RICARDO LACERNA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. JACOBA MARBEBE, INTERVENOR AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Hoilo declaring that
the parcels of land in litigation are property of intervenor Jacoba Marbebe.

This action was instituted by Ricardo, Patrocinia, Patria, Faustino, Leonor,
Eamona, Asuncion, Emiliana, Arsenio and Felipe, all surnamed Lacerna, for the
recovery of three parcels of unregistered lands, situated in the municipality of
Maasin, Iloilo, and more specifically described in the complaint, upon the
ground that said lands belonged to the deceased Juan Marbebe, and that his
cousins, plaintiffs herein, are his sole heirs.

In her answer, defendant Agatona Vda. de Corcino alleged, inter alia,
that Juan Marbebe might still be alive.; that she held the disputed lands, under
a power of attorney executed by Juan Marbebe; and that, if he has died, she is
entitled to succeed him in the same manner as plaintiffs herein, she being
related to him in the same’manner as plaintiffs are.

With the court’s permission, Jacoba Marbebe filed an answer in intervention
alleging that she is a half sister of Juan Marbebe who died intestate, leaving
neither ascendants nor descendants, and that, as his half sister, she is
entitled, by succession, to the properties in dispute.

After due trial, the court rendered judgment for the intervenor. Hence, this
appeal by the plaintiffs.

The lower court found, and appellants do not question, that the lands
described in the complaint belonged originally to Bonifacia Lacerna. Upon her
death in 1932, they passed, by succession, to her only son, Juan Marbebe who
was, subsequently, taken to Culion, where he died intestate, single and without
issue, on February 21, 1943. The question for determination is: Who shall
succeed him?

It appears that his mother, Bonifacia Lacerna, had two (2) brothers, Catalino
Lacerna and Marcelo Lacerna, and a sister, Agatona Paurillo Vda. de Corcino, the
defendant herein; that Catalino Lacerna died in 1950 and was survived by his
children, plaintiffs Ricardo, Patrocinia and Patria, all surnamed Lacerna; and
that Marcelo Lacerna, who died in 1953, was survived by his children, the other
plaintiffs herein, namely, Ramona, Faustino, Leonor, Asuncion, Emiliana, Arsenio
and Felipe, all surnamed Lacerna. Upon the other hand, intervenor Jacoba Marbebe
is a daughter, by first marriage, of Valentin Marbebe, husband of Bonifacia
Lacerna and father of Juan Marbebe, who, accordingly, is a half brother of said
intervenor.

With this factual background, the issue is narrowed down to whether Jacobo
Marbebe, as half sister of Juan Marbebe, on his father’s side, is hia 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 maternal 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.

Jacoba Marbebe contends, however, and the lower court held, that brothers and
sisters exclude all other collateral relatives in the order of intestate
succession, and that, as Juan Marbebe’s half-sister, she has, accordingly, a
better right than plaintiffs herein to inherit his properties.

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. ” (Italics
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 Article 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.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
plaintiffs-appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.