Facts:
Dionisia Padura, et al., the petitioners-appellees, and
Melania Baldovino, et al., the oppositors-appellants, litigated title to four parcels of land that originated in the estate of Agustin Padura, who died on April 26, 1908, leaving a will probated in Special Proceedings No. 664 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and naming his children Manuel, Candelaria and Fortunato and his surviving spouse Benita Garing as beneficiaries. Under the probate proceedings Fortunato Padura was adjudicated the four parcels covered by Decree No. 25960 in Land Registration Case No. G. L. R. O. No. 10818; Fortunato died unmarried and intestate on May 28, 1908, and those parcels devolved upon his mother,
Benita Garing, who obtained Torrens title subject to a reservation in favor of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came under the decree of August 25, 1916.
Candelaria Padura died on August 26, 1934, leaving her four legitimate children, appellants Cristeta, Melania, Anicia and Pablo Baldovino;
Manuel Padura died on October 6, 1940, leaving his seven legitimate children, appellees Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana and Severino Padura. Upon the death of the reservista
Benita Garing on October 15, 1952, the Baldovino appellants and the Padura appellees took possession of the reservable properties. In a resolution of August 1, 1953, the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Special Proceedings No. 4551 declared the legitimate children of the deceased Manuel and Candelaria to be the rightful reservees. On October 22, 1956 the appellants petitioned for partition claiming rights by representation from their respective parents; the appellees opposed, claiming each reservee held an equal undivided share. The trial court declared all reservees co-owners in equal shares, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.
Issues:
In a case of
reserva troncal, where the surviving reservatarios within the line of origin are nephews some of the whole blood and others of the half blood, should the reservable properties be apportioned equally among them or should nephews of the whole blood receive shares twice as large as those of nephews of the half blood?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: