9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

[No. 6878. September 13, 1913.]

MARCELINA EDROSO, petitioner and appellant, vs.

PABLO and BASILIO SABLAN, opponents and
appellees.

1. ESTATES; DUTY OF ASCENDANT, WHO

INHERITS THROUGH A DECENDANT, TO
RESERVE THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW; ARTICLE 811, CIVIL CODE.
Property which an ascendant inherits by operation
of law from his descendant and which was inherited
by the latter f rom another ascendant of his, must be
reserved by the ascendant heir in favor of uncles of
the descendant from whom the inheritance
proceeded, who are his father's brothers,

296

296 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

because they are relatives within the third degree, if

they belong to the line whence the property
proceeded, according to the provisions of article 811
of the Civil Code.

2. ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF PERSONS FOR WHOM

SUCH PROPERTY IS RESERVED.Since the
reservation does not imply cownership of any kind
between the reservor and the reservees, that is,
between the ascendant who is the immediate heir of
the person from whom the inheritance proceeded
and who is the actual owner of the property to be
reserved and the relatives within the third degree of
such person, who are merely in their turn and
eventually his possible heirs in second place, if they
outlive the heir who .must make the reservation,
such reservees, with only the expectation of
inheriting, are not in law entitled to act and be
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

regarded as though they actually participated in the

ownership of the property to be registered by taking
part or pretending to take part in the application for
registration which the reservor presents; the fact
being that with such expectation of inheriting,
which is neither a real nor a personal right, but at
most a legitimate expectation of a right, they cannot
be better off than a mortgagee who has a real right
to the property that his debtor attempts to register,
and yet the Land Registration Act (No. 496, sec. 19
b) only grants him the right that the application of
the mortgagor cannot be presented without his
consent in writing.

3. ID. ; ID. ; RIGHT OF ASCENDANT TO DISPOSE

OF OR REGISTER THE PROPERTY IN His OWN
NAME.The heir of real property who has beyond
any doubt the rights of using and enjoying it, and
even of alienating it, is not prevented from himself
alone registering the title to the property he has
inherited, merely because to his right of disposal
there is annexed a condition subsequent arising
from the expectation of a right, when the reservees
who have that expectation of a right agreed thereto,
provided that, in accordance with the law, the
reservable character of such property in their favor
be entered in the record.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Land

Registration. George, J.
The f acts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Francisco Dominguez, for appellant.
Crispin Oben, for appellees.

ARELLANO, C. J.:

The subject matter of this appeal is the registration of

297

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 297

Edroso vs. Sablan.

certain property classified as required by law to be

reserved. Marcelina Edroso applied for registration
and issuance of title to two parcels of land situated in
the municipality of Pagsanjan, Province of Laguna,
one of 1 hectare 77 ares and 63 centares, and the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

other of 1 hectare 6 ares and 26 centares. Two

applications were filed, one for each parcel, but both
were heard and decided in a single judgment.
Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano
Sablan until his death on September 22,1882. In this
marriage they had a son named Pedro, who was born
on August 1, 1881, and who at his father's death
inherited the two said parcels. Pedro also died on July
15, 1902, unmarried and without issue, and by his
decease the two parcels of land passed through
inheritance to his mother, Marcelina Edroso. Hence
the hereditary title whereupon is based the
application for registration of her ownership.
Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablanthat
is, two uncles german of Pedro Sablanappeared in
the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of
two things: Either that the registration be denied, "or
that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the
opponents be recorded in the registration of each
parcel." (B. of E., 11,12.)
The Court of Land Registration denied the
registration and the applicant appealed through a bill
of exceptions. Registration was denied because the
trial court held that the parcels of land in question
partake of the nature of property required by law to
be reserved and that in such a case application could
only be presented jointly in the names of the mother
and the said two uncles of Pedro Sablan.
The appellant impugns as erroneous the first idea
advanced (second assignment of error), and denies
that the lands which are the subject matter of the
application are required by law to be reserveda
contention we regard as indefensible.
Facts: (1) The applicant acquired said lands from
her descendant Pedro Sablan by inheritance; (2)
Pedro Sablan had acquired them from his ascendant
Victoriano Sablan, likewise by inheritance; (3)
Victoriano Sablan had likewise

