FRANCISCA TIOCO DE PAPA, MANUEL TIOCO, NICOLAS TIOCO AND JANUARIO PAPA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. DALISAY TONGKO CAMACHO, PRIMO TONGKO AND GODOFREDO CAMACHO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Tioco de Papa versus Camacho

The Case

This is a dispute within one family over land that passed through a reserva troncal — the reservation by which an ascendant who inherits property from a descendant must hold it for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. The plaintiffs, Francisca Tioco de Papa, Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant Dalisay Tongko Camacho. They sued to recover a share of seven parcels of land that had been reserved in the hands of Eustacio Dizon and that, upon his death, the defendant claimed in full. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the reserva troncal only identifies the group of reservatarios; the size of each one's share, and who among them is preferred, is governed by the ordinary rules on intestate succession.

Procedural History

The parties submitted the case for judgment in the lower court upon a stipulation of facts and partial compromise, asking the court to resolve a single legal question: whether the defendant is entitled to the whole of the seven parcels, or whether the plaintiffs, as third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon, are co-reservatarios entitled to three-fourths of the one-half share that Eustacio Dizon inherited from Faustino. The lower court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding them entitled to three-eighths of the seven parcels and to three-eighths of the rentals, and ordering the defendant to render an accounting. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in September 1986.

Facts

Romana Tioco, during her lifetime, gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco. Toribia died intestate in 1915, survived by her husband Eustacio Dizon and their two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. The four parcels passed to the two children in equal shares. In 1928, Balbino Tioco, the father of the plaintiffs and great grandfather of the defendant, died intestate. In the partition of his estate, three parcels were adjudicated as the inheritance of Toribia, but because she had predeceased her father, those three parcels devolved upon her two children, Faustino and Trinidad, in equal shares.

In 1937, Faustino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue. His one-half share in the seven parcels passed to his father, Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, and Eustacio received that property subject to a reserva troncal, which was annotated on the certificates of title. In 1939, Trinidad Dizon Tongko died intestate, and her rights passed to her only legitimate child, the defendant Dalisay Tongko Camacho, subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband, Primo Tongko.

On June 14, 1965, Eustacio Dizon died intestate, survived by his only legitimate descendant, the defendant. The defendant already owned one-half of the seven parcels as her inheritance from her mother. She claimed the other half by virtue of the reserva troncal. The plaintiffs opposed her, claiming three-fourths of the one-half share that Eustacio inherited from Faustino, or three-eighths of the whole, on the ground that they too are third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon.

Issues

• Whether or not all relatives of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista, as the plaintiffs contend and the lower court held.
• Whether or not the rights of the reservatarios among themselves are subject to, and should be determined by, the rules on intestate succession, as the defendant contends.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs, as aunt and uncles of the praepositus Faustino Dizon, are excluded from the succession by the defendant, who is his niece.

Applicable Provisions

Article 891 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 891. 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.

This is the provision that created the reservation in favor of Eustacio Dizon and that identifies who may claim the property upon his death.

Article 1009 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.

This provision supplies the order of intestate succession that governs the reservatarios among themselves, placing other collaterals behind nephews and nieces.

Article 1005 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 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.

This provision confirms that nephews and nieces are preferred collaterals who take ahead of aunts and uncles.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plaintiffs' reading of Article 891 is wrong. The question had already been answered in Padura versus Baldovino, where the Court declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling. The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives, the reservatarios, to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property is decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Article 891 does not specify otherwise. The Court stressed that the reserva is an exceptional case and its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that proximity of degree and the right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession, and 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 those principles apply in determining the rights of the reservatarios among themselves, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should likewise operate.

On the third issue, the Court held that the plaintiffs have no right to the property. As aunt and uncles of Faustino Dizon, they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant, although they are related to him within the same degree. The Court relied on Abellana versus Ferraris, which applied Article 1009: the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces is a precondition to the other collaterals being called to the succession. The Court also noted that the reservatarios do not inherit from the reservista but from the descendant praepositus, so that upon the death of the reservista the reservatario nearest to the praepositus becomes, automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. Had the property passed directly from the praepositus, the plaintiffs would have been excluded; no different result should obtain simply because the transmission was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva.

Doctrine

The reserva troncal under Article 891 of the Civil Code merely determines the group of relatives, the reservatarios, to whom the reservable property should be returned. Within that group, the individual right to the property, and the preference among claimants, is governed by the ordinary rules on intestate succession, because Article 891 does not specify otherwise. Proximity of degree and the right of representation apply, and so does the rule that whole blood relatives take a share double that of half blood relatives. The reservatarios do not inherit from the reservista but from the descendant praepositus, and the reservatario nearest to the praepositus becomes owner automatically and by operation of law upon the death of the reservista. Under Article 1009, uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs, holding the defendant Dalisay Tongko Camacho entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the reserva troncal only selects the reservatarios; the rules on intestate succession then fix their shares and preferences. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that a niece excludes an aunt and uncle from the reservable property, and that the reservatario takes from the praepositus, not from the reservista.