Tioco v. Camacho
G.R. No. L-28032, September 24, 1986
FACTS:
Plaintiffs and defendant Dalisay D. Tongo-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great grandfather of defendant.
Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece ToribiaTiocowhich were later inherited by her husband Eustacio Dizon and two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon (mother of defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho).
In 1928, BalbinoTioco died intestate, survived by his legitimate children by his wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon
and Trinidad Dizon.
On 1937, Faustino Dizon (prepositus) died intestate, single and without issue, leaving his one-half (1/2) pro-indiviso share in the subject seven (7) parcels of land to his father, EustacioDizon, as his sole intestate heir, who received the said property subject to a reservatroncal. On June 14, 1965, EustacioDizon died intestate, survived his only legitimate descendant, defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho.
Defendant Dalisay D. Tongko-Camacho claims the other half of the said seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned by virtue of the reservatroncal imposed thereon upon the death of Faustino Dizon and under the laws on intestate succession; but the plaintiffs oppose her said claim because they claim three-fourths (3/4) of the one-half pro-indiviso interest in said parcel of land, which interest was inherited by Eustacio Dizon from Faustino Dizon, or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels of land, by virtue of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Camacho (niece of the prepositus) excluded the plaintiffs (aunt and uncles of the prepositus) in inheriting over the reservable property despite the fact that they are all reservatarios.
RULING:
YES. The Court held that defendant-appellant DalisayTongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs- appellees.
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter.
