Skip to main content

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos
G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013

Ponente:

📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios.

Facts

The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner.

Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir.

Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the petition, also denying their motion for reconsideration.

Issues

1️⃣ Did the CA err in holding that the subject properties are not reservable under the family line of the petitioners Mendozas? ✔️ No.

2️⃣ Did the CA err in ruling that petitioners have no right to the properties under the law on Reserva Troncal? ✔️ No.

Ruling

📌 The CA was correct. Article 891 on Reserva Troncal does not apply to this case.

✔️ Four persons are involved in Reserva Troncal: 1️⃣ Ascendant or sibling from whom the property was inherited by the descendant/prepositus. 2️⃣ Descendant/prepositus who inherited the property. 3️⃣ Reservor/reservista, the other ascendant who acquired the property after the descendant’s death. 4️⃣ Reservee/reservatario, a relative within the third degree from the prepositus, who is entitled to the reserved property.

📌 Key Legal Principles: ✔️ Ownership should be reckoned from Exequiel, since he was the first transmission point. The law does not consider earlier ownership by Placido and Dominga in determining whether properties qualify as reservable. ✔️ The CA correctly ruled that the transmission of property from Exequiel to Gregoria was gratuitous, fulfilling the requirement of lucrative acquisition under Article 891.

📌 Why Petitioners Do Not Qualify as Reservees: ✔️ Petitioners (Mendoza et al.) are fourth-degree relatives of Gregoria, making them ineligible to claim Reserva Troncal. ✔️ Reserva Troncal only covers relatives within the third degree. ✔️ First cousins are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be reservees/reservatarios.

📌 Representation Not Applicable: ✔️ Article 891 provides only personal rights to reservees up to the third degree. ✔️ Nephews and nieces can represent their parents, but first cousins cannot claim representation for their ancestors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling and confirmed that Reserva Troncal does not apply, as petitioners were fourth-degree relatives and not entitled to the reserved properties.

📌 For further legal references, visit:

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more