Appeal from  a judgment rendered on 31 October 1959 by the Court of First  Instance of Pampanga in Civil Case No. 1235, the dispositive  part  of  which is

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered condemning the defendant- executrix, Atanasia Lacson, to convey to the plaintiffs that portion of land described in  the  decision of the cadastral court  dated February 4, 1928, with the area indicated therein, free from any and all liens  or encumbrances; and in  default  thereof, judgment is hereby further rendered condemning the defendant-executrix,  Atanasia Lacson to pay unto the plaintiffs the value  of the land and the produce therefrom from December 13, 1955, both of which may be proved at the hearing of the motion for the  issuance of  a writ of execution, with legal interest from December 13,  1955 until fully  paid.  Defendant shall pay the costs. The complaint is dismissed as to  the Philippine National Bank.

The action brought by the plaintiffs is to compel the defendant, as executrix of the last will of the late Emilio B. Lacson, to segregate a part of a tract of land, lot 343 of the Cadastral  Survey  of  Magalang, containing  an  area  of 880,657 square meters, the registration of which was decreed by the Court of First  Instance of Pampanga on 4 February 1928 in the  name of Faustina  Baron, subject to a "reserva troncal" (Exhibit A), in Cadastral Case No. 5, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 128,  annotated  on the original certificate  of title No.  17493 issued pursuant to the decree by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the Province of Pampanga (Exhibit (B); to exclude  the aforesaid part  of the tract of land from the inventory of the estate  of the land of the late Emilio B. Lacson; to deliver it to them (plaintiffs) ; to pay them (plaintiffs)  P1,300, the liquidated annual value of the products of  the  land beginning 1955 until possession  be delivered to them by the defendant; to exclude said part  of  the land  from  the  mortgage constituted in favor of the Philippine National Bank; and to pay attorney's fees and costs.

A motion to dismiss the complaint for lack  of capacity to sue, the resolution of which was deferred, and the answer of the defendant raised the legal question that the plaintiffs, the reservees (reservatarios)  not being relatives of the prepositus within the third degree are not according to law entitled to the parcel of land reserved to the reservees (reservatarios) as  provided for by law; and that the Land Registration Court had no jurisdiction to declare and hold who were the reservees or reservatarios at the time of entering the  decree of registration, because such declaration may be made only  upon or after the death of the reservist or reservista.

On 23 July 1958, the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:

1. Parties agree as to the existence and the personal circumstances of the parties as alleged in paragraph 1 of the complaint.
   
2. In conformity with the certified copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No.  4190 covering Lot  No.  343,  plaintiffs agree   that the correct boundary of said lot on the NW is Lot 362, not 363 as described in the complaint.  Parties also  agree as  to the identity of the property,  subject matter of the Complaint, which  is a portion of 18 hectares, 57 ares and 60  centares  of Lot   34$ of the Cadastral Survey of Magalang,  which Lot No. 343 is described in T.C.T. No. 4190.
   
3. Parties agree that  there  appears as incumbrance on T.C.T. No. 4190 indicated as No. 10  on  the face thereof, which  reads as follows:

"Que una extension superficial  de 18  hectareas, 57 areas  y  60 centiareas de este  lote  es  de  caracter  reservable  en  favor  de Manuel,  Gregorio,  Cipriano, Cristina,  Andres,  Pedro,  Gregorio, Roman e Isabel appellidados Gueco,  y  Rosa Marciano,  Modesta y  Jose,  appellidados Gantioqui,  siempre que  los mismos  sobre- vivieran  a Faustina Baron."

On 14 November 1958, the parties submitted an additional partial stipulation of facts, as follows:

1. That the deceased Emilio B. Lacson, executed a real estate mortgage  in "favor of the  Philippine National Bank, Tarlac Branch, for W00,000.00 on July 7, 1950, giving as security thereof  the property described under TCT No. 4190 of the Land Records of Pampanga, together with  other  real properties described  also in the Deed of Mortgage, which mortgage appears annotated on said TCT  No. 4190 on July 8, 1950 as Entry  No. 10862;
   
2.  That  the  deceased, Emilio B. Lacson, executed  another real estate mortgage in favor of the Philippine National  Bank, Tarlac Branch,  for P80.000.00 on September 26, 1951,  giving as security thereof the same property  described under TCT  No.  4190 of the Land Records  of Pampanga, together with  other properties  described also  in the mortgage deed, which mortgage also appears  inscribed on said title TCT No. 4190, on  September 27, 1951, as per entry No. 15879;
   
3. That the following annotation; to  wit:
   "Que una extension superficial de 18 hectareas, 57 areas y 60 centiareas de este lote  es de caracter reservable  en favor de Manuel, Gregorio, Cipriano, Cristina, Andres, Pedro, Gregorio, Roman, k appellidados  Gantioqui, siempre  que  los. mismos sobrevivieran a Isabel  appellidados  Gueco,  y Rosa  Marciano, ModeBta  y  Jose, Faustina Baron."

Appears described on the face of the Original Certificate of Title No. 17493, of  the Land Records of Pampanga, covering Lot No: 343, of the Magalang Cadastre which OCT was canceled by TCT No. 4190 of the Land Records of Pampanga, and that  the above annotation was transferred in said TCT No. 4190.

