Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Quezon City, Metro Manila ECEIVED
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS i q SFEB 2014
First Regular Session
House BILL No._3957

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER JESUS “XJ” D. ROMUALDO-

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Article 891 of the Civil Code provides for what is known as the reserva troncal. The reserva
troncal is a “special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a reservable property to
the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant.”' It is meant to
avoid the danger that property existing for many years in a family’s patrimony might pass
gratuitously to outsiders through the accident of marriage and untimely death.

‘The reserva troncal operates where (1) a person, called the prepositus, acquires property
from a legitimate ascendant or sibling, called the origin, by gratuitous title, that is by
succession or donation; (2) the prepositus dies without legitimate descendants; (3) the
property is inherited by another legitimate ascendant of the prepositus, called the reservista,
by operation of law, that is by compulsory or intestate succession; and (4) there are legitimate
relatives of the prepositus within the third degree belonging to the line from which the
property came. These relatives, called the reservatarios, are for whom the property is
reserved. Upon the death of the reservista, the property passes to the reservatario/s.

The reserva troncal was a feature of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, together with the
reserva viudal and the reversion legal. The Code Commission that drafted the present Civil
Code regarded these rules as unjust and inequitable not only because these were remnants of
feudalism but also because they seemed to penalize legitimate family relations. Hence, in
order to prevent a decedent's estate from being entailed, to eliminate the uncertainty in
ownership caused by a reservation, and to discourage the confinement o£ property within a
certain family for generations, which seemingly leads to economic oligarchy and is
incompatible with the socialization of ownership, the Code Commission sought to remove
these rules from our law. However, Congress retained the reserva troncal when it enacted
the Civil Code.

‘The drafters of the Civil Code sought to eli:ninate a provision of law it deemed already
outmoded and archaic almost 70 years ago. According to the commentator Castan, “[tJhe

* Mendoea v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 176422, Mar. 20, 2013.

2 Gonzales v. Court of Fist Instance of Manila, G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981(_cl peligro de que bienes poseides seculanmente por
tuna failiapasen bruscamente a titulo gratuito a manos exralas por el azar de los enlaoes y mucres prematuras...)

Mid.


institution of the reservas is hardly consistent with the principles of strict law, let alone with
the spirit of modern law, The reservas are based on a spirit of distrust and suspicion from
Which modern law is veering away, aware that the regime of reservas is unjust in principle
and sterile in practice."

It is submitted that there is no value or good to be gained in keeping the reserva troncal in
our law. It is extremely obsolete and very out of place in today’s world, It penalizes marriage
and legitimate family relations. It is a hindrance to the development and transferability of
property. It unduly complicates our already complex law on succession. Finally, it is
impractical, quite difficult to grasp, and is a source of unnecessary litigation. Elaborate rules,
intricate distinctions, and differing interpretations by commentators mark the reserva troncal.
Indeed, according to Manresa, “[u}nderstanding this article is no easy matter; it would not be
farfetched to say that it has engendered doubts and questions, many of them difficult to
resolve.” It is time for Congress to finally heed the Code Commission and remove the
reserva troncal from the law.

In view of the foregoing, the support of the Members of Congress for the prompt and timely
passage of this measure is earnestly sought.

Xx ain yw

XAVIER JESUS “XJ” D. ROMUALDO


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 39577

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER JESUS “XJ” D. ROMUALDO.

AN ACT”
REPEALING ARTICLE 891 OR THE RESERVA TRONCAL OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 386, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 891 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil
Code of the Philippines, is hereby repealed.

SEC, 2. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in at least two
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,