5/27/25, 8:27 PM G.R. No.

L-3095

Today is Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources Legal Links

Republic of the Philippines

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3095 October 25, 1951

MATILDE GUERRA, DOMINGO REYES, VIRGINIA GUERRA, and FELIX A. VILLARIN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
EULALIO TOLENTINO, ROSALIA ARROYO and PEDRO MANGUBAT, defendants-appellees.

Manuel Alvero for plaintiffs-appellants.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

This is an action for the anullment for certain deeds of donation executed by Eulalio Tolentino in favor of Pedro
Mangubat and Rosalia Arroyo on the ground of fraud with an alternative prayer that, in the remote case that the
donations are not annulled, the donor and the donees be ordered to register in the office of the register of deeds the
right of the plaintiffs as reservees of the properties subject of donation under Article 968 of the old civil code.

Plaintiffs Matilde Guerra and Virginia Guerra are the legitimate children of Hilarion Guerra who was a half-brother of
Eustaquia Azusada, wife of Eulalio Tolentino. Eustaquia Azusada owned five (5) parcels of land as paraphernal
property and other pieces of land as conjugal which she and her husband acquired during their marriage. During her
lifetime Eustaquia Azusada made a donation mortis causa in favor of her husband transferring to him all her
paraphernal properties as well as her share in the conjugal property. Eustaquia Azusada died on November 6, 1918,
leaving no child nor descendants. She died intestate. After her death her donation was admitted to probate.

On July 20, 1926, Eulalio Tolentino contracted a second marriage with one Aniceta Languban, and sometime in
1945 and 1946, he donated some of the properties to his co-defendants Rosalia Arroyo and Pedro Mangubat.
These donations, and the subsequent marriage of Eulalio Tolentino, prompted Matilde Guerra and Virginia Guerra to
file the complaint that initiated these proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Laguna.

After issues had been joined, the lower court dismissed the case holding that the plaintiffs "cannot be considered as
within the scope of the reservatario as provided for in article 968 of the Civil Code in relation with other articles of the
same code pertinent to the issue." From this decision plaintiffs have appealed.

The only issue to be determined is whether the plaintiffs can be considered as reservees of the properties donated
by the deceased Eustaquia Azusada to her husband Eulalio Tolentino under article 968 of the old civil code.

This article provides:

ART. 968. Besides the reservation imposed by Article 811, the widower or widow who contracts a second
marriage shall be obliged to reserve for the children and descendants of the first marriage the ownership of all
the property acquired from the deceased spouse by will, by intestate succession, by donation, or by any other
lucrative title; but not his or her half of the conjugal property.

The evidence shows that Matilde Guerra and Virginia Guerra are the legitimate children of Hilarion Guerra, half-
brother of Eustaquia Azusada, late wife of Eulalio Tolentino. These spouses did not have any issue nor descendant.
Eustaquia Azusada died on November 6, 1918, and on July 10, 1926, her surviving spouse Eulalio Tolentino
contracted a second marriage with Aniceta Languban. These are the only pertinent facts that need to be considered
in the determination of this issue. These facts show that in the light of article 968 of the old civil code above quoted,
no one can be considered as reservee of the properties donated because the spouses did not leave any child nor
descendant. The plaintiffs who are but half-brood nieces of the deceased do not come within the purview of said
article.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/oct1951/gr_l-3095_1951.html 1/2
5/27/25, 8:27 PM G.R. No. L-3095
But it is contended that the plaintiffs even if they are only half-blood nieces come within the purview of said article
because they are the legitimate children of a half-brother of the deceased and, therefore, they can be considered as
collateral descendants, and that the term "descendants" used in said article should be interpreted as including
descendants in the collateral line. And to bolster up this contention, counsel makes reference to article 811 of the
same code with respect to reserva troncal which provides that the ascendant who inherits from ascendant property
which the latter acquired by lucrative title from another ascendant is obliged to reserve what he has acquired in favor
of the relatives who are within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property came. His reasoning
is this. In reserva viudal there are more reasons for extending the reservees to the collateral line down to the third
degree because (a) in reserva troncal the reservista is a relative of the giver, while in reserva viudal the reservista
has no blood relation to the giver, and (b) in reserva viudal there is greater possibility that the properties may be
transmitted to strangers because the reservista has no blood relation to the giver, whereas in reserva troncal, the
reservista is a relative and his heirs would naturally be also relatives of the giver.

This argument sounds logical but loses its force when confronted with the philosophy of the article we are
considering. This article clearly provides that the reservation therein provided shall only inure to the benefit of the
children and descendants of the first marriage. And this marriage refers to the marriage of the deceased Eustaquia
Azusada and the defendant Eulalio Tolentino, dissolved in 1918 by reason of the death of the former. The word
"descendants" used in said article has its own meaning in the law, as may be gleaned from articles 916 and 917 of
the same code. It means descendants of direct descending line. A line as applied to succession may be either direct
or collateral. A direct line is one constituted by the series of degrees among persons descending one from the other.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons not descending one from the other but
proceeding from a common trunk (Article 916, Civil Code). Manresa, speaking of the scope of this article 968, says:

Pero como esta doctrina, no obstante ser la mas legal, no era por eso la mas justa, los autores del Codigo
Civil entendieron, con sobrada razon, que el fundamento y fin de las reservas exigian su establecimiento en
favor de toda la linea rectadescendente, y de aqui que el caso se halle hoy resuelto contoda claridad en los
arts. 968, 971, 972 y 973, todos los cuales hablan expresamente de hijos y descendientes legitimos. (7
Manresa, Codigo Civil, 5. ed., pp. 243-244, underscoring supplied).

Sanchez Roman makes this comment:

El reservatario o reservatarios a cuyo favor se establecen las reservas son indudablemente, despues del
Codigo (1), los hijos y descendientes legitimos y comunes del conyuge premuerto y del superstitie que por la
celebracion de nuevo matrimonio viene obligado a reservar. Las palabras "viudo" y "viuda", "hijos y
descendientes del primero", refiriendose al matrimonio disuelto, que se emplean en los arts. 968, 969, 970 y
972, y las de "hijos ydescendientes legitimos del primer matrimonio", dejan fuera de toda duda que el Codigo
solo otorga el favor de la reserva a la descendencia legitima comun del conyuge difunto y del sobreviviente
obligado a reservar. (6 Sanchez Roman, Derecho Civil, 2. ed. 1878, underscoring supplied.)

There can, therefore, be no mistake as to the proper interpretation of the words children and descendants employed
in article 968 of the Civil Code. They undoubtedly mean those who are considered as such in the light of the
meaning given to them by the said code. And the exclusive nature of the provision is reflected by the limitation that
the children and descendants referred to must be of the first marriage, meaning the marriage formed by the spouses
from whom the property came. They must be common to both spouses. They have a restricted meaning. They
exclude all other relatives belonging to the collateral line. All commentators agree on this point of view. Certainly, the
plaintiffs herein cannot pretend that they are direct descendants of the marriage formed by the spouses Eustaquia
Azusada and Eulalio Tolentino. When the terms of the law are clear there is no room for interpretation.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/oct1951/gr_l-3095_1951.html 2/2