Dizon v. Dizon
G.R. No. L-24561 June 30, 1970
The testatrix Agripina Valdez was survived by seven compulsory heirs, to wit, six
legitimate children and a legitimate granddaughter, who is the only legitimate child and
heir of her son who predeceased her. She left a last will naming the abovementioned
compulsory heirs together with seven other legitimate grandchildren. In her will, she
distributed and disposed of all her properties among the heirs. The said will was allowed
probate. In her will, the testatrix “commanded that her property be divided” in
accordance with her testamentary disposition, whereby she devised and bequeathed
specific real properties comprising practically the entire bulk of her estate among her six
children and eight grandchildren. Marina Dizon, the proponent and executrix, filed her
project of partition adjudicating the estate as follows: (1) with the figure of P129,254.96
as legitime for a basis Marina and Tomas are admittedly considered to have received in
the will more than their respective legitime, while the rest of the other compulsory heirs
received less than their respective legitime; (2) thus, to each of the latter are
adjudicated the properties respectively given them in the will, plus cash and/or
properties, to complete their respective legitimes to P129,254.96; (3) on the other hand,
Marina and Tomas are adjudicated the properties that they received in the will less the
cash and/or properties necessary to complete the prejudiced legitime mentioned in
number 2 above; (4) the adjudications made in the will in favor of the grandchildren
remain untouched. On the other hand, oppositors submitted their own counter-project of partition, proposing that the testamentary disposition made by the testatrix should be reduced to the amounts set forth after the names of the respective heirs and devisees totalling one-half thereof while the other half of the estate would be deemed as
constituting the legitime.
The lower court sustained and approved the executrix’ project of partition, ruling
that “(A)rticles 906 and 907 of the New Civil Code specifically provide that when the
legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be completed and satisfied. The
proposition of the oppositors, if upheld, will substantially result in a distribution of
intestacy, which is in controversion of Article 791 of the New Civil Code” adding that
“the testatrix has chosen to favor certain heirs in her will for reasons of her own, cannot
be doubted. This is legally permissible within the limitation of the law, as aforecited.”
With reference to the payment in cash principally by the executrix to be paid to her five
co-heirs to complete their impaired legitimes, the lower court ruled that “(T)he payment in cash so as to make the proper adjustment to meet with the requirements of the law in respect to legitimes which have been impaired is, in our opinion, a practical and valid solution in order to give effect to the last wishes of the testatrix.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in approving the executrix’ project of
partition
NO. In this case, the testatrix’ testamentary disposition was in the nature of a partition of her estate by will. Thus, in the third paragraph of her will, after commanding that upon her death all her obligations as well as the expenses of her last illness and funeral and the expenses for probate of her last will and for the administration of her property in accordance with law, be paid, she expressly provided that “it is my wish and I command that my property be divided” in accordance with the dispositions immediately thereafter following, whereby she specified each real property in her estate and designated the particular heir among her seven compulsory heirs and seven other grandchildren to whom she bequeathed the same. This was a valid partition of her estate, as contemplated and authorized in the first paragraph of Article 1080 of the Civil Code, providing that “(S)hould a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.” This right of a testator to partition his estate is subject only to the right of compulsory heirs to their legitime. This was properly complied with in the executrix-appellee’s project of partition, wherein the five oppositors-appellants namely Estela, Bernardita, Angelina, Josefina and Lilia, were adjudicated the properties respectively distributed and assigned to them by the testatrix in her will, and the differential to complete their respective legitimes of P129,362.11 each were taken from the cash and/or properties of the executrix-appellee, Marina, and their co-oppositor-appellant, Tomas, who admittedly were favored by the testatrix and received in the partition by will more than their respective legitimes.
Thus, the right of the oppositors in this case was merely to demand completion of their legitime under Article 906 of the Civil Code and this has been complied with in the approved project of partition, and they can no longer demand a further share from the remaining portion of the estate, as bequeathed and partitioned by the testatrix principally to the executrix-appellee. Neither may they legally insist on their legitime being completed with real properties of the estate instead of being paid in cash, per the approved project of partition. The properties are not available for the purpose, as the testatrix had specifically partitioned and distributed them to her heirs, and the heirs are called upon, as far as feasible to comply with and give effect to the intention of the testatrix as solemnized in her will, by implementing her manifest wish of transmitting the real properties intact to her named beneficiaries, principally the executrix-appellee. Orders appealed from were affirmed.