298

298 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan,

acquired them by inheritance f rom his ascendants,

Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez, they
having been adjudicated to him in the partition of

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

hereditary property had between him and his

brothers. These are admitted facts.
A very definite conclusion of law is that the
hereditary title is one without a valuable
consideration [gratuitous title], and it is so
characterized in article 968 of the Civil Code, for he
who acquires by inheritance gives nothing in return
for what he receives; and a very definite conclusion of
law also is that the uncles german are within the
third degree of blood relationship.
"The ascendant who inherits from his descendant
property which the latter acquired without a valuable
consideration from another ascendant, or from a
brother or sister, is under obligation to reserve what
he has acquired by operation of law for the relatives
who are within the third degree and belong to the line
whence the property proceeded." (Civil Code, art.
811.)
Marcelina Edroso, ascendant of Pedro Sablan,
inherited from him these two parcels of land which he
had acquired without a valuable considerationthat
is, by inheritance from another ascendant, his father
Victoriano. Having acquired them by operation of law,
she is obligated to reserve them intact for the
claimants, who are uncles or relatives within the
third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan
and Maria Rita Fernandez, whence the lands
proceeded. The trial court's ruling that they partake
of the nature of property required by law to be
reserved is therefore in accordance with the law.
But the appellant contends that it is not proven
that the two parcels of land in question have been
acquired by operation of law, and that only property
acquired without a valuable consideration, which is
by operation of law, is required by law to be reserved.
The appellees justly argue that this defense was
not alleged or discussed in first instance, but only
herein. Certainly, the allegation in first instance was
merely that "Pedro Sablan acquired the property in
question in 1882,
299

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 299

Edroso vs. Sablan.

before the enforcement orcement of the Civil Code,

which establishes the alleged right required by law to
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

be reserved, of which the opponents speak; hence,

prescription of the right of action; and, finally,
opponents' renunciation of their right, admitting that
it existed and that they, had it" (p. 49).
However that be, it is not superfluous to say,
although it may be unnecessary, that the applicant
inherited the two parcels of land from her son Pedro,
who died "unmarried and without issue." The trial
court so held as a conclusion of fact, without any
objection on the appellant's part. (B. of E., 17, 20.)
When Pedro Sablan died without issue, his mother
became his heir by virtue of her right to her son's
legal portion under article 935 of the Civil Code: "In
the absence of legitimate children and descendants of
the deceased, his ascendants shall inherit from him,
to the exclusion of collaterals."
The contrary could only have occurred if the
heiress had demonstrated that any of these lands had
passed into her possession by free disposal in her
son's will; but the case presents no testamentary
provision that demonstrates any transfer of property
from the son to the mother, not by operation of law,
but by her son's wish. The legal presumption is that
the transfer of the two parcels of land was abintestate
or by operation of law, and not by will or the wish of
the predecessor in interest. (Act No. 190, sec. 334, No.
26.) All the provisions of article 811 of the Civil Code
have therefore been fully complied with.
If Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will
as the universal heiress of his property, all he left at
death would not be required by law to be reserved,
but only what he would have perforce left her as the
legal portion of a legitimate ascendant.
"The legal portion of the parents or ascendants is
constituted by one-half of the hereditary estate of the
children and descendants. The latter may
unrestrictedly dispose of the other half, with the
exception of what is established in article 836." (Civil
Code, art. 809.)
In such case only the half constituting the legal
portion
300

