Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the heirs within the third degree belonging to the line from
which the reservable property came, constitutes a real right
which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, albeit
conditionally, the condition being that the alienation shall
transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee
survives the person obliged to reserve. In the present case,
Cipriana Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when
Andrea Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died. Thus the
former became the absolute owner of the reservable property
upon Andrea's death.
Republic
SUPREME
Manila
of
the
Philippines
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
other's house which are not far away for (sic) each other. (p.
234, Record; Emphasis supplied.)
Pursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of
the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation,
Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel,
filed on March 8, 1977 Spl. Proceeding No. 2540 for her
appointment as special administratrix of the estate of Esteban
Javellana, Jr. (Exh. 2). Later, she filed an amended petition
(Exh. 5) praying that letters of administration be issued to her;
that she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after
payment of all claims and rendition of inventory and
accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her (p. 115, Rollo).
After due publication and hearing of her petition, as well as
her amended petition, she was declared sole heir of the estate
of Esteban Javellana, Jr. She explained that this was done for
three reasons: (1) because the properties of the estate had
come from her sister, Salustia Solivio; (2) that she is the
decedent's nearest relative on his mother's side; and (3) with
her as sole heir, the disposition of the properties of the estate
to fund the foundation would be facilitated.
On April 3, 1978, the court (Branch II, CFI, now Branch 23,
RTC) declared her the sole heir of Esteban, Jr. Thereafter, she
sold properties of the estate to pay the taxes and other
obligations of the deceased and proceeded to set up
the "SALUSTIA
SOLIVIO
VDA.
DE
JAVELLANA
FOUNDATION" which she caused to be registered in the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17,1981 under
Reg. No. 0100027 (p. 98, Rollo).
Four months later, or on August 7, 1978, Concordia Javellana
Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
order declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of Esteban, Jr.,
because she too was an heir of the deceased. On October 27,
1978, her motion was denied by the court for tardiness (pp.
80-81, Record). Instead of appealing the denial, Concordia
filed on January 7, 1980 (or one year and two months later),
Civil Case No. 13207 in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
Branch 26, entitled "Concordia Javellana- Villanueva v.
Celedonia Solivio" for partition, recovery of possession,
ownership and damages.
On September 3, 1984, the said trial court rendered judgment
in Civil Case No. 13207, in favor of Concordia JavellanaVillanueva.
On Concordia's motion, the trial court ordered the execution of
its judgment pending appeal and required Celedonia to submit
an inventory and accounting of the estate. In her motions for
reconsideration of those orders, Celedonia averred that the
properties of the deceased had already been transferred to, and
were in the possession of, the 'Salustia Solivio Vda. de
Javellana Foundation." The trial court denied her motions for
reconsideration.
In the meantime, Celedonia perfected an appeal to the Court of
Appeals (CA GR CV No. 09010). On January 26, 1988, the
Court of Appeals, Eleventh Division, rendered judgment
affirming the decision of the trial court in toto.Hence, this
Republic
SUPREME
Manila
MARIA
CANO, applicant-appellee,
vs.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, EUSTAQUIA GUERRERO, ET
AL., oppositors-appellants.
JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10701
Ramon
C.
Fernandez
Jose B. Dealca for appellee.
for
appellants.
endoza
GR
No
v
176422,
Delos
March
20,
Santos
2013
MARIA MENDOZA, in her own capacity and as Attorney-infact of DEOGRACIAS, MARCELA, DIONISIA, ADORA
CION, all surnamed MENDOZA, REMEDIOS MONTILLA,
FELY BAUTISTA, JULIANA GUILALAS and ELVIRA
MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
vs.
JULIA POLl CARPIO DELOS SANTOS, substituted by her
heirs, CARMEN P. DELOS SANTOS, ROSA BUENA
VENTURA, ZENAIDA P. DELOS SANTOS VDA. DE
MATEO, LEONILA P. DELOS SANTOS, ELVIRA P. DELOS
SANTOS VDA. DE JOSE, TERESITA P. DELOS SANTOSCABUHAT, MERCEDITA P. DELOS SANTOS, LYDIA P.
DELOS SANTOS VDA. DE HILARIO, PERFECTO P.
DELOS SANTOS, JR., and CECILIA M. MENDOZA,
Respondents.
FACTS:
The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of
land located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan are presently in the name
of respondent Julia Delos Santos (respondent). Lot No. 1646B, on the other hand, is also in the name of respondent but coowned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the
property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido)
and Dominga Mendoza (Dominga). Petitioners alleged that the
properties were part of Placido and Domingas properties that
were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated
to Exequiel. After Exequiels death, it passed on to his spouse
Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonors death, her
share went to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died intestate and
without issue. They claimed that after Gregorias death,
respondent, who is Leonors 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.
DECISION
OF
LOWER
COURTS:
(1) RTC: granted their action for Recovery of Possession by
Reserva Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance.
(2) CA: reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed
the complaint filed by petitioners. CA also denied their motion
for
reconsideration.
ISSUES:
A. THE HONORABLE [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.
B. THE HONORABLE [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.
APPLICABLE LAW: