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

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

Facts: 

The subject parcel of land in this case was 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 who are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido) and Dominga Mendoza (Dominga) 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; but thereafter went to Gregoria when Leonor died after. Gregoria died intestate, and thereafter, respondent, 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. The RTC granted their action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance but on appeal to the CA, however, reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioners and also denied their motion for reconsideration. 

Issue:

1. Won the CA grievously erred in holding that the subject properties are not reservable properties, coming as they do from the family line of the petitioners Mendozas. - NO

2. Won CA grievously erred in holding that the petitioners Mendozas do not have a right to the subject properties by virtue of the law on reserva troncal. - NO

Held:

1. The CA is correct. Based on the circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on Reserva Troncal is not applicable. The persons involved in reserva troncal are: (1) The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title; (2) The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received the property; (3) The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who obtained the property from the prepositus by operation of law; and (4) The reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the (linea o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.

It should be pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from Exequiel’s as he is the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred, or from whom Gregoria inherited the properties in dispute. The law does not go farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal character of the property. It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and Dominga or whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originally came. Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from Exequiel by gratuitous title.

Moreover, Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. A transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. At risk of being repetitious, what was clearly established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned by Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the properties as inheritance.

2. Petitioners, Mendoza et al cannot be considered reservees/ reservatarios as they are not relatives within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came. The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus―the one at the end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this case. 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. 

They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as Article 891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the third degree from whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized exemption is in the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the third degree.