300 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

would be required by law to be reserved, because it is

what by operation of law would fall to the mother
from her son's inheritance; the other half at free
disposal would not have to be reserved. This is all
that article 811 of the Civil Code says.
No error has been incurred in holding that the two
parcels of land which are the subject matter of the
application are required by law to be reserved,
because the interested party has not proved that
either of them became her inheritance through the
free disposal of her son.
Proof of testate succession devolves upon the heir
or heiress who alleges it. It must be admitted that a
half of Pedro Sablan's inheritance was acquired by his
mother by operation of law. The law provides that the
other half is also presumed to be acquired by
operation of lawthat is, by intestate succession.
Otherwise, proof to offset this presumption must be
presented by the interested party, that is, that the
other half was acquired by the man's wish and not by
operation of law.
Nor is the third assignment- of error admissible
that the trial court failed to sustain the renunciation
of the right required by law to be reserved, which the
applicant attributes to the opponents. Such
renunciation does not appear in the case. The
appellant deduces it from the fact that the appellees
did not contradict the f ollowing statement of hers at
the trial:
"The day after my brother-in-law Pablo Sablan
died and was buried, his brother came to my house
and said that those rice lands were mine, because we
had already talked about making delivery of them" (p.
91).
The other brother alluded to is "Basilio Sablan, as
stated on page 92. From the f act that Basilio Sablan
said that the lands belong to the appellant and must
be delivered to her it cannot be deduced that he
renounced the right required by law to be reserved in
such lands by virtue of the provisions of article 811 of
the Civil Code, for they really belong to her and must
be delivered to her.
The fourth assignment of error sets up the defense
of pre-
301

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 301

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

Edroso vs. Sablan.

scription of the right of action. The appellant alleges

prescription of the opponents' right of action f or
requiring f ulfillment of the obligation they attribute
to her recording in the property registry the right
required by law to be reserved, in accordance with the
provisions of the Mortgage Law; and as such
obligation is created by law, it prescribes in the time
fixed in No. 2 of section 43 of Act No. 190. She adds:
"Prescription of the right alleged to be reserved by
force of law has not been invoked." (Eighth
allegation.)
The appellant does not state in her brief what
those provisions of the Mortgage Law are. Nor did she
do so in first instance, where she says only the f
ollowing, which is quoted from the record: "I do not
refer to the prescription of the right required by law
to be reserved in the property; I refer to the
prescription of the right of action of those who are
entitled to the guaranty of that right for seeking .that
guaranty, for to those who are entitled to that right
the Mortgage Law grants a period of time f or
recording it in the property registry, if I remember
correctly, ninety days, for seeking entry in the
registry; but as they have not exercised that right of
action, such right of action for seeking here that it be
recorded has prescribed. The right of action for
requiring that the property be reserved has not
prescribed, but the right of action for guaranteeing in
the property registry that this property is required by
law to be reserved" (p. 69 of the record).
The appellees reply: It is true that their right of
action has prescribed f or requiring the applicant to
constitute the mortgage imposed by the Mortgage
Law for guaranteeing the effectiveness of the right
required by law to be reserved; but because that right
of action has prescribed, that property has not been
divested of its character of property required by law to
be reserved; that it has such character by virtue of
article 811 of the Civil Code, which went into effect in
the Philippines in December, 1889, and not by virtue
of the Mortgage Law, which only went into effect in
the country by law of July 14, 1893; that f rom
December, 1889, to July, 1893, property which under
article 811 of the Civil Code
302

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

302 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

acquired the character of property reserved by

operation of law was such independently of the
Mortgage Law, which did not yet form part of the
positive legislation of the country; that although the
Mortgage Law has been in effect in the country since
July, 1893, still it has in no way altered the force of
article 811 of the Civil Code, but has operated to
reinforce the same merely by granting the right of
action to the persons in whose favor the right is
reserved by operation of law to require of the person
holding the property a guaranty in the form of a
mortgage to answer for the enforcement, in due time,
of the right; that to lose the right of action to the
guaranty is not to lose the right itself; that the right
reserved is the principal obligation and the mortgage
the accessory obligation, and loss of the accessory
does not mean loss of the principal. (Fifth and sixth
allegations.)
The existence of the right required by law to be
reserved in the two parcels of land in question being
indisputable, even though it be admitted that the
right of action which the Mortgage Law grants as a
guaranty of final enforcement of such right has
prescribed, the only thing to be determined in this
appeal is the question raised in the first assignment
of error, that is, how said two parcels of land can and
ought to be registered, not in the property registry
established by the Mortgage Law, but in the registry
newly organized by Act No. 496. . But as there have
slipped into the allegations quoted some rather
inexact ideas that further obscure such an intricate
subject as this of the rights required to be reserved in
Spanish-Philippine law, a brief digression on the most
essential points may not be out of place here.
The Mortgage Law of July 14, 1893, to which the
appellees allude, is the amended one of the colonies,
not the first enforced in the colonies and consequently
in the Philippines. The preamble of said amended
Mortgage Law states:
"The Mortgage Law in force in Spain for thirty
years went into effect, with the modifications
necessary for its adaptation, in the Antilles on May 1,
1880, and in the Philippines on December 1, 1889,
thus commencing in those

