Edroso v. Sablan

Edroso v.
Sablan
Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan
had a son Pedro
Victoriano Sablan
died a year after Pedro was born
Pedro Sablan
inherited 2 parcels of land, upon death of father
said land was acquired by his father, by inheritance, from his ascendants Mariano
Sablan and Maria Fernandez
unmarried
without issue
died, after 11 yrs
Marcelina Edroso
therefore, inherited the 2 parcels of land
applied registration of ownership
Pablo and Basilio Sablan
brothers of Victorian (uncles of Pedro)
opposed registration
or assuming registration was granted, that the right reserved by law to them be recorded.
Court of Land Registration
Denied
(1) parcels of land partake nature of the nature, required by law, to be reserved - SC:
Yes, true.
(2) the application for registration can only be presented jointly in the names of
Marcelina and Pablo and Basilio - SC: No. Marcelina can register.
Marcelina Edroso
appealed through a Bill of Exception
(1) that it is not proven that the 2 parcels of land have been acquired by operation of law,
(2) only property acquired without a valuable consideration, which is by operation of law, is
required by law to be reserved.
Basis of (1) and (2) was that Pedro Sablan acquired property before the enforcement of Civil
Code (law requires land to be reserved)
SC
The property is a reservable property
(1) As per Art 811
"The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired without
a valuable consideration from another ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is under
obligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law for the relatives who are
within the third degree and belong to the line whence the property proceeded."
(a) Definition of hereditary title / inheritance:
Hereditary title is one without a valuable consideration [gratuitous title], and it is so
characterized in article 968 of the Civil Code, for he who acquires by inheritance
gives nothing in return for what he receives;
(b) Pablio and Basilio
Uncles, within the 3rd degree of blood relationship
(c) Marcelina Edroso
As ascendant of Pedro, inherited the land, through inheritance (operation of law) from
his father, which is without valuable consideration
(i) As per Art 935 "In the absence of legitimate children and descendants of the
deceased, his ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of
collaterals.
(ii) There no testamentary provision that demonstrates any transfer /
conveyance of property from the son to the mother, through a deliberate act
and not by operation of law
(iii) Absence proof to the contrary, legal presumption is that the transfer was
abintestate or by operation of law
(d) Thus, she is obligated to reserve the land for the claimants
who may be uncles or relatives within the third degree

and which land belongs to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita
Fernandez
2) As to denial by the TC of registration, as the absolute title to the two parcels of land belongs to
the applicant and the two uncles of the deceased Pedro Sablan, "
(a) The rights in the property of the person who holds it subject to the reservation of article
811 = equivalent to transfer of absolute ownership
Right to use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery. This is inherent in the hereditary title.
Except, If there should be relatives within the third decree who belong to the line,
then a limitation" to that absolute ownership would arise.
Such limitation
is not the usufructuary limitation, as it does not have support in law
But a limitation as to a condition subsequent, that is "If at his or her death no
legitimate children or descendants of the first marriage survive."
(b) If the person who must reserve the right should outlive all the persons in whose favor the
right is reserved, then there would be no reason for the condition subsequent that they
survive him
object of the law having disappeared,
the right required to be reserved would disappear,
and any alienation would not only be valid but also in every way absolutely eective.
(c) The relatives within the third degree, after the right that in their turn may pertain to them
has been assured, have only an expectation, and therefore they do not even have the
capacity to transmit that expectation to their heirs. (???)
(d) The conclusion is that:
The person required by article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at all,
the rights of use and usufruct. He has, moreover, the legal title and dominion,
although under a condition subsequent.
On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right is
reserved cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually,
constructively or formally, in their possession;
No act of disposal inter vivos of the person required by law to reserve the right can
be impugned by him in whose favor it is reserved, because such person has all,
absolutely all, the rights inherent in ownership,
Except that the legal title is burdened with a condition that the third party
acquirer may ascertain from the registry in order to know that he is acquiring a
title subject to a condition subsequent
It seems to us that only an act of disposal mortis causa in favor of persons other than
relatives within the third degree of the descendant from whom he got the property to
be reserved must be prohibited to him,
*** another perspective in analyzing reserva troncal ***

(2) If Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will as the universal heiress of his property,
the law doesnt say that all his properties need be reserved
but only what he expressly left her as the "legal portion of a legitimate
ascendant
As per Art 809, in such case only the 1/2 portion constituting the legal portion would
be required by law to be reserved, because it is what by operation of law would fall to
the mother from her son's inheritance;
The other half, at free disposal, does not need to be reserved.
(3) Thus, 1/2 of Pedro Sablan's inheritance was acquired by his mother by operation of law.
The other half is also presumed to be acquired by operation of law that is, by intestate
succession.
(4) As to prescription argument by Marcelina, where according to her, the right of action of
the brothers of Victoriano has already prescribed were requires her to record the reservation
in the RD, as per Mortgage Law
SC: Marcelina did not state what those provisions of the Mortgage Law are.
She only said that
For to those who are entitled to that right (guaraty), the Mortgage Law grants
a period of time for recording it in the property registry, if I remember correctly,
90 days, for seeking entry in the registry"
"The right of action for requiring that the property be reserved has not
prescribed, but the right of action for guaranteeing in the property registry that
this property is required by law to be reserved
SC:

Edroso v. Sablan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Edroso v. Sablan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edroso v.

who may be uncles or relatives within the third degree

* another perspective in analyzing reserva troncal *

You might also like