lapuz.docx

7/27/2019 Lapuz.docx

1/7

Lapuz-Sy vs. Euf emio

43 SCRA 177

FACTS:

Carmen Lapuz-Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on August 1953. They

were married civilly on September 21, 1934 and canonically after nine days. They had lived together as

husband and wife continuously without any children until 1943 when her husband abandoned her. They

acquired properties during their marriage. Petitioner then discovered that her husband cohabited with a

Chinese woman named Go Hiok on or about 1949. She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal

separation, which among others, would order that the defendant Eufemio should be deprived of his share

of the conjugal partnership profits.

Eufemio counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lapuz-Sy on the ground of his

prior and subsisting marriage with Go Hiok. Trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respectiveevidence. However, before the trial could be completed, respondent already scheduled to present

surrebuttal evidence, petitioner died in a vehicular accident on May 1969. Her counsel duly notified the

court of her death. Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation on June 1969 on the

grounds that the said petition was filed beyond the one-year period provided in Article 102 of the Civil

Code and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. Petitioners counsel moved to

substitute the deceased Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz.

ISSUE: Whether the death of the plaintiff, before final decree in an action for legal separation, abate the

action and will it also apply if the action involved property rights.

HELD:

An action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved.

These rights are mere effects of decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the

decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are

merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the pendency of the action, no decree can be

forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential

rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn.

The petition of Eufemio for declaration of nullity is moot and academic and there could be no further

interest in continuing the same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Any

property rights acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6

could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of

the appellant.


2/7

Marcelina EDROSO,petitioner-appellant, vs.Pablo and Basilio SABLAN, opponent-appellees.

G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913

FACTS:

Spouses Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan had a son named, Pedro who inheritedtwo parcels of land upon the death of his father. Subsequently, Pedro died, unmarried andwithout issue, the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother. Hence thehereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration of her ownership. The twouncles of Pedro, Pablo and Basilio Sablan (legitimate brothers of Victoriano) opposed theregistration claiming that either the registration be denied or if granted to her, the right reservedby law to them be recorded in the registration of each parcel. The Court of Land Registrationdenied the registration holding that the land in question partake of the nature of propertyrequired by law to be reserved and that in such a case application could only be presented

jointly in the names of the mother and the said two uncles. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the property in question is in the nature of a reservable property.2. Whether or not Marcelina Edroso has the absolute title of the property to cause its

registration.

RULING:

A very definite conclusions of law is that the hereditary title is one without a valuableconsideration (gratuitous tile), and it is so characterized in Article 968 of the Civil Code, for hewho acquires by inheritance gives nothing in return for what he receives; and a very definiteconclusion of law also is that the uncles are within the third degree of blood relationship.

Article 811. The ascendant who inherits from his descendantproperty which the latter acquired without a valuable considerationfrom another descendant, or form a brother or sister, is underobligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law forthe relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the linewhere the property proceeded.

Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him the two parcels of landwhich he had acquired without a valuable consideration that is, by inheritance from anotherascendant, his father Victoriano. Having acquire them by operation of law, she is obligated torelatives within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria RitaFernandez (parents of Victoriano), where the lands proceeded. The trial courts ruling that theypartake of the nature property required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with thelaw.

The conclusion is that the person required by Article 811 to reserve the right has, beyondany doubt at all, the rights to use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal title and dominion,although under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has under an express provision of the lawthe right to dispose of the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under acondition. He has the right to recover it, because he is the one who possesses or shouldpossess it and have title to it, although a limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title and


3/7

dominion, even though under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After the right required bylaw to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything that a genuine owner can do.

On the other hadnt, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the right is reserved

cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually or constructively or

formally, in their possession; and moreover, because they have no title of ownership or of thefee simple which they can transmit to another, on the hypothesis that only when the person who

must reserve the right should die before them will they acquire it.

Nieva v. Alcala

FACTS:Plaintiff Segunda ma. Nieva, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter ofJuliana Nieva [baptismal; birth]and was reared as legal daughter, sought recovery of the

property invoking Art. 811: Any ascendant who inherits fromhis descendants anyproperty acquired by the latter gratuitously from some other descendant, or from a brother orsister,is obliged to reserve such of the property as he may have acquired by operation of law forthe benefit of relatives withinthe third degree belonging to the line from which such propertycame.CFI: an illegitimate relative has no right to the reserve troncal

HELD:Af firmed. Though the prov is ion does not dist ingu ish, the in tent of the legislatureshows that it appl ies only to legitimate relatives.(1) Art. 809 and 810 establish the legitime oflegitimate ascendants. Therefore, the placewhich Art. 811 occupies is proof that it refers only tolegitimate ascendants;(2) the principle which underlies Art. 811- property should not pas, byreason of newmarriage, out of the family to which they belonged.

.