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

303

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 303

Edroso vs. Sablan.

regions the renovation of the law on real property,

and consequently of agrarian credit."
The Civil Code went into effect in the Philippines
in the same year, 1889, but on the eighth day.
Two kinds of property required by law to be
reserved are distinguished in the Civil Code, as set
forth in article 968 thereof, where it says:
"Besides the reservation imposed by article 811,
the widow or widower contracting a second marriage
shall be obliged to set apart for the children and
descendants of the first marriage the ownership of all
the property he or she may have acquired from the
deceased spouse by will, by intestate succession, by
gift, or other transfer without a valuable
consideration."
The Mortgage Law of Spain and the first law that
went into effect in the Philippines on December 1,
1889, do not contain any provision that can be applied
to the right reserved by article 811 of the Civil Code,
for such right is a creation of the Civil Code. In those
laws appear merely the provisions intended to
guarantee the effectiveness of the right in favor of the
children of the first marriage when their f ather or
mother contracts a second marriage. Nevertheless,
the holding of the supreme court of Spain, for the first
time set forth in the decision on appeal of November
8, 1894, has been reiterated:
"That while the provisions of articles 977 and 978
of the Civil Code that tend to secure the right
required to be reserved in the property ref er
especially to the spouses who contract second or later
marriages, they do not thereby cease to be applicable
to the right established in article 811, because, aside
from the legal reason, which is the same in both
cases, such must be the construction from the
important and conclusive circumstance that said
provisions are set f orth in the chapter that deals with
inheritances in common, either testate or intestate,
and because article 968, which heads the section that
deals in general with property required by law to be
reserved, makes reference to the provisions in article
811; and it would consequently be con-

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

304

304 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan,

tradictory to the principle of the law and of the

common nature of said provisions not to hold them
applicable to that right."
Thus it was again stated in a decision on appeal,
December 30, 1897, that: "As the supreme court has
already declared, the guaranties that the Code fixes
in articles 977 and 978 for the rights required by law
to be reserved to which said articles refer, are
applicable to the special right dealt with in article
811, because the same principle exists and because of
the general nature of the provisions of the chapter in
which they are found."
From this principle of jurisprudence it is inferred
that if from December, 1889, to July, 1893, a case had
occurred of a right required to be reserved by article
811, the persons entitled to such right would have
been able to institute, against the ascendant who
must make the reservation, proceedings for the
assurance and guaranty that articles 977 and 978
grant to the children of a first marriage against their
father or mother who has married again. The
proceedings for assurance, under article 977, are:
Inventory of the property subject to the right
reserved, annotation in the property registry of such
right reserved in the real property and appraisal of
the personal property; and the guaranty, under article
978, is the assurance by mortgage, in the case of
realty, of the value of what is validly alienated.
But since the amended Mortgage Law went into
effect by law of July 14, 1893, in the Philippines this
is not only a principle of jurisprudence which may be
invoked for the applicability to the right reserved in
article 811 of the remedies of assurance and guaranty
provided for the right reserved in article 968, but
there is a positive provision of said law, which is an
advantage over the law of Spain, to wit, article 199,
which read thus:
"The special mortgage for guaranteeing the right
reserved by article 811 of the Civil Code can only be
required by the relatives in whose favor the property
is to be reserved, if they are of age; if minors, it will be

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

required by the persons who should legally represent

them. In either
305

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 305

Edroso vs. Sablan.

