De Papa v.

Camacho

DE PAPA v CAMACHO
No. L-28032, 24 September 1986
144 SCRA 281
DOCTRINE: Between two groups of reservatarios: (a) uncles and aunts of the prepositus, and (b)
a niece of the prepositus, the latter is preferred to the exclusion of the former in the distribution of
the reversionary estate. This is pursuant to the application of the ordinary rules of intestate
succession which govern the distribution of the reversionary estate. Please note that brothers, sisters,
nephews and nieces rank fourth in the order of intestate succession to a legitimate person. Upon the
other hand, the uncles and aunts (collectively referred to as collateral relatives within the fifth civil
degree) rank fifth in the order of intestate succession to a legitimate person. Thus, following the
order of preference, those who rank fourth will exclude all those relatives who rank fifth. Again, this
is a reaffirmation of the theory of delayed intestacy first initiated in Padura.
Marciana
Francisca
Manuel
Nicolas
Toribia

Eustacio
Faustino

Balbino . . . . . Romana

Trinidad
Dalisay

Narvasa, J.:
This case, which involves the application of Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal,
was submitted for judgment in the lower court by all the parties on the following "Stipulation of
Facts and Partial Compromise:"
FACTS:
1.

The defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho and the plaintiffs Francisca Tioco de Papa,
Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being said defendant's
grandaunt and granduncles.

2.

Plaintiffs and defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late
Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant. The family relationship of the parties is shown in the chart
attached hereto as Annex "A" and made an integral part of this stipulation.

3.

Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four(4) parcels of land to her niece
Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs), which parcels of land are presently covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. A-64165, 64166 and 64167 of the Registry of Deeds of
Manila, copies of which are attached to this stipulation as Annexes "B", "B-1", and "B-2."

4.

Toribia Tioco died intestate in 1915, survived by her husband, Eustacio Dizon, and their two
legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon (mother of defendant Dalisay D.
Tongko-Camacho) and leaving the aforementioned four (4) parcels of land as the inheritance
of her said two children in equal pro-indiviso shares.

5.

In 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate children and by his wife
Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon and
Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of his estate, three (3) parcels of land now covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 16545 and 16554 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila,
copies of which are attached hereto as Annexes "C' and "C-1" were adjudicated as the
inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco, but as she had predeceased her father, Balbino Tioco,
the said three (3) parcels of land devolved upon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon
and Trinidad Dizon in equal pro-indiviso shares.

6.

In 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue, leaving his one-half (1/2)
pro-indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned to his father, Eustacio
Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property subject to a reserva troncal
which was subsequently annotated on the Transfer Certificates of Title Annexes "B", "B-1",
"C" and "C-1."

7.

In 1939 Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate, and her rights and interests in the parcels of
land above-mentioned were inherited by her only legitimate child, defendant Dalisay D.
Tongko-Camacho, subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband, defendant
Primo Tongko.

8.

On June 14, 1965, Eustacio Dizon died intestate, survived by his only legitimate descendant,
defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.

9.

The parties agree that defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho now owns one-half (1/2) of
all the seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned as her inheritance from her mother,
Trinidad Dizon-Tongko.

10.

Defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho also claims, upon legal advice, the other half of the
said seven parcels of land abovementioned by virtue of the reserva troncal imposed thereon
upon the death of Faustino Dizon and under the law on intestate succession; but the
plaintiffs, also upon legal advice, oppose her said claim because they claim three-fourths
(3/4) of the one-half pro-indiviso interest in said parcel of land, which interest was inherited
by Eustacio Dizon from Faustino Dizon, or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels ofland, by
virtue of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon.

11.

The parties hereby agree to submit for judicial determination in this case the legal issue of
whether defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the whole of the seven (7)
parcels of land in question, or whether the plaintiffs, as third degree relatives of Faustino
Dizon are reservatarios (together with said defendant) of the one-half pro-indiviso share
therein which was inherited by Eustacio Dizon from his son Faustino Dizon, and entitled to
three-fourths (3/4) of said one-half pro-indiviso share, or three-eights (3/8) of said seven (7)
parcels of land, and, therefore, to three-eights (3/8) of the rentals collected and to be
collected by defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho from the tenants of said parcels of land,
minus the expenses and/or real estate taxes corresponding to plaintiffs' share in the rentals.

12.

In view of the fact that the parties are close blood relatives and have acted upon legal advice
in pursuing their respective claims, and in order to restore and preserve harmony in their
family relations, they hereby waive all their claims against each other for damages (other
than legal interest on plaintiffs' share in the rentals which this Honorable Court may deem
proper to award), attorney's fees and expenses of litigation which shall be borne by the
respective parties.

ISSUE:
The issue raised is whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-appellees and ruled by the lower court,
all relatives of the prepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without
distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista.
HELD:
Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives of the
descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the
property which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him,
excludes that of the one more remote. The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one
claiming same as a reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the
third degree belonging to the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the right granted
by the Civil Code in Article 811 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of
designated persons who are within the third degree of the person from whom the reservable
property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and succeeding degrees can never be considered
as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation on the part of one alleging his
rights as reservatario who is not within the third degree of relationship, nevertheless there is right
of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law, as
in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. x x
x
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate
succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that

of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se,
proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of
double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should likewise be operative.
In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to
whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property
should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not
specify otherwise. x x x
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the
plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because, as aunts and uncles,
respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his niece,
the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter.
x
x x
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings already cited, the defendant-appellant Dalisay
Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the
plaintiffs-appellees.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside, and the
complaint is dismissed with costs against plaintiffs-appellees.