After the presentation and admission of the exhibits for the plaintiffs and the defendants, both parties rested their case.

From Exhibit 21 it appears that on 26 March 1949 Faustina Baron sold the tract of land (Lot 343) to her only son Emilio B. Lacson.   The "caracter reservable" annotation on Original certificate of title No.  17493 was carried over to and annotated on transfer certificate of tittle No. 4190 issued on 26 April 1950 in the name of Emilio B. Lacson married to Atanasia Lacson by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the Province of Pampanga (Exhibits C and C-l).  On 25 May 1952, Emilio  B. Lacson died  (Exhibit 17), and on 12 December  1955, Faustina Baron   also  died  (Exhibit D). After the death  of Emilio B. Lacson, his widow, Atanasia Vda. de Lacson, was appointed executrix of the last will and testament of the late Emilio B.  Lacson.  In the inventory of the estate of the late Emilio B. Lacson  the  parcel of land subject  to "reserva troncal" was included.

On 31 August 1956, the attorney for the plaintiffs, the only surviving reservees  ( reservatarios), demanded from counsel of the defendant, Atanasia Vda. de Lacson, the enforcement of the "reserva troncal" annotated on transfer certificate of title  No. 4190 (Exhibit E).   In view of the refusal of the defendant to comply with their demand, plain- tiffs brought this action, as stated at the beginning of this opinion, impleading the Philippine National Bank, as mortgagee of the tract of land subject to reservation.

After submittal of memoranda  by the  parties,  the  trial court rendered judgment the dispositive part of which is quoted at the outset of this opinion.

The appellant claims that the trial  court committed the following errors:

I. The trial court erred in not declaring that plaintiffs-appellees are relatives of the fourth degree  of the prepositus  Felix  Layug, and therefore not entitled to the reservable property.

II. The  trial Court erred in not holding that the erroneous inclusion by name of plaintiffs-appellees in the cadastral decision (Exh. A) as among the   relatives within the third degree of Felix Layug when in truth they are his fourth degree relatives, was  mere surplusage which  did not vest any  right to  the  appellees on  the  reservable property,  for  the right of the  reservee in "reserva troncal" is conferred by law and  not by judicial fiat, as  what the  law does not recognize  cannot be created by  judgment either by collusion or negligence of the parties, and therefore the declaration in the cadastral decision stretching the concept of "reserva troncal" to  include fourth degree  relatives  as reservees3  like the  plaintiffs-appellees  herein, was ultra vires and without jurisdiction on the part of the court, and is null  and void  from the beginning.

III. The  trial  Court  erred  in  not  declaring  that  plaintiffs- appellees  are  guilty of fraud in procuring  the registration of their non-existent right to the  reservable property in question by fraudulently making themselves appear  in  the cadastral   proceedings  of, said land to  be supposedly relatives  within  the  third  degree  of Felix Layug,  when in truth they are only his fourth degree relation, and since no  innocent purchaser for value  has acquired interest  on the reservable property, the plaintiffs-appellees are duly bound under the broad principles of law and equity to reconvey the reserved land to the estate of  Emilio B. Lacson,  successor-in-interest of  Faustina Baron  in whom  the ownership of  the  reservable property   ought to have been  consolidated during her lifetime were it not  for  the fraudulent  acts  of plaintiffs-appellees in misleading the cadastral court  in  mentioning them to be  among the relatives  within  the third degree  of  Felix Layug, or at least answer to said estate for the full value of said land and  the fruits they shall benefit therefrom in  the  event  the reserved property is  no longer reconveyable.

The argument advanced by  counsel  for the appellant, citing comment  of Manresa on the point in  support, to the effect that  the time to determine who are entitled  to the property  subject to "reserva troncal" is upon or after the death of  the reservist (reservista) is correct according to the  provisions of the  Civil Code, but the comment cannot be invoked and applied when the determination of the questions arising upon application in land registration and cadastral cases is made, because the court is vested with jurisdiction or "power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications, and also have jurisdiction over such other questions as may come before it under this Act, * * *" (Section 2, Act 496 as amended).   The right of the reservee (reservatario )  affects the land the registration of which is applied for under the Land Registration Act.   So that if the Court hearing the application for registration is apprised of such right it cannot refuse to pass upon it.  The Cadastral Court in  deciding or determining whether there exists  a right of a reservee affecting the land sought to be registered in a land registration or cadastral case is clothed with and has jurisdiction conferred by law so to do.   If the determination is erroneous, the party adversely affected thereby may appeal from such determination or judgment.

In Cano vs.  Director  of Lands, et al., 105 Phil., 1, this Court held:

The decree having become final, all persons (appellees (appellants) included)  are barred thereby from contesting the existence of  the constituent elements of the reserva.  The only  requisites for  the passing of the title from the reservists (reservista ) to the appellee (reservee-reservatario) are:  (1) the death of the reservista,  and (2) the fact that  the reservatario has survived the reservista.

The judgment  appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the  appellant.

Bengzon, C.  J., Bautista Angelo,  Labrador,  Concepcion, Barrera,  Paredes,  Dizon,  Regala,  and  Makalintal,  JJ., concur.