Baritua vs.

CA, GR 82233, March 22, 1990

fb

Sayson v CA, GR 29884-25, January 23, 1992

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/12/case-digest-sayson-v-ca/

Reyes v Sotero, GR 167405, February 16, 2006

-niece and alleged first cousins of the deceased filed a case for the settlement of his
estate

-case was opposed by the adopted child of the deceased

h:

-adoption of petitioner was duly proven/ was recorded as a public document

-Petitioner, whose adoption is presumed to be valid, would necessarily exclude

respondents from inheriting from the decedent since they are mere collateral
relatives of the latter.

In re Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim, GR 160992-93, May 21, 2009

Intestate Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay, GR 183053, June 16,    2010 (note

MR, October 2012)

XIII. Reserva Troncal, Art 891

 
Padura v Baldovino, GR  11960, December 27, 1958

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.
Reserva Troncal merely determines the group pof relatives to whom the
property should be returned. Within the group, the individual right to the property
should be decided by applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession (since art. 891
is silent on the matter).
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.

Gonzalez v CFI, GR L-34395, May 19, 1981

https://ibpzn.com/gonzalez-v-cfi/
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/dmc-college-foundation/bachelor-of-laws/2-
gonzales-vs-cfi-case-digest/11149537
        
Alcala v Alcala, GR 13386, October 27, 1920
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-nieva-v-alcala/

De Papa v Camacho, GR L-28032, September 24, 1986

https://pdfcoffee.com/de-papa-v-camacho-pdf-free.html
3rd degree pareho
Uncle vs nephew
Nephew panalo
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 Civil Code of the Philippines, that
provide as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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." cralaw virtua1aw library

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. T
        
Edroso v Sablan, GR 6878, Sepember 13, 1913
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-edroso-v-sablan/
https://pdfcoffee.com/edroso-v-sablan-gr-no-6878-september-13-1913-facts-pdf-
free.html

         Sienes v Esparcia, GR L-12957, March 24, 1961

http://lawschoolnoob.blogspot.com/2020/08/case-digest-sienes-v-esparcia-gr-no-
l.html

         Lacerna v Vda. De Corcino, GR  L-14603, April 29 1961

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/apr1961/gr_l-14603_1961.html

With this factual background, the issue is narrowed down to whether Jacoba Marbebe, as
half sister of Juan Marbebe, on his father's side, is his sole heir, as held by His Honor, the
Trial Judge, or whether plaintiffs herein, as first cousins of Juan Marbebe, on his mother
side, have a better right to succeed him, to the exclusion of Jacoba Marbebe, as plaintiffs-
appellants maintain.
The latter's pretense is based upon the theory that, pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, establishing what is known as "reserva troncal", the properties in dispute
should pass to the heirs of the deceased within the third degree, who belong to the line from
which said properties came, and that since the same were inherited by Juan Marbebe from
his mother, they should go to his nearest relative within the third degree on the material line,
to which plaintiffs belong, not to intervenor, Jacoba Marbebe, despite the greater proximity of
her relationship to the deceased, for she belongs to the paternal line.

The main flaw in appellants' theory is that it assumes that said properties are subject to the
"reserva troncal", which is not a fact, for Article 891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
provides:

The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may
have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is
obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from
which said property came. (Emphasis supplied.)

This article applies only to properties inherited, under the conditions therein set forth, by an
ascendant from a descendant, and this is not the case before us, for the lands in dispute
were inherited by a descendant, Juan Marbebe, from an ascendant, his mother, Bonifacia
Lacerna. Said legal provision is, therefore, not in point, and the transmission of the
aforementioned lands, by inheritance, was properly determined by His Honor, the Trial
Judge, in accordance with the order prescribed for intestate succession, particularly Articles
1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, pursuant to which a sister, even if only a
half-sister, in the absence of other sisters or brothers, or of children of brothers or sisters,
excludes all other collateral relatives, regardless of whether or not the latter belong to the
line from which the property of the deceased came.

Chua v CFI, GR L-29901, August 31, 1977

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-chua-v-cfi/
https://ibpzn.com/chua-v-cfi/

Solivio v CA, GR 83484, February 12, 1990

P357
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-solivio-v-ca/

hence;
11. ID.; ID.; APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 1003 AND 1009 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN
CASE AT BAR. — Since the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., died without
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, surviving spouse, brothers,
sisters, nephews or nieces, what should apply in the distribution of his estate are
Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code which provide: "Both plaintiff-appellee
and defendant-appellant being relatives of the decedent within the third degree
in the collateral line, each, therefore, shall succeed to the subject estate ‘without
distinction of line or preference among them by reason of relationship by the
whole blood,’ and is entitled to one-half (1/2) share and share alike of the
estate." cralaw virtua1aw library

Carillo v De Paz, GR L-22601, October 28, 1966

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/case-digest-carrillo-v-salak-de-paz/

Sumaya v IAC, GR 68843-44, September 2, 1991

https://ibpzn.com/sumaya-v-iac/
https://dokumen.tips/documents/art891-ncc-sumaya-v-iac.html
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-sumaya-v-iac/
]
Florentino v Florentino, GR L-14856, November 15, 1919
https://pdfcoffee.com/florentino-vs-florentinodigest-pdf-free.html
 Mendoza v De Los Santos, GR 176422, March 20, 2013
P351
 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_176422_2013.html

A. Reserva Maxima & Reserva Minima

XIV. Prohibited Acts

Art 904, 1080 par.2, 1083 par.1, FC Art 159, 891
Note: disinheritance, unworthiness to succeed

XV. Renunciation
Art 872, 905, 1347 par. 2