Reservista – reservoir Reservatorio- reservee RESERVOR: Maria Cano (acq thru inheritance from

Lourdes)
CANO VS DIRECTOR OF LANDS and EUSTAQUIA
GUERRERO RESERVEE: grandchildren of Evaristo + Eustaquia

FACTS: The decree and the Certificate of Title were Guerrero (only living daughter of Evaristo from

issued in the name of Maria Cano, subject to reserva former marriage )

troncal in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero. Later, the

The reservatario receives the property as a
reservatorio Guerrero filed a motion with the
conditional heir of the descendant ( prepositus). It is
Cadastral Court, alleging the death of the original
a consequence of these principles that upon the
registered owner and reservista, Maria Cano and
death of the reservista, the reservatario (Eustaquia
praying that the original Certificate of Title be
Guerrero) nearest to the prepositus becomes,
ordered cancelled and a new one issued in favor of
automatically and by operation of law, the owner of
her; and that the Sheriff be ordered to place her in
the reservable property. As already stated, that
possession of the property.
property is no part of the estate of the reservista,

The motion was opposed by Jose and Teotimo and does not even answer for the debts of the latter.

Fernandez, sons of the reservista Maria Cano, who Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be

contended that the application and operation of the entered in the property records without necessity

reserva troncal should be ventilated in an ordinary of estate proceedings, since the basic requisites

contentious proceeding, and that the Registration therefor appear of record.

Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion.

It is equally well settled that the reservable property

Lower court granted the petition for the issuance of can not be transmitted by a reservista to her or his

a new certificate to Eustaquia Guerrero own successors mortis causa (Jose and Teotimo) so
long as a reservatario within the third degree from
ISSUE: WON ownership of the reservatorio can not the prepositus and belonging to the line whence the
be decreed in a mere proceeding but requires a property came, is in existence when the reservista
judicial administration proceedings, wherein the dies.
rights of the reservatorio entitled to the reservable
property, are to be declared. NO, no need NOTE: Instances where further proceedings would
be unavoidable
HELD: The requisites of reserva troncal have
1. where the registration decree merely
already been declared to exist by the decree of specifies the reservable character of the
registration. property, without determining the identity
of the reservatario (Director of Lands vs.
RESERVA TRONCAL in this case: Aguas)
2. where several reservatarios dispute the
ORIGIN: Evaristo Guerrero (father of Lourdes) property among themselves

PROPOSITUS: Lourdes Guerrero (deceased daughter

of Maria Cano)
BANAWA VS MIRANO RULING:
No. L-24750 May 16, 1980
1. No, it is not applicable. Maria is not
Petitioners: DOROTEO BANAWA + JULIANA legally adopted. The rule with respect to reversion
MENDOZA (Adoptive Parents of Maria) CASIANO adoptiva prescribed in Sec. 5, Rule 100, of the former
AMPONIN and GLICERIA ABRENICA (legally Rules of Court applies only to property that had been
adopted child) received by a judicially adopted child. Extrajudicial
adoption is not within the contemplation and spirit of
Respondents: PRIMITIVA MIRANO (sister of the rule. It is an elementary rule of construction that
Maria), GREGORIA MIRANO, JUANA MIRANO when the language of the law is clear and
and MARCIANO MIRANO (children of Maria’s unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly
brother-Martin) what it says.

FACTS: 2. The IBA Property is owned by Maria

Banawa and Mendoza took their niece Maria Mariano.
Mariano to Mahabang Ludlod, Taal, Batangas. The
spouses reared the child because they were childless. Article 632 of the old CC provides: "
The spouses purchased a parcel of land in Barrio of Donations of personal property may be made verbally
Iba, Taal, Batangas and a second parcel of land in or in writing. Verbal donation requires the
Barrio of Carsuche, Taal, Batangas. The spouses simultaneous delivery of the gift. In the absence of
named the title of the said properties under Maria’s this requisite the donation shall produce no effect,
name for the purpose of safeguarding the latter’s unless made in writing and accepted in the same
future in case the spouses die. Due to an illness, form." The execution of the deed of sale of the Iba
Maria died and was survived by her sister Primitiva property in favor of Maria was the constructive
Mirano and the three children of his brother Martin as transfer of possession of the incorporeal rights of the
the nearest relatives. Two parcels of land are in spouses over said property.
dispute in this case: the Iba property (44,200 sqm)
and Carsuche property (54, 093 sqm). The CARSUCHE Property is owned by
spouses Banawas.
The Miranos filed a case in court against the
Banawas with regard to the possession of the said Iba There was a sale embodied in a public
and Carsuche properties as legal heirs of Maria. document of the Carsuche property in 1935 in favor
of Maria. However, in 1940 it was sold to the
Petitioners’ Contention: the money used in Banawas. The sale was duly registered. They then
buying said land pertained to the spouses thus, the immediately entered into the possession of the land
donor spouses are entitled to the land in question and as owners. The spouses acquired the Carsuche
also their successors-in-interest. property by acquisitive prescription
Defendants Contention: The Iba property
were sold to Maria Mariano as such, the rightful Decision of the CA is affirmed as to the Iba
possession belongs to the heirs of Maria. property but reversed as to the Carsuche property
which was acquired by Banawa and Mendoza who
CFI declared Maria Mariano the owner of could validly donate the said property to Casiano
the two parcels of land. The defendant spouses died Amponin and Gliceria Abrenica.
during the pendency of the case at the CA and were
substituted by their legally adopted child Gliceria [NOTE: This reserva adoptal is believed to have
Abrenica and her husband. CA affirmed the decision been abolished by the Civil Code in view of the
of the trial court. desire of the Code Commission to abolish all
reservas. As has been said before, the retention of
ISSUE: “reserva troncal” was not intended by the Code.
Besides, according to the Civil Code, “the
1. Whether or not S5, R100 of the old rules proceedings for adoption shall be governed by the
of court is applicable. Rules of Court insofar as they are not in conflict with
this Code.” (Art. 345). It follows therefore that all the
2. To whom should the rightful possession substantive provisions on adoption in the Rules of
of the two parcels of land belong to. Court have been repealed by the new Civil Code.
HOWEVER, this reserva adoptal has been Issues:
REVIVED under Art. 39 of PD 603.
(1) Has oppositor Ana del Val Chan the right to
intervene in this proceeding?;
Rule 100 Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
“In case of the death of the child, his parents
(2) Has the will in question been duly admitted to
and relatives by nature and not by adoption, shall be
his legal heirs except as to property received or probate?;
inherited by the adopted child from either of his
parents by adoption, which shall become the property (3) Did the probate court commit an error in passing
of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall on the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
participate in the order established by the Civil Code and in determining who should inherit the portion to
for Intestate estates.” be vacated by the nullification of the legacy made in
Teotico vs. Del Val favor of Dr. Rene Teotico?

