughter as forced heiress" But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the reserva!le propert received from her son Apolonio $$$, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch as said propert is not her own" " Following the order prescri!ed ! law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives of the descendant within the rd degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the propert which the reservista @person holding it su!ect to reservation should return to him, e#cludes that of the one more remote" There are then ; 7reservatarios7 who are entitled to the reserva!le propert left at the death of Apolonio $$$: a" the children of the st marriage of Apolonio $$ 8 &ncarnacion, 2a!riel, 0agdalenaI !" the other children, Jose, &spirita and Pedro, represented ! their own children respectivelI and c" 0ercedes Florentino, his daughter ! nd marriage" All of the plaintiffs are the relatives of the deceased Apolonio $$$, within the rd degree @K of whom !eing his half8!rothers and the remaining !eing his nephews as the are the children of his half8!rothers" As the first K are his relatives within the third degree in their own right and the other are such ! representation, all of them are indisputa!l entitled as reservatarios to the propert" $t is true that when 0ercedes Florentino, the heiress of the reservista Severina, took possession of the propert in .uestion, same did not pass into the hands of strangers" But it is likewise true that 0ercedes is not the onl reservataria" And there is no reason founded upon law and upon the principle of ustice wh the other reservatarios, the other !rothers and nephews, relatives within the third degree should !e deprived of portions of the propert which, as reserva!le propert, pertain to them" As there were seven reservees, 0ercedes was entitled, as a reservee, to one8seventh of the properties" The other si#8sevenths portions were adudicated to the other si# reserves"
GON,ALES vs. CFI 104 SCRA 47#
FACTS:
Benito )egarda Tuason died on June ;, G" (e was survived ! his widow, Filomena /oces, and their ; children: K daughters named Beatri?, /osario, Teresa and Filomena and sons named Benito, Aleandro and Jose" >n Jul , GG, the real properties left ! Benito )egarda Tuason were partitioned in e.ual portions ! his daughters, Consuelo and /ita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito )egarda *e la Pa?, represented ! Benito F" )egarda" Filomena )egarda /oces died intestate and without issue on 0arch G, GK" (er sole heiress was her mother, Filomena /oces 1da" de )egarda" 0rs" )egarda e#ecuted on 0a , GK; an affidavit adudicating e#tra8udiciall to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena )egarda" These properties are in litigation in this case" As a result of the affidavit of adudication, Filomena /oces succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena )egarda as co8owner of the properties held pro8indiviso ! her other H children" >n 0arch H, GD, 0rs" )egarda e#ecuted hand8written identical documents wherein she disposed the properties she inherited from her daughter in favor of the children of her sons, Benito, Aleandro and Jose @H grandchildren in all" *uring the period from Jul, GD< to Fe!ruar, GDG, 0rs" )egarda and her H surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the M share in the estate of Benito )egarda Tuason which the children inherited in representation of their father, Benito )egarda *e la Pa?" 0rs" )egarda died on Septem!er , GH;" (er will was admitted to pro!ate as a holographic will" $n the testate proceeding, Beatri? )egarda 2on?ale?, a daughter of the testatri#, filed on 0a -, GH< a motion to e#clude from the inventor of her mother6s estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said properties are reserva!le properties which should !e inherited ! Filomena )egarda6s three sisters and three !rothers and not ! the children of Benito, Aleandro and Jose, all surnamed )egarda" That motion was opposed ! the administrator, Benito F" )egarda" 'ithout awaiting the resolution on that motion, 0rs" 2on?ale? filed on June -, GH< an ordinar civil action against her !rothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother6s estate for the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reserva!le properties which 0rs" )egarda could not !e.ueath in her holographic will to her grandchildren to the e#clusion of her three daughters and her three sons" $ssues: 'hether or not the properties in litigation are reserva!le propertiesL *id 0rs" )egarda have the right to conve mortis causa the properties she inherited from her daughter, to the reservees within the rd degree and to !pass the reservees in the nd degreeL >r, should that inheritance automaticall go to the reservees in the nd degreeL
(eld: $n reserva troncal, @ a descendant inherited or ac.uired ! gratuitous title propert from an ascendant or from a !rother or sisterI @ the same propert is inherited ! another ascendant or is ac.uired ! him ! operation of law from the said descendant, and @ the said ascendant should reserve the said propert for the !enefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant @prepositus and who !elong to the line from which the said propert came" So, transmissions are involved: @ a first transmission ! lucrative title @inheritance or donation from an ascendant or !rother or sister to the deceased descendantI @ a posterior transmission, ! 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 @ a third transmission of the same propert @in conse.uence of the reservation from the reservor to the reservees @reservatarios or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant !elonging to the line of the first ascendant, !rother or sister of the deceased descendant" $f there are onl two transmissions, there is no reserva" (ence, upon the reservista6s death, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus !ecomes, 7automaticall and ! operation of law, the owner of the reserva!le propert"7 $n the instant case, the properties in .uestion were indu!ita!l reserva!le properties in the hands of 0rs" )egarda" %ndou!tedl, she was a reservor" The reservation !ecame a certaint when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus were living" 0rs" )egarda could not conve in her holographic will the reserva!le properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena !ecause the reserva!le properties did not form part of her estate" The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reserva!le properties as long as the reservees survived the reservor" Article