case the right of the persons in whose favor the

property must be reserved will be secured by the same
requisites as set forth in the preceding articles
(relative to the right reserved by article 968 of the
Civil Code), applying to the person obligated to
reserve the right the provisions with respect to the
father"
In article 168 of the same law the new subsection 2
is added in connection with article 199 quoted, so that
said article 168 reads thus:
"Legal mortgage is established:
"1. * * *
"2. In favor of the relatives to whom article 811 of
the Civil Code refers, for the property required to be
reserved, upon the property of the person obligated to
reserve it."
This being admitted, and admitted also that both
the litigating parties agree that the period of ninety
days fixed f or the right of action to the guaranty, that
is, to require the mortgage that guarantees the
effectiveness of the right required by law to be
reserved, has prescribed, it is necessary to lay down a
principle in this matter. Now it should be noted that
such action has not prescribed, because the period of
ninety days fixed by the Mortgage Law is not for the
exercise of the right of action of the persons entitled
to the right reserved, but for the fulfillment of the
obligation of the person who must make the
reservation.
Article 191 of the law reads thus: "If ninety days
pass without the father's instituting in court the
proceeding to which the foregoing article refers, the
relatives themselves may demand fulfillment, etc., * *
* applying, accord-ing to said article 199, to the
person obligated to reserve the right the provisions
with respect to the father."
Article 203 of the regulation for the application of
the Mortgage Law says: "In the case of article 199 of
the law the proceedings to which article 190 thereof
refers will be instituted within the ninety days
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

succeeding the date of the date of the acceptation of

the inheritance by the person obligated to reserve the
property; after this period has
306

306 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

elapsed, the interested parties may require the

institution of such proceedings, if they are of age; and
in any other case, their legal representatives."
Thus it clearly appears that the lapse of the ninety
days is not the expiration by prescription of the period
for the exercise of this right of action by the persons
in whose favor the right must be reserved, but really
the commencement thereof, and enables them to
exercise it at any time, since no limit is set in the law.
So, if the annotation of the right required by law to be
reserved in the two parcels of land in question must
be made in the property registry of the Mortgage Law,
the persons entitled to it may now institute
proceedings to that end, and an allegation of
prescription against the exercise of such right of
action cannot be sustained.
Since the applicant confesses that she does not
allege prescription of the right of action for requiring
that the property be reserved, for she explicitly so
stated at the trial, and as. the case presents no
necessity for the proceedings that should be instituted
in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage
Law, this prescription of the right of action cannot
take place, because such right of action does not exist
with reference to instituting proceedings for
annotation in the registry of Act No. 496 of the right
to the property required by law to be reserved. It is
sufficient, as was done in the present case, to
intervene in the registration proceedings with the
claim set up by the two opponents for recording
therein the right reserved in either parcel of land.
Now comes the main point in the appeal. The trial
court denied the registration because of this finding
set forth in its decision:
"Absolute title to the two parcels of land
undoubtedly belongs to the applicant and the two
uncles of the deceased Pedro Sablan, and the
application cannot be made except in the name of all
of them in common." (B. of E., p. 20.)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

It must be remembered that absolute title consists

of the rights to use, enjoy, dispose of, and recover. The
person who has in himself all these rights has the
absolute or
307

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 307

Edroso vs. Sablan.

complete ownership of the thing; otherwise, the

person who has the rights to use and enjoy will have
the usufruct, and the person who has the rights of
disposal and recovery the direct title. The person who
by law, act, or contract is granted the right of usufruct
has the first two rights of using and enjoying, and
then he is said not to have the fee simplethat is, the
rights of disposal and recovery, which pertain to
another who, after the usufruct expires, will come into
f full ownership.
The question set up in the first assignment of error
of the appellant's brief is this:
"What are the rights in the property of the person
who holds it subject to the reservation of article 811 of
the Civil Code?"
There are not lacking writers who say, only those
of a usufructuary, the ultimate title belonging to the
persons in whose favor the reservation is made. If
that were so, the person holding the property could
not apply for registration of title, but the person in
whose favor it must be reserved, with the former's
consent. This opinion does not seem to be admissible,
although it appears to be supported by decisions of
the supreme court of Spain of May 21, 1861, and June
18, 1880, prior to the Civil Code, and of June 22,
1895, somewhat subsequent to the enforcement
thereof.
Another writer says: "This opinion only looks at
two salient pointsthe usufruct and the fee simple;
the remaining features of the arrangement are not
perceived, but become obscured in the presence of
that deceptive emphasis which only brings out two
things: that the person holding the property will enjoy
it and that he must keep what he enjoys for other
persons." (Manresa, VII, 189.)
In another place he says: "We do not believe that
the third opinion can now be maintainedthat is,
that the-surviving spouse (the person obligated by
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

article 968 to make the reservation) can be regarded

as a mere usufructuary and the descendants
immediately as the owner; such theory has no serious
foundation in the Code." (Ibid., 238.)
The ascendant who inherits from a descendant,
whether
308

