University of the Philippines College of Law

3D

Topic Reserva Troncal; Nature of

RELEVANT FACTS

 Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he had four children named
Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while with his second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named
Francisco. Upon Saturnino’s death, the properties were left to his children as follows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot
3367 to Fernando, Lot 3375 to Agaton, Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina, and Lot 3368 (western portion) to
Francisco.
 As a result of the cadastral proceedings, an OCT covering Lot 3368 was issued in the name of Francisco. Because
Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother administered the property for him, declared it in her name for
taxation purposes, and paid the taxes due thereon.
 When Francisco died on 1932 at the age of 20, single and without any descendant, his mother, as his sole heir,
executed the public instrument of extrajudicial settlement and sale whereby for and in consideration of the sum
of P800.00 she sold the property in question to petitioner Constancio Sienes et al. Sienes demanded from
Paulina Yaeso and her husband Jose Esparcia the surrender of the OCT which was in their possession. The latter
refused, so there was a motion in the cadastral proceedings. It was denied.
 On 1951, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who as such had declared the
property in their name, executed a deed of sale in favor of the respondent spouses Esparcia.
 Sienes commenced this action to have the sale in favor of Esparcia declared void and to have the land reconveyed
to them. Sps. Esparcia disclaimed any knowledge or information regarding the sale allegedly made by Andrea
Gutang in favor of Sienes and alleged that, if such sale was made, the same was void on the ground that Andrea
Gutang had no right to dispose of the property subject matter thereof. They further alleged that said property
had never been in possession of Sienes, since they, as owners, had been in continuous possession thereof since
the death of Francisco Yaeso by virtue of the registered sale in their favor.
 TC declared BOTH sales in favor of Sienes and Esparcia to be void, and ordered that the reservable property in
question is part of and must be reverted to the estate of Cipriana Yaeso, the lone surviving relative and heir of
Francisco Yaeso at the death of Andrea Gutang as of December 1951.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N Lot 3368 was reservable YES.
property?
The land in question was reservable property. Francisco Yaeso inherited it by
operation of law from his father Saturnino, and upon Francisco's death,
unmarried and without descendants, it was inherited, in turn, by his mother,
Andrea Gutang. The latter was, therefore, under obligation to reserve it for the
benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
said property came, if any survived her. Andrea Gutang died on December 13,
1951, the lone reservee surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on
January 13, 1952.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
3D

In connection with reservable property, the weight of opinion is that the reserve
creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the ascendant
obliged to reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came.
This Court has held in connection with this matter that the reservista has the
legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to a resolutory
condition; that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property; that he
may alienate the same but subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting
only the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists, the rights
acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of
reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista.

The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of Sienes was, therefore, subject to
the condition that the vendees would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of
the alienation, only if the vendor died without being survived by any person
entitled to the reservable property. When Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso
was still alive, thus the previous sale made by Gutang in favor of Sines became
of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in
exclusive ownership to Cipriana.

On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina
and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of spouses Esparcia was subject to a similar
resolutory condition. The reserve instituted by law in favor of 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. While it
may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this event, became
effective because of the occurrence of the resolutory condition, we are not now
in a position to reverse the appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion
of the property in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the
vendees — the Esparcia spouses did — not appeal therefrom.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision — as above modified — is affirmed, with costs, and without prejudice to
whatever action in equity the Esparcia spouses may have against the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso for the reconveyance of
the property in question.