12. De Papa vs. Camacho, G.R. No.

L-28032, September 24, 1986; FRANCISCA TIOCO DE

Facts:
They stipulate the ff:
that 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.
plaintiffs and defendant 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.
that Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land
to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs)
that 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) and leaving the afore-mentioned four (4) parcels of land as the inheritance
of her said two children in equal pro-indiviso shares.
that in 1928, Balbino Tioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate children by his
wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren Faustino
Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of his estate, (3) parcels of land now
covered by TCT, 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.
that in 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue, leaving his
(1/2) pro-indiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land above-mentioned to his
father, Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property
subject to a reserva troncal annotated on the TCT
that in 1939, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate, and her rights and interests
in the parcels of land were inherited by her only legitimate child, defendant
Dalisay, subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband, defendant Primo
Tongko.
that in 1965, Eustacio Dizon died intestate, survived his only legitimate descendant,
defendant Dalisay
The parties agree that defendant Dalisay now owns (1/2) of all the seven (7) parcels
of land as her inheritance from her mother, Trinidad Dizon-Tongko.
Defendant Dalisay also claims,the other half of the said seven (7) parcels of land by
virtue of the reserva troncal upon the death of Faustino Dizon and under the laws on
intestate succession; but the plaintiffs, oppose and claim that (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 (3/8) of the said parcels of land, by virtue
of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon.
 the lower Court declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas
Tioco, as well as the defendant Dalisay entitled, as reservatarios, to 1/2 of the seven
parcels of land in dispute.
o plaintiffs Francisca, Manuel, and Nicolas are entitled to 3/4 of 1/2 pro-indiviso shares or 3/8 of
the 7 parcels of land involved in this action. Also entitled to 3/8 of the rentals collected and to be
collected by the defendant from the tenants minus the expenses and/or real estate taxes as
share.
the defendant appealed to this Court.
Issue: whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-appellees and ruled by the lower Court, all
relatives of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without
distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista, in Art. 891 of the CC
Ruling:
in Padura v. Baldovino, where the reservatario was survived by eleven nephews and
nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and seven of half
blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary
property in equal shares. This Court, declared the principles of intestacy to be
controlling, and ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole blood were each
entitled to a share double that of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in
accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil Code.
"The issue in this appeal may be formulated as follows: In a case of reserva
troncal where the only reservatarios (reserves) surviving the reservista, and belonging
to the line of origin, are nephews of the descendant (prepositus), but some are
nephews of the half blood and the others are nephews of the whole blood, should the
reserved properties be apportioned among them equally, or should the nephews of the
whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half blood?
After mature reflection, we have concluded that appellants is correct.
The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the
inheriting ascendant (reservista).
The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to
the specified relatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further
occasion for its application. In the relations between one reservatario and another of
the same degree there is no call for applying Art. 891 any longer; wherefore, the
respective share of each in the reversionary property should be governed by the
ordinary rules of intestate succession. In this spirit the jurisprudence of this Court and
that of Spain has resolved that upon the death of the ascendant reservista, the
reservable property should pass, not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to
those nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus), excluding those reservatarios
of more remote degree. And within the third degree of relationship from the descendant
(prepositus), the right of representation operates in favor of nephews.
"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 the succeeding degrees can
never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
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 be likewise 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.
"Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of intestacy,
nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles,
first cousins, etc.) from the succession. This is readily apparent from Articles 1001,
1004, 1005 and 1009 of the CC, that provide as follows:
"Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitle
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal
shares."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces who are the children of the
decedent’s brothers and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes."cralaw
virtua1aw library
"Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers and sisters, the other collateral
relatives shall succeed to the estate."
Under the last article (1009), the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition
to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. This was also and more clearly the
case under the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, that immediately preceded the Civil Code now in force (R.A. 386). Thus,
Articles 952 and 954 of the Code of 1889 prescribed as follows:
"Art. 952. In the absence of brothers or sisters and of nephews or nieces, children of the former, whether of the
whole blood or not, the surviving spouse, if not separated by a final decree of divorce shall succeed to the entire
estate of the deceased."
"Art. 954. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, nor a surviving spouse, the
other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate of deceased.
We, therefore, hold, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so
long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to
succeed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower Court is reversed and set aside
and the complaint is dismissed.