308 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

by the latter's wish or by operation of law, acquires

the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of
the right of ownership belong to him exclusivelyuse,
enjoyment, disposal and recovery. This absolute
ownership, which is inherent in the hereditary title, is
not altered in the least, if there be no relatives within
the third degree in the line whence the property
proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir who is
the possessor and absolute owner of the property. If
there should be relatives within the third degree who
belong to the line whence the property proceeded,
then a limitation to that absolute ownership would
arise. The nature and scope of this limitation must be
determined with exactness in order not to vitiate
rights that the law wishes to be effective. The opinion
which makes this limitation consist in reducing the
ascendant heir to the condition of a mere
usufructuary, depriving him of the right of disposal
and recovery, does not seem to have any support in
the law, as it does not have, according to the opinion
that has been expressed in speaking of the rights of
the father or mother who has married again. There is
a marked difference between the case where a man's
wish institutes two persons as his heirs, one as
usufructuary and the other as owner of his property,
and the case of the ascendant in article 811 or of the
father or mother in article 968. In the first case, there
is not the slightest doubt that the title to the
hereditary property resides in the hereditary owner
and only he can dispose of and recover it, while the
usufructuary can in no way perform any act of
disposal of the hereditary property (except that he
may dispose of the right of usufruct in accordance
with the provisions of article 480 of the Civil Code), or
any act of recovery thereof except the limited one in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

the f orm prescribed in article 486 of the Code itself,

because he totally lacks the f ee simple. But the
ascendant who holds the property required by article
811 to be reserved, and the father or mother required
by article 968 to reserve the right, can dispose of the
property they inherit itself, the former from his
descendant and the latter from his or her child in first
marriage, and recover
309

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 309

Edroso vs. Sablan.

it from anyone who may unjustly detain it, while the

persons in whose favor the right is required to be
reserved in either case cannot perform any act
whatsoever of disposal or of recovery.
Article 975 states explicitly that the father or
mother required by article 968 to reserve the right
may dispose of the property itself:
"Alienation of the property required by law to be
reserved which may be made by the surviving spouse
after contracting a second marriage shall be valid only
if at his or her death no legitimate children or
descendants of the first marriage survive, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Mortgage Law."
It thus appears that the alienation is valid,
although not altogether effective, but under a
condition subsequent, to wit: "If at his or her death no
legitimate children or descendants of the first
marriage survive."
If the title did not reside in the person holding the
property to be reserved, his alienation thereof would
necessarily be null and void, as executed without a
right to do so and without a right which he could
transmit to the acquirer. The law says that the
alienation subsists (to subsist is to continue to exist)
"without prejudice to the provisions of the Mortgage
Law." Article 109 of this Law says:
"The possessor of property subject to conditions
subsequent that are still pending may mortgage or
alienate it, provided always that he preserve the right
of the parties interested in said conditions by
expressly reserving that right in the registration."
In such case, the child or legitimate descendant of
the first marriage in whose favor the right is reserved
cannot impugn the validity of the alienation so long-
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

as the condition subsequent is pending, that is, so

long as the remarried spouse who must reserve the
right is alive, because it might easily happen that the
person who must reserve the right should outlive all
the persons in whose favor the right is reserved and
then there would be no reason f or the condition
subsequent that they survive him, and, the object of
the law
310

