Scribd
Upload
100 views

Hollero vs. CA-Case Digest

1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally owned by Paz Hollero. 2. Upon Paz's death, her relatives claimed ownership of the land through reserva troncal. Paz's husband Generoso and their son Felix alternatively claimed they inherited the land. 3. The Court of Appeals ruled that the document Paz signed was a mortgage, not a sale, so the land passed to Felix and then Generoso, subject to reserva troncal. However, the Supreme Court modified this, excluding some relatives included by the lower court based on a prior case acknowledging the petitioners' ownership.

Uploaded by

claire Hipol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views

Hollero vs. CA-Case Digest

1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally owned by Paz Hollero. 2. Upon Paz's death, her relatives claimed ownership of the land through reserva troncal. Paz's husband Generoso and their son Felix alternatively claimed they inherited the land. 3. The Court of Appeals ruled that the document Paz signed was a mortgage, not a sale, so the land passed to Felix and then Generoso, subject to reserva troncal. However, the Supreme Court modified this, excluding some relatives included by the lower court based on a prior case acknowledging the petitioners' ownership.

Uploaded by

claire Hipol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RESERVA TRONCAL

SATURNINA HOLLERO and JOSE CAMEMO vs. CA


FACTS:
1. The subject parcel of land in this case was owned by Paz Hollero who died
in June 1935 leaving her husband Generoso Hollero and their only son Felix.
2. Felix died in 1944 followed shortly by his father Generoso.
3. Private Respondents (Jose Hollero et al) are the brother and nephews or
nieces of Paz Hollero and they are claiming the property by virtue of reserva
troncal.
4. They contend that upon the death of Paz, the property passed to Felix and
upon the death of Felix, it passed to Generoso.
5. Thereafter, reserva troncal began to operate, when Generoso died, the
property had to be transmitted by operation of law to the relatives of Felix
up to the 3rd degree (ie brothers and sisters of Paz) who survived him.
6. Saturnina, sister of Generoso, on the other hand claims that they
inherited the land from Generoso upon the latter's death. Petitioners
asserted that Paz sold the property to Andrea Gustilo and Generoso
purchased it from Andrea
7. CA ruled that the pacto de retro executed by Paz however was only a
mortgage and Generoso merely paid the debt. Thus, Felix inherited it upon
the death of Paz and when Felix died, it passed to Generoso subject to the
provisions of reserva troncal.
8. In the Decision of CA, they included Manuel Hollero and other brothers
and sisters of Paz.
**Felix Harder is nephew of Paz (sister Socorro)

ISSUE: W/N the land was sold by Paz and if the property was really sold,
then Generoso got ownership and the petitioners have right to judgment.
RULING: The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the CA that the pacto de
retro was only mortgage stating that it is a question of fact thus the findings
of the CA is final.
The Supreme Court however modified the ruling of the CA awarding shares
to Manuel Hollero, and Felix Harder, who were heirs of Paz and Felix but
were expressly excluded in the complaint.
The petitioners maintained that the award to Manuel and Felix Harder--
whom the complaint has expressly excluded and who had previously
acknowledged the right to the land of herein petitioners.
The Supreme Court awarded the portion of Manuel and Felix to herein
petitioners based on the result of Civil Case No. 2239 or the ejectment case
filed by herein petitioners against Manuel and Felix. This is because, in the
case 2239, both having expressly acknowledged the ownership of then
plaintiffs (petitioners here now), were ejected from the property (in 1951).

The court said "Given the result of the Iloilo Civil Case No. 2239, his portion
should have been reserved or adjudicated to herein petitioners-defendants
below."

You might also like