MARCELINA EDROSO, petitioner-appellant,
-versus-
PABLO and BASILIO SABLAN, opponents-appellees.
G.R. No. 6878 September 13, 1913
ARELLANO, C.J.:
FACTS: Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22, 1882. In
this marriage they had a son named Pedro, who was born on August 1, 1881, and who at his father's
death inherited the two parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and without issue and by
this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso. She
then filed for the registration and issuance of the titles of the lot under her name.
Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming
one of two things: Either that the registration be denied, "or that if granted to her the right reserved by law
to the opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel."
Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in question partake of the
nature of property required 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 of Pedro Sablan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject property is reservable.
HELD: Yes. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired without a
valuable consideration from another ascendant, or from 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 whence the property proceeded. (Civil Code, art. 811).
Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan, inherited from him these two parcels of land which he had
acquired without a valuable consideration — that is, by inheritance from another ascendant, his father
Victoriano. Having acquired them by operation of law, she is obligated to relatives within the third degree
and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the lands proceeded. The
trial court's ruling that they partake of the nature property required by law to be reserved is therefore in
accordance with the law.
No error has been incurred in holding that the two parcels of land which are the subject matter of the
application are required by law to be reserved, because the interested party has not proved that either of
them became her inheritance through the free disposal of her son.
The ascendant who inherits from a descendant, whether by the latter's wish or by operation of law,
requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of
the right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery. This absolute
ownership, which is inherent in the hereditary title, is not altered in the least, if there be no relatives within
the third degree in the line whence the property proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir who is the
possessor and absolute owner of the property. If there should be relatives within the third degree who
belong to the line whence the property proceeded, then a limitation to that absolute ownership would
arise. The nature and scope of this limitation must be determined with exactness in order not to vitiate
rights that the law wishes to be effective. On the other hand, 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,
constructively or formally, in their possession; and, moreover, because they have no title of ownership or
of the fee 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, thus creating a fee simple, and only then
will they take their place in the succession of the descendants of whom they are relatives within the third
degree, that it to say, a second contingent place in said legitimate succession in the fashion of aspirants
to a possible future legacy. If any of the persons in whose favor the right is reserved should, after their
rights has been assured in the registry, dare to dispose of even nothing more than the fee simple of the
property to be reserved his act would be null and void.