310 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

having disappeared, the right required to be reserved

would disappear, and the alienation would not only be
valid but also in every way absolutely effective.
Consequently, the alienation is valid when the right
required by law to be reserved to the children is
respected; while the effects of the alienation depend
upon a condition, because it will or will not become
definite, it will continue to exist or cease to exist,
according to circumstances. This is what the law
establishes with reference to the reservation of article
968, wherein the legislator expressly directs that the
surviving spouse who contracts a second marriage
shall reserve to the children or descendants of the
first marriage ownership. Article 811 says nothing
more than that the ascendant must make the
reservation.
Manresa, with his recognized ability, summarizes
the subject under the heading, "Rights and
obligations during the existence of the right required
by law to be reserved," in these words:
"During the whole period between the constitution
in legal form of the right required by law to be
reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives
within the third degree, after the right that in their
turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only
an expectation, and therefore they do not even have
the capacity to transmit that.expectation to their
heirs.
"The ascendant is in the first place a usufructuary
who should use and enjoy the things according to
their nature, in the manner and form already set
forth in commenting upon the articles of the Code
referring to use and usufruct.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

"But since in addition to being the usufructuary he

is, even though conditionally, the owner in fee simple
of the property, he can .dispose of it in the manner
provided in articles 974 and 976 of the same Code.
Doubt arose also on this point, but the Direccin
General of the registries, in an opinion of June 25,
1892, declared that articles 974 and 975, which are
applicable by analogy, for they refer to property
reserved by law, reveal in the clearest manner the
attitude of the legislator on this subject, and the rel-
311

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 311

Edroso vs. Sablan.

atives within the third degree ought not to be more

privileged in the right reserved in article 811 than the
children in the right reserved by article 975, chiefly
for the reason that the right required to be reserved
carries with it a condition subsequent, and the
property subject to those conditions can validly be
alienated in accordance with article 109 of the
Mortgage Law, such alienation to continue, pending
fulfillment of the condition." (Civil Code, VI, 270.)
Another commentator corroborates the foregoing in
every way. He says:
"The ascendant acquires that property with a
condition subsequent, to wit, whether or not there
exist at the time of his death relatives within the
third degree of the descendant from whom they
inherit in the line whence the property proceeds. If
such relatives exist, they acquire ownership of the
property at the death of the ascendant, If they do not
exist, the ascendant can freely dispose thereof. If this
is true, since the possessor of property subject to
conditions subsequent can alienate and encumber it,
the ascendant may alienate the property required by
law to be reserved, but he will alienate what he has
and nothing more because no one can give what does
not belong to him, and the acquirer will therefore
receive a limited and revocable title. The relatives
within the third degree will in their turn have an
expectation to the property while the ascendant lives,
an expectation that cannot be transmitted to their
heirs, unless these are also within the third degree.
After the person who is required by law to reserve the
right has died, the relatives may rescind the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

alienation of the realty required by law to be reserved

and they will acquire it and all the rest that has the
same character in Complete ownership, in fee simple,
because the condition and the usufruct have been
terminated by the death 61 the usufructuary."
(Morell, Estudios sobre bienes reservables, P304, 305.)
The conclusion is that the person required by
article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt
at all, the rights of use and usufruct He has,
moreover, for the reasons set
312

312 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

forth, the legal title and dominion, although under a

condition subsequent. Clearly he has, under an
express provision of the law, the right to dispose of
the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate,
although under a condition'. He has the right to
recover it, because he is the one who possesses or
should possess it and have title to it, although a
limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title
and dominion, even though under a condition, reside
in him while he lives. After the right required by law
to be reserved has been assured, he can do anything
that a genuine owner can do.
On the other hand, the relatives within the third
degree in whose favor the right is reserved cannot
dispose of the property, first because it is in no way,
either actually, constructively or formally, in their
possession; and, moreover, because they have no title
of ownership or of fee simple which they can transmit
to another, on the hypothesis that only when the
person who must reserve the right should die before
them will they acquire it, thus creating a fee simple,
and only then will they take their place in the
succession of the descendant of whom they are
relatives within the third degree, that is to say, a
second contingent place in said legitimate succession
in the fashion of aspirants to a possible future legacy.
If any of the persons in whose favor the right is
reserved should, after their right has been assured in
the registry, dare to dispose of even nothing more
than the fee simple of the property to be reserved his
act would be null and void, for, as was definitely
decided in the decision on appeal of December 30,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

1897, it is impossible to determine the part "that

might pertain therein to the relative at the time he
exercised the right, because in view of. the nature and
scope of the right required by law to be reserved the
extent of his right cannot be foreseen, for it may
disappear by his dying before the person required to
reserve it, just as it may even become absolute should
that person die."
Careful consideration of the matter forces the
conclu-
313

