Lot 1681-B and Lot
1684 are presently in the name of respondent Julia Delos Santos; while Lot
No. 1646-B on the other hand, is also in the name of respondent but co-owned by
Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the property from petitioner Maria
Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners are
grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza, who had four children: Antonio,
Exequiel, Apolonio and Valentin. Petitioners Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia,
Adoracion, Marcela and Ricardo are the children of Antonio. Petitioners
Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and Fortunato, on the other hand, are Valentin’s
children. Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and
Dominga’s properties that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently
adjudicated to Exequiel. After Exequiel’s death, it passed on to his spouse
Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s death, her share went to
Gregoria. Later, Gregoria died intestate and without issue. They claimed that
after Gregoria’s death, respondent Julia, who is Leonor’s sister, adjudicated
unto herself all these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor and
Gregoria. Hence, petitioners claim that the properties should have been
reserved by respondent in their behalf and must now revert back to them,
applying Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal.
Respondent, however,
denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not originate from
petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by Placido and
Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by Exequiel and
Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos. It appears, however, that it was only
Exequiel who was in possession of the properties. The RTC found merit in petitioners’ claim and
granted their action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal,
Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance.
On appeal, the Court
of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint
filed by petitioners.
Q:
Is the Court of Appeals correct in reversing and setting aside the RTC
decision?
A:
Yes, the Court of Appeals is correct in reversing and setting aside the RTC
decision.
The
principle of reserva troncal is provided in Article 891 of the Civil Code which
states:
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 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 belong to the line from which said property came.
Based on the
circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not
applicable. While it may appear that the properties are reservable in
character, petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal. First, because
Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant
within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because
petitioners are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree. Petitioners
are Gregoria’s fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins
of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or
reservatarios.
Hence, the CA’s
disposition that the complaint filed with the RTC should be dismissed, is
correct.