Facts: Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre Held:

died on July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila with no
Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to
ascendants or descendants. She left properties
intervene because she has no interest in the estate
worth P600,000.00 and a will written in Spanish
either as heir, executor, or administrator, nor does
which she executed at her residence at No. 2
she have any claim to any property affected by the
Legarda St., Quiapo, Manila. She affixed her
will, because nowhere in the will was any provision
signature at the bottom of the will and on the left
designating her as heir, legatee or devisee of any
margin of each and every page thereof in the
portion of the estate. She has also no interest in the
presence of three witnesses who in turn affixed
will either as administratrix or executrix. Neither has
their signatures below the attestation clause and on
she any claim against any portion of the estate
the left margin of each and every page of the will in
because she is not a co-owner thereof.
the presence of the testatrix and of each other. Said
will was acknowledged before a Notary Public by Additionally, if the will is denied probate, she would
the testatrix and her witnesses. not acquire any interest in any portion of the estate
left by the testatrix. She would acquire such right
She left P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, married to
only if she were a legal heir of the deceased, but she
her niece named Josefina Mortera; and the usufruct
is not under our Civil Code. It is true that she claims
of her interest in the Calvo building to the said
to be an acknowledged natural child of Jose and also
spouses. However, the naked ownership of the
an adopted daughter of Francisca. But the law does
building was left in equal parts to the legitimate
not give her any right to succeed to the estate of
children of said spouses. She also instituted Josefina
Maria because being an illegitimate child she is
Mortera as her sole and universal heir to all the
prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate
remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed
relatives of her natural father. Thus, Article 992 of
of in the will.
our Civil Code provides: “An illegitimate child has no
Thereafter, Vicente B. Teotico filed a petition for the right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
probate of the will before the Court of First Instance children and relatives of his father or mother; … .”
of Manila. However, Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be
an adopted child of Francisca Mortera, a deceased
sister of the testatrix, as well as an acknowledged It thus appears that the oppositor has no right to
natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased brother of intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in
the same testatrix. this probate proceeding contrary to the ruling of the
court a quo.
The claim that the will was not properly attested to will Exhibit A must be set aside as having been made
is contradicted by the evidence of record. The will in excess of its jurisdiction. Another reason why said
was duly executed because it was signed by the pronouncement should be set aside is that the
testatrix and her instrumental witnesses and the legatee was not given an opportunity to defend the
notary public in the manner provided for by law. validity of the legacy for he was not allowed to
intervene in this proceeding. As a corollary, the
The claim that the will was procured by improper other pronouncements touching on the disposition
pressure and influence is also belied by the of the estate in favor of some relatives of the
evidence. deceased should also be set aside for the same
reason.
Moreover, the mere claim that Josefina and her
husband Rene had the opportunity to exert pressure
on the testatrix simply because she lived in their
house several years prior to the execution of the will
and that she was old and suffering from
hypertension in that she was virtually isolated from
her friends for several years prior to her death is
insufficient to disprove what the instrumental
witnesses had testified in court. The exercise of
improper pressure and undue influence must be
supported by substantial evidence and must be of a
kind that would overpower and subjugate the mind
of the testatrix as to destroy her free agency and
make her express the will of another rather than her
own.

On the third issue, the question of whether the

probate court could determine the intrinsic validity
of the provisions of a will has been decided by this
Court in a long line of decisions. In Castañeda v.
Alemany, the Court had stated, thus:

To establish conclusively as against everyone, and

once for all, the facts that a will was executed with
the formalities required by law and that the testator
was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose
of the proceedings under the new code for the
probate of a will. The judgment in such proceedings
determines and can determine nothing more. In
them the court has no power to pass upon the
validity of any provisions made in the will. It cannot
decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and
another one is valid.

Pursuant to the foregoing precedents the

pronouncement made by the court a quo declaring
invalid the legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico in the