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 13, 1913. 313

Edroso vs. Sablan.

sion that no act of disposal inter vivos of the person

required by law to reserve the right can be impugned
by him in whose favor it is reserved, because such
person has all, absolutely all, the rights inherent in
ownership, except that the legal title is burdened with
a condition that the third party acquirer may
ascertain from the registry in order to know that he is
acquiring a title subject to a condition subsequent. In
conclusion, it seems to us that only an act of disposal
mortis causa in favor of persons other than relatives
within the third degree of the descendant from whom
he got the property to be reserved must be prohibited
to him, because this alone has been the object of the
law: "To prevent persons outside a family from
securing, by some special accident of life, property
that would otherwise have remained therein."
(Decision of December 30, 1897.)
Practically, even in the opinion of those who reduce
the person reserving the right to the condition of a
mere usufructuary, the person in whose favor it must
be reserved cannot attack the alienation that may be
absolutely made of the property the law requires to be
reserved, in the present case, that which the
applicant has made of the two parcels of land in
question to a third party, because the conditional
alienation that is permitted her is equivalent to an
alienation of the usufruct, which is authorized by
article 480 of the Civil Code, and, practically, use and
enjoyment of the property required by law to be
reserved are all that the person who must reserve it
has during his lifetime, and in alienating the usufruct
all the usefulness of the thing would be transmitted
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

in an incontrovertible manner. The question as to

whether or not she transmits the fee simple is purely
academic, sine re, for it is not real, actual and
positive, as is the case of the institution of two heirs,
one a usufructuary and the other the owner, by the
express wish of the predecessor in interest.
If the person whom article 811 requires to reserve
the right has all the rights inherent in ownership, he
can use, enjoy, dispose of and recover it; and if, in
addition to
314

314 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edroso vs. Sablan.

usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner

and can alienate it, although under a condition, the
whole question is reduced to the following terms:
Cannot the heir of the property required by law to
be reserved, merely because a condition subsequent is
annexed to his right of disposal, himself alone register
the ownership of the property he has inherited, when
the persons in whose favor the reservation must be
made agree thereto, provided that the right reserved
to them in the two parcels of land be recorded, as the
law provides?
It is well known that the vendee under pacto de
retracto acquires all the rights of the vendor:
"The vendee substitutes the vendor in all his rights
and actions." (Civil Code, art. 1511.)
If the vendor can register his title, the vendee can
also register this same title after he has once acquired
it. This title, however, in its attribute of being
disposable, has a condition subsequent annexedthat
the alienation the purchaser may make will be
terminated, if the vendor should exercise the right
granted him by article 1507, which says:
"Conventional redemption shall take place when
the vendor reserves to himself the right to recover the
thing sold: with ;the obligation to comply with article
1518, and whatever more may have been agreed
upon," that is, if he recovers the thing sold by
repaying the vendee the price of the sale and other
expenses. Notwithstanding this condition subsequent,
it is a point not at all doubtful now that the vendee
may register his title in the same way as the owner of
a thing mortgagedthat is to say, the latter with the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/21
9/15/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 025

consent of his creditor and the former with the

consent of the vendor. He may alienate the thing
bought when the acquirer knows very well from the
title entered in the registry that he acquires a title
revocable after a fixed period, a thing much more
certain and to be expected than the purely contingent
expectation of the person in whose favor is reserved a
right to inherit some day what another has inherited.
The purposes of the law would be defeated in not
applying to the person who must make the
315

VOL. 25, SEPTEMBER 16, 1913. 315

Veguillas vs. Jaucian.

reservation the provision therein relative to the

vendee under pacto de retracto, since the argument in
his favor is the more powerf ul and conclusive; ubi
eadem ratio, eadem legis dispositio.
Therefore, we reverse the judgment appealed from,
and in lieu thereof decide and declare that the
applicant is entitled to register in her own name the
two parcels of land which are the subject matter of
the application, recording in the registration the right
required by article 811 to be reserved to either or both
of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan,
should they survive her; without special finding as to
costs.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ.,

concur.

Judgment reversed; registration ordered.

_______________

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e82226a18e8e8699e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/21