Reserva Troncal
14856 – Florentino vs Florentino
Torres, J
Reservable property is received by the reservista’s sole heir who is only one of the resevatarios. Question is w/c should
prevail, the duty of the reservist or the legitime of her heir? The Court ruled that the reservable property is not really part of
the legitime of the heir reservist, since the latter does not really own it but acts only as usufructuary or fiduciary in favor of
the reservatarios.
DOCTRINE
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and
receives same from his descendant, therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate
of his forced heirs. It becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have died
(reservista) in which case said reservable property losses such character.
Parties:
Apolonio Florentino II died, married 2 women is his life, one after the death of the other, he dies
testate, his properties were partitioned among his heirs, living heirs wife 2, 9 children w/ wife 1 and 2 w/ his wife
2 (looking at the wives maiden names, magkapatid sila?)
Apoonio III, one of the 2 children w/ wife 2 was born a month after his father died but nevertheless he
got his share from his father’s will, he died, his properties are now being claimed as reserved properties
Severina is wife 2 of Apolinio II, Apolonio III’s mother, she inherited Apolonio III’s properties, plaintiffs
claim her to be a reservista, she died and left a will making a sole heir her daughter Mercedes
Mercedes is Apolonio III’s full blood sister
W1: Antonia Faz De Leon, w/ Apolonio II W2: Severina Faz De Leon w/ whom
begot 9 children, (plaintiffs) ApolonioII begot 2 children
1. Encarnacion 1. Mercedes (defendant
in this case w/ her husband)
2. Gabriel 2. Apolonio III-
posthumously born
3. Magdalena
4. Jose- deceased
represented by 5 children
5. Espirita- deceased
represented by 4 children
6. Pedro- deceased
represented by 2 children
7. The other died w/o
issue- Juan, Maria, Isabel
FACTS
1. Plaintiffs file a case against Mercedes Florentino and her husband, alleging the ff:
1. Apolonio II died Feb 1890 testate,he had two wills, one of w/c stated that his properties should be divided
equally among his children in both marriage, his estate was partitioned as such
2. In the partition of the said testator's estate, there was given to Apolonio III, his posthumos son, a gold
rosary, pieces of gold, of silver and of table service, livestock, palay, some personal property and other objects.
3. Apolonio III, died in 1891; that his mother, Severina, succeeded to all his property;
4. died on November 18, 1908, leaving a will instituting as her universal heiress her only living daughter,
Mercedes;
5. Mercedes daughter took possession of all the property left at the death of her mother,
6. That the properties Severina inherited from her son Apolonio III are reservable property with Severina as a
reservist, meaning she could not have instituted Mercedes as sole heir, but should’ve respected the reservation in favor of
complainants and that Mercedes should be similarly situated a reservatario only, they seek their respective share of the
properties and its fruits
2. Defendants demurred. CFI granted and upon appeal CA dismissed the case entirely.
1
1. Lower court ruled: (important, since the SC will ultimately meet this issues point by point and overturn the
lower court)
1. that reservation provisions under the Code are inapplicable;
2. that Mercedes, being the only daughter of Severina, is her forced heiress;
3. that when she inherited the property left at the death of her mother, together with that which came
from her deceased brother Apolonio III, the fundamental object of article 811 1 of the Code was complied with, since the
danger that the property coming from the same line might fall into the hands of strangers had been avoided;
4. and that the expectation on the part of the plaintiffs of the right to acquire the property of the
deceased Apolonio III never did come into existence because there is a forced heiress who is entitled to such property.
5. It is also founded on the theory that article 811 of the Civil Code does not destroy the system of
legitimate succession and that the applying the reservable right to would reduce and impair the forced legitime in violation
of the precept of article 813 which provides that the testator cannot deprive his heirs of their legitime, except in the cases
expressly determined by law.
1. Neither can he impose upon it any burden, condition, or substitution of any kind
whatsoever, saving the provisions concerning the usufruct of the surviving spouse, citing the decision of the Supreme
Court of Spain of January 4, 1911.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. whether they property left at the death of Apolonio III, the posthumos son of Apolonio II, was or was not invested
with the character of reservable property when it was received by his mother, Severina Faz de Leon- YES
1. SC: subject property without a doubt is from the common ancestor Apolonio II, and when, on the death
of Apolonio III without issue the same passed by operation of law into the hands of his legitimate mother, Severina, it
became reservable property, in accordance with the provision of article 811 of the Code, with the object that the same
should not fall into the possession of persons other than those comprehended within the order of person other than those
comprehended within the order of succession traced by the law from Apolonio Isabelo II, the source of said property.
1. Severina who inherited same from her son Apolonio III, did not thereby acquire the dominion
or right of ownership but only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary with the necessary obligation to preserve and to deliver or
return it as such reservable property to her deceased son's relatives within the third degree, among whom is her daughter,
Mercedes Florentino.
2. Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the ascendant who
inherits and receives same from his descendant, therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become
the legitimate of his forced heirs. It becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall
have died (reservista) in which case said reservable property losses such character.
1. With full right Severina could have disposed in her will of all her own property in favor of her
only living daughter, Mercedes, as forced heiress. But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the
reservable property received from her son Apolonio III, or rather, whatever provision will reduce the rights of the
other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of her daughter Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void,
inasmuch as said property is not her own and she has only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary, with the
obligation to preserve and to deliver same to the reservatarios, one of whom is her own daughter, Mercedes
Florentino.
2. If said property did not come to be the legitimate and exclusive property of Severina Faz de Leon, her
only legitimate and forced heiress, the defendant Mercedes, could not inherit all by operation of law and in accordance
with the order of legitimate succession, because the other relatives of the deceased Apolonio III, within the third degree,
as well as herself are entitled to such reservable property.
3. There is therefore no reduction or impairment of Mercedes’s legitime. (kasi nga di naman kay
absolutely owned ni Severina yung props)
3. Just because Severina has a forced heiress, with a right to her inheritance, does not relieve Severina of her
obligation to reserve the property which she received from her deceased son, nor did same lose the character of
reservable property, held before the reservatarios received same.
4. It is true that when Mercedes Florentino, the heiress of the reservista Severina, took possession of the property
in question, same did not pass into the hands of strangers. But it is likewise true that the said Mercedes is not the only
reservataria. And there is no reason founded upon law and upon the principle of justice why the other reservatarios, the
other brothers and nephews, relatives within the third degree in accordance with the precept of article 811 of the Civil
Code, should be deprived of portions of the property which, as reservable property, pertain to them.
5. Prayer for damages denied, but for fruits or rents of land granted.
1
Any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property acquired by the latter gratuitously from some other ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such of the property as he may
have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property came.
2
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Judgment reversed. SC ruled ifo plaintiff-pets