CHUA v CFI (SUSANA DE LA TORRE)78 SCRA 406MARTIN; August 31, 1977

NATUREPetition for review of the decision of CFI which dismissed the complaint of petitioners

FACTS- It appears that in the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia S. Militar alias SyQuio hesired three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel. W hen Patricia died, JoseFrias Chua contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre withwhom he had achild by the name of Juanita Frias Chua.- Manuel died without leaving any issue.- Then in 1929,Jose died intestate leaving his widow Consolacion and his son Juanitoof the second marriage

and sons Ignacio and Lorenzo of his first marriage.- In the Intestate Proceeding, the lowercourt issued an order adjudicat ing , amongothers, the one-half portion of Lot No. 399 andthe sum of P8,000.00 in favor of Jose'swidow, Consolacion, the other half of Lot No. 399in favor of Juanito; P3,000.00 infavor of Lorenze; and P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio. Byvirtue of said adjudication, a TCT was issued by the Register of Deeds in the namesof Consolacion and Juanito.- On Feb.27, 1952, Juanito died intestate without any issue. Afterhis death, his motherConsolacion succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399.In a week's time,Consolacion executed a declaration of heirship adjudicating in herfavor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito as a result of which a TCT covering the whole


4/7

lot wasissued in her name. Then on March 5, 1966, Consolac ion died intestateleaving nodirect heir either in the descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters.-In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre", the petitioners herein, Ignacio, of thefirst marriage and Dominador and Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimatechildrenof the deceased Lorenzo Chua, also of the first marriage filed the complaintbefore therespondent CFI of Negros Occidental, praying that the one-half portion of Lot No. 399 which

formerly belonged to Juanito but which passed to Consolacion uponthe latter's death, bedeclared as a reservable property for the reason that the lot inquestion was subject to reservaltroncal pursuant to Article 981 of the NCC.- the respondent Court rendered adecision dismissing the complaint of petitioner.

ISSUEWON the property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his fatherJoseFrias Chua gratuitously or not. (In relation to the first requisite of reserva troncal)

HELDYES.RatioInCabardo v. Villanueva

, "The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous titlewhen the recipient does not giveanything in return." It matters not whether theproperty transmitted be or be notsubject to any prior charges; what is essential isthat the transmission be madegratuitously, or by an act of mere liberality of theperson making it, without imposingany obl igation on the part of the recipient; and that the person receiving the property givesor does nothing in return; or, as ably putby an eminent Fi lipino commentator, "theessential thing is that the person whotransmits it does so gratuitously, from puregenerosity, without requir ing from the transferee any prestation." It is evident from therecord that the transmission of theproperty in question to Juanito Frias Chua upon the death ofhis father Jose Frias Chuawas by means of a hereditary succession and thereforegratuitous. The obligation of paying the Standard Oil Co. of New York the amount of P3,971.20isimposed upon Consolacion and Juanito not personally by the deceased Jose in his lastwill and

testament but by an order of the court in the Testate Proceeding. As long asthe transmission ofthe property to the heirs is free from any condition imposed by thedeceased himself and theproperty is given out of pure generosity, it is gratuitous. Itdoes not matter if later the court ordersone of the heirs, in this case Juanito, to paythe Standard Oil Co. This does not change thegratuitous nature of the transmission of the property to him. This being the case the lot inquestion is subject to reservatroncal under Art, 891.

Reasoning- The pertinent provision of reserva troncal provides:ART. 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 orsister, 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 andbelong to the linefrom which said property came.- In order that a property may be impressed

with a reservable character the followingrequisites must exist: (1) that the property was

acquired by a descendant from anascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title;

(2) that said descendant diedwithout an issue; (3) that the property is inherited by another

ascendant by operationof law; and (4) that there are relatives within the third degree

belonging to the linefrom which said property came.- In this case, all of the foregoing

requisites are present. Juanito died intestate; he diedwithout leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso


5/7

of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was acquired byhis mother ; Juanito who died intestate had

relati ves within the third degree. These relatives are Ignacio and Dominador and

Remidios, the supposed legitimate childrenof the deceased Lorenzo, who are the

petitioners herein.

DIONISIA PADURA ET AL, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES

V.

MELANIA BALDOVINO, ET AL, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS

GR NO L-11960DECEMBER 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 spouseBenita (2

ndwife). 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 Padura1

3. Benita Garing (the reservista) died. The children of Candelaria and Fortunato took

possession of the 4 parcels of land (the reservable properties).

a. CFI Laguna issued a resolution declaring the legitimate children of Manuel and

Candelaria are the rightful reserves and as such entitled to the 4 parcels of land

4. The Baldovinos filed this present petition wherein they seek to have the properties

partitioned suh that one-half of the same be adjudicated to them, the other half to the

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


6/7

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 nephews2

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, 1008

4on 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 originallycame, and avoid its being dissipated into and by their relatives of the inheriting ascendant

(reservista)

o Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the

latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or

sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law

for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line

from which said property came. (871)

o The motives for such rule were explained by D. Manuel Alonso Martinez in his book El

Codigo Civil en sus relaciones con Las Legislaciones Forales5

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 2

nd

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).

2 or niblings kasi may nieces din na kasama3 Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the

half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. (949)4 Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in

accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood. (915)5 Passage was in Spanish. Google translate was not much help.


7/7

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

o But there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third

degree mentioned by law as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom

the reservable property came

Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of intestate succession so is

the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers

and nephews of half-blood.

o In determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the rightof 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 thereservista inherited the property.

If the nephews of whole and half-blood inherited the prepositus directly, the whole bloods

would receive a double share compared to those of the half-blood. Why then should the half-

bloods inherit equally just because of the delay in the transmission of the property (when it was

with the reservista)? The hereditary portions should not change

Philippine (and Spanish Jurisprudence) agrees with this despite the contrary opinions of authors

such as Sanchez Roman and Mucius Scaevola.

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

are nephews of Half-blood.

lapuz.docx

Documents