Gonzalez vs. Court of 1st Instance of Manila

G.R. No. L-34395
Filomena Roces inherited properties from her daughter, Filomena Legarda, subject to reserva troncal under Article 891. Her holographic will favoring grandchildren was invalid; properties must pass to her six children as reservees.
properties inherited deceased daughter

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34395)

Facts:

Beatriz L. Gonzalez v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch V), G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981, Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.

The dispute arises from properties that had passed through several successions within the Legarda–Roces family. Benito Legarda y De la Paz died in 1933, survived by his widow Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda (the testatrix) and seven children, including Filomena Legarda (who predeceased her mother) and Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez (petitioner). In 1939 the ancestral real properties of Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned among his heirs; in 1943 Filomena Legarda (the daughter) died intestate and without issue, and her mother Filomena Roces succeeded to the daughter’s share by operation of law.

On May 12, 1947 the mother executed an affidavit of extrajudicial adjudication, thus becoming co-owner pro indiviso of numerous shares, shares of stock, bank deposits and titled lots (enumerated in the complaint) that originally came from her own ascendant line and had passed to her deceased daughter. In 1953 she executed handwritten dispositions favoring certain grandchildren; in 1958–59 she and six surviving children partitioned the one-third share in the estate derived by representation from Benito Legarda y De la Paz. The testatrix died on September 22, 1967; her holographic will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Special Proceeding No. 70878) and that probate was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (Legarda v. Gonzalez, CA-G.R. No. 43480-R, July 30, 1976).

While probate was pending, Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez filed (May 20, 1968) a motion in the testate proceeding to exclude the properties inherited from her daughter Filomena from the inventory, claiming they were reservable (reserva troncal) and therefore ought to go to Filomena’s nearest relatives (the petitioner’s siblings) rather than to the grandchildren. On June 20, 1968 Mrs. Gonzalez also filed an ordinary civil action for partition, accounting, reconveyance and damages against her brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces and the estate of her mother, seeking declaration that those properties were reservable and could not be devised by the testatrix to grandchildren to the exclusion of her children.

The Court of First Instance dismissed Mrs. Gonzalez’s action, holding the properties were not subject to reserva troncal. The defendants raised counterclaims and affirmative defenses (waiver, estoppel, laches, prescription, and also that the mother acquired the estate in exchange for conjugal/hereditary rights), but the trial court did not rule on those factual issues. Mrs. Gonzalez appealed under Republic Act No. 5440. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely; the Supreme Court denied that motion in a December 16, 1971...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Procedural: Was the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for review as untimely well-founded?
  • Substantive: Are the disputed properties reservable under Article 891 of the Civil Code (reserva troncal) in the hands of Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda?
  • Substantive: Could Filomena Roces Vda. de Legarda validly dispose of those reservable properties by holographic will in favor of her grandchildren t...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest