DIONISIA PADURA ET AL, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES

V.

MELANIA BALDOVINO, ET AL, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS

GR NO L-11960 DECEMBER 27, 1958 REYES, JBL,J., SV: Fortunato Padura without any heirs, hence the four parcels of land he received from his father were transmitted to her mother. After her mother died, Fortunatos nephews and nieces from his full sister and half-brother took possession of the property. The court ruled that these nephews and nieces will have equal shares over the property. SC: Rule on Reserva troncal should be applied, meaning the relatives of Fortunato up to the third degree will get the reservable property after his mother dies. The children of such relatives (the reservatarios) can receive the property by way of right of representation. But after applying the rule, the reservatarios and their relationship will be considered in determining their shares. The rules on ordinary intestate succession would be followed after the reservatarios have been determined. 1. Agustin Padura married twice. His first wife was Gervacio Landig with whom he had one child named Manuel Padura. His second wife was Benita Garing with whom he had 2 children named Fortunato and Candelaria Padura 2. He died leaving a last will and testament duly probated wherein he bequeathed his properties among his children, Manuel, CAndelaria and Fortunato, and his surviving spouse Benita (2nd wife). Fortunato was adjudicated 4 parcels of land a. Fortunato died unmarried and without having executed a will; and not having any issue, the 4 parcels of land were inherited exclusively by Benita. Benita applied for an later was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, BUT subject to the condition that the properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the 3rd degree belonging to the line from which the property came (Fortunato) b. Candelaria (Fortunatos full sister) died leaving as her heirs her 4 legitimate children (the appellants) Melania, Anicia and Pablo all surnamed Baldovino c. Manuel (Fortunatos half brother) also died. His heirs were his legitimate children (the appellees) Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana and Severino, all surnamed Padura 1

You will see later, kung bakit lugi talaga yung mga Baldovinos.

3. Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and Fortunato took possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable properties). a. CFI Laguna issued a resolution declaring the legitimate children of Manuel and Candelaria are the rightful reserves and as such entitled to the 4 parcels of land 4. The Baldovinos filed this present petition wherein they seek to have the properties partitioned suh that one-half of the same be adjudicated to them, the other half to the Paduras on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from their respective parents, the original reserves. 5. The Paduras opposed, arguing that they should all (all 11 of them) be deemed inheriting in their own right hence, they should have equal shares. 6. TC rendered judgment declaring them all reservees without distinction and have equal shares over the properties as co-owners, pro indiviso.

ISSUE: should the properties be apportioned among the nephews 2 of the whole blood and nephews of the hald-blood equally? Or should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half-blood? The nephews of the whole blood get twice the share. The Baldovinos contend that notwithstanding the rule on Reservable character of the property under Art. 891, the reservatarios nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a share twice as large as that of the others pursuant to Arts. 10063, 10084 on intestate succession. The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by their relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista) o Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. (871)

2 3

or niblings kasi may nieces din na kasama Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. (949) 4 Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood. (915)

The motives for such rule were explained by D. Manuel Alonso Martinez in his book El Codigo Civil en sus relaciones con Las Legislaciones Forales 5 Summary of not so good translation: consider this sample case: father dies leaving his wife and lone son as heirs. Wife remarries and had children with 2nd husband. Lone son dies and his mother (wife) inherits whatever he got from the father. In case the wife dies, the relatives of the lone son are prejudiced since the wifes children from the second marriage will inherit the properties of the lone son as opposed to his uncle (fathers brother) The code commission chose to give more importance to lineal succession than the presumed affection of the deceased. The commission settled with the suggestion of Manresa, among others, to reserve the property in case the ascendants inherit in favor of relatives up to the third degree. No reason was given why 3rd degree. Aside from the sample case, another reason why this rule was adopted was to make it the law more democratic (Democracy was becoming a trend when the civil code was being made by the Spaniards, so fetch).

The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of origin. After that, Art. 891 has nothing to do with the relations between one reservatario and another of the same degree. Their shares should be foverned by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. Upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the reservable property should pass, not to all reservatarios as a class, but only to those nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those reseravatarios more remote in degree. o The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming the same as a reservatario of the property is not among those relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. Relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such But there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came

Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of intestate succession so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.

Passage was in Spanish. Google translate was not much help.

In determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should likewise be operative.

Reserva Troncal merely determines the group pof relatives to whom the property should be returned. Within the group, the individual right to the property should be decided by applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession (since art. 891 is silent on the matter). Reserva Troncal is an exceptional case and its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law Even during the lifetime of the reservista, the reservatarios could compel the annotation of their right (over the property) in the registry of property. The reservable property is no part of the estate of the reservista, who may not dispose them by will so long as there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios are in fact inheriting from the descendant prepositus from whom the reservista inherited the property. If the nephews of whole and half-blood inherited the prepositus directly, the whole bloods would receive a double share compared to those of the halfblood. Why then should the half-bloods inherit equally just because of the delay in the transmission of the property (when it was with the reservista)? The hereditary portions should not change Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this despite the contrary opinions of authors such as Sanchez Roman and Mucius Scaevola.

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

Justin Benedict A. Moreto