G.R. No. 12957. March 24, 1961
CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FIDEL ESPARCIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
DIZON, J.:
null and void the sale executed by Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in favor
of appellees, the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes; (2)
ordering the Esparcia spouses to reconvey to appellants Lot 3368 of the
Cadastral Survey of Ayuquitan (now Amlan), Oriental Negros; and (3)
ordering all the appellees to pay, jointly and severally, to appellants
the sum of P500.00 as damages, plus the costs of suit. In their answer
appellees disclaimed any knowledge or information regarding the sale
allegedly made on April 20, 1951 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. They further alleged that said property had
never been in possession of appellants, the truth being that appellees,
as owners, had been in continuous possession thereof since the death of
Francisco Yaeso. By way of affirmative defense and counterclaim, they
further alleged that on July 30, 1951, Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso, as
the only, surviving heirs of Francisco Yaeso, executed a public
instrument of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina
Sienes, the said sale having been registered together with an affidavit
of adjudication executed by Paulina and Cipriana on July 18, 1951, as
sole surviving heirs of the aforesaid deceased; that since then the
Esparcias had been in possession of the property as owners.
After trial upon the issues thus joined, the lower court rendered judgment as follows:
“In
view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring (1)
that the sale of Lot No. 3368 made by Andrea Gutang to the plaintiff
spouses Constancio Sienes and Genoveva Silay is void, and the
reconveyance prayed for by them is denied; (2) 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 (3) that the reservable property in question
is part of and must be reverted to the estate of Cipriano Yaeso, the
lone surviving relative arid heir of Francisco Yaeso at the death of
Andrea Gutang as of December 13, 1951. No pronouncement as to costs.”
From the above decision the Sienes spouses interposed the present
appeal, their principal contentions being, firstly, that the lower
court erred in holding that Lot 3368 of the Cadastral Survey of
Ayuquitan was a reservable property; secondly, in annuling the sale of
said lot executed by Andrea Gutang in their favor; and lastly, in
holding that Cipriana Yaeso, as reservee, was entitled to inherit said
land.
There is no dispute as to the following facts:
Lot 3368 originally belong 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. According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan, the
properties left by Saturnino upon his death—the date of which does not
clearly appear of record—where left to his children as follows: Lot
3366 to Cipriana, Lot 3367 to Fernando, Lot 3375, to Agaton, Lot 3377
(southern portion) to Paulina, and Lot 3368 (western portion) to
Francisco. As a result of the cadastral proceedings. Original
Certificate of Title No. 10275 covering Lot 3368 was issued in the name
of Francisco. Because Francisco was a minor at the time, his mother
administered the property for him, declared it in her name for taxation
purposes (Exhs, A & A-1), and paid the taxes due thereon (Exhs. B,
C, C-1 & A-2). When Francisco died on May 29, 1932 at the age of
20, single and without any descendant, his mother, as his sole heir,
executed the public instrument Exhibit F entitled extra-judicial settlement and sale
whereby, among other things, for and in consideration of the sum of
P800.00, she sold the property in question to appellants. When
thereafter said vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso and her husband
Jose Esparcia, the surrender of Original Certificate of Title No.
10275—which was in their possession—the latter refused, thus giving
rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral record
No. 507. The same, however, was denied (Exhs. 8 & 9).
Thereafter, or more specifically, on July 30, 1951, Cipriana and
Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, and who as such
had declared the property in their name on January 1, 1951 executed a
deed of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes
(Exh. 2) who, in turn, declared it in their name for tax purposes and
thereafter secured the issuance in their name of Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-2141 (Exhs. 5 and 5-A).
As held by the trial
court, it is clear upon the facts already stated, that the land in
question was reservable property. 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 Andrea Gutang died on
December 13, 1951, the lone reservee surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso
who died only on January 13, 1952 (Exh. 10).
In connection
with reservable property, the weight of opinion is that the reserva
creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the
ascendant obliged to reserve end (2) the survival, at the time of his
death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which the property came (6 Manresa 268-269; 6 Sanchez Roman 1934). The
Court has held in connection with this matter that 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 reservista, the rights acquired by the
transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatorios
at the time of death of the reservista (Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil., 295; Lunsod vs. Ortega, 46 Phil., 664; Florentino vs. Florentino 40 Phil., 480; and Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil., 279).
The 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 as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriano 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.
On the other hand, it is also clear
that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaesco in
favor of the spouse Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes wag subject to a
similar resolutory condition. 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. While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister
prior to this event, became effective because of the occurrence of the
resolutory condition, we are not now in a position to reverse the
appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion of the property
in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees—the
Esparcia spouses—did not appeal therefrom.
Wherefore, the
appealed decision—as above modified—is affirmed, with costs, and
without prejudice to whatever action in equity the Esparcia spouses may
have against the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso for the reconveyance of the
property in question.
Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.