Sienes V Esparcia

Sienes v Esparcia
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 his death, the properties were left to his
children as follows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to Fernando, Lot 3375 to
Agaton, Lot 3377 to Paulina, and Lot 3368 to Francisco. As a result of the
cadastral proceedings, OCT No. 10275 covering Lot 3368 was issued in the
name of Francisco.
When Francisco died, single and without any descendant, his

mother, as his sole heir, executed the public instrument entitled
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND SALE and sold the property in question to
appellants. The vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband
Jose Esparcia, the surrender of OCT which, was in their possession, which
the latter refused.
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 spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes.
Appellants commenced the instant case to secure judgment

declaring null and void the sale executed by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso
in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes; and ordering the
Esparcia spouses to reconvey to appellants Lot 3368. The appellees
disclaimed any knowledge or information regarding the sale allegedly
made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellants 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.
The lower court held that the sale of Lot No. 3368 made by Andrea
Gutang to the spouses Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay is void,
and that the sale made by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor of
defendants Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes involving the same lot is also
void, and they have no valid title thereto; and 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale made by the reservista Andrea was valid
HELD:
Yes, however such sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of
appellees 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. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriana Yaeso
was still alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale
made by the former in favor of appellants became of no legal effect and
the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusive
ownership to Cipriana.
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. The record discloses in this connection
that when Andrea Gutang died, the lone reservee surviving her is Cipriana
Yaeso.
In connection with reservable property, 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. 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 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.

Sienes V Esparcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sienes V Esparcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sienes V Esparcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sienes v Esparcia

When Francisco died, single and without any descendant, his

Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco,

Appellants commenced the instant case to secure judgment

Francisco Yaeso inherited it by operation of law from his father

In connection with reservable property, the reserve creates two

You might also like