Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon

A testator may partition her entire estate by will under Article 1080 of the Civil Code, and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs; where specific assignments result in some heirs receiving less than their legitime, the affected heirs are entitled only to completion of their legitime under Article 906 (satisfied by payments from those who received excess), not to a proportional reduction of all testamentary dispositions to the free portion.

The testatrix died in Angeles, Pampanga, survived by six legitimate children and one legitimate granddaughter (representing a predeceased son). She left an estate valued at approximately P1.8 million and a will written in the Pampango dialect commanding that her property be divided among her heirs and several grandchildren.

• Commenced as Special Proceedings No. 1582 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga.
• March 13, 1961: Will admitted to probate; Marina Dizon-Rivera appointed executrix and issued letters testamentary.
• December 12, 1963: CFI approved the commissioner's appraisal report of the estate (P1,811,695.60) upon joint petition of the parties.
• February 5, 1964: Executrix filed her project of partition adjudicating specific properties to named heirs and providing cash payments to complete the impaired legitimes of five heirs.
• February 14, 1964: Oppositors filed counter-project of partition proposing to reduce all testamentary dispositions proportionally to one-half of the estate (the free portion) and distribute the other half as legitimes.
• CFI approved the executrix's project of partition.
• Appeal: Direct appeal to the SC (then proper because the estate value exceeded P200,000 under Section 17, third paragraph, subsection 5 of the former Judiciary Act, now eliminated by Rep. Act 5440).

• Agripina J. Valdez died on January 28, 1961, survived by seven compulsory heirs: children Estela, Tomas, Bernardita, Marina, Angelina, and Josefina Dizon, and granddaughter Lilia Dizon (child of predeceased son Ramon).
• The will, executed February 2, 1960, commanded: "it is my wish and I command that my property be divided" and proceeded to assign specific real properties to specific beneficiaries.
• Appraised values of adjudications: Marina received P1,148,063.71; Tomas received P131,987.41; Estela received P98,474.80; Angelina received P106,307.06; Bernardita received P51,968.17; Josefina received P52,056.39; Lilia received P72,182.47.
• The legitime of each compulsory heir was P129,362.11 (1/7 of one-half of the estate per Article 888).
• Marina and Tomas received more than their legitime; the other five compulsory heirs received less.
• The will also contained a clause providing that if any named heir predeceased the testatrix, the properties "bequeathed" to that heir would go to the heir's forced heirs.

• The will constituted a valid partition by will under Article 1080, evidenced by the testatrix's express command to divide her property and the specific assignment of properties to heirs.
• The use of the words "I bequeath" did not convert the partition into mere devises chargeable only against the free portion.
• The five oppositors who received less than their legitime are entitled only to completion of their legitime under Article 906, to be satisfied by cash payments from Marina and Tomas who received excess.
• Payment in cash is a practical solution that gives effect to the testatrix's manifest wish to transmit specific real properties intact to her named beneficiaries, principally Marina.

• The testamentary dispositions using the words "I bequeath" constitute devises of real property imputable only to the free portion (one-half of the estate), not a partition.
• Under Article 1063, property left by will is not deemed subject to collation (interpreted as not imputable to the legitime), entitling them to their legitime plus the devise (proportionally reduced).
• Alternatively, all testamentary dispositions should be proportionally reduced to the value of one-half of the estate, with the other half reserved for payment of legitimes in equal shares.
• They cannot be compelled to accept cash payment for their impaired legitimes; they are entitled to real properties from the estate.

• Procedural Issues: N/A (The direct appeal to the SC was proper under the then applicable jurisdictional amount).
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the testamentary dispositions constitute a partition by will under Article 1080 or mere devises subject to reduction under Article 907.
  • Whether the oppositors are entitled to their legitime plus the devise (under Article 1063) or merely to completion of their legitime (under Article 906).
  • Whether the oppositors may be compelled to accept cash payment to complete their legitime instead of real properties.

• Procedural: N/A.
• Substantive:
  • The testamentary dispositions constitute a partition by will. The testatrix's express command that her property be divided, coupled with specific assignments to named heirs, indicates an intent to partition under Article 1080. The repeated use of "I bequeath" is legally insignificant and does not negate the character of the act as a partition.
  • The oppositors are entitled only to completion of their legitime under Article 906, not to the devise plus legitime. Article 1063 applies to collation of donations inter vivos, not to partition by will. The oppositors' theory would result in intestacy, contrary to Article 791 (interpretation to prevent intestacy).
  • The oppositors may be compelled to accept cash payment to complete their legitime. The testatrix specifically partitioned the real properties to named beneficiaries, and the heirs must comply with her wish to transmit these properties intact. The value of the legitime is determined at the moment of death (January 28, 1961) per Article 777, not at the time of payment.

• Partition by Will (Article 1080) — A testator may partition his estate by will, assigning specific properties to specific heirs; such partition is respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs. The SC applied this by finding that the testatrix's specific assignments constituted a partition, not mere devises, despite the use of the word "bequeath."
• Completion of Legitime (Article 906) — Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied. The SC applied this by ordering cash differentials from heirs who received excess (Marina and Tomas) to those who received less (the five oppositors).
• Interpretation to Prevent Intestacy (Article 791) — Of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. The SC applied this to reject the oppositors' theory which would have reduced the will's effect to mere devises of half the estate, effectively resulting in intestate succession for the other half.
• Primacy of Testator's Intention — The intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed, constitute the fixed law of interpretation; neither heirs nor courts may substitute their own criterion for the testator's will.

• "The intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in his will, constitute the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance therewith, following the plain and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless it clearly appears that his intention was otherwise."
• "The testator's wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the matter of testaments... neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute their own criterion for the testator's will."
• "The repeated use of the words 'I bequeath' in her testamentary dispositions acquire no legal significance, such as to convert the same into devises to be taken solely from the free one-half disposable portion of the estate."
• "Diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent might as well die intestate."

• Villanueva v. Juico (4 SCRA 550) — Controlling precedent establishing that the testator's intention clearly expressed constitutes the fixed law of interpretation.
• Habana v. Imbo (10 SCRA 471) — Followed for the rule that a partition by will under Article 1080 confers exclusive ownership of the adjudicated property upon the heir.
• Icasiano v. Icasiano (11 SCRA 422) — Cited for the principle that diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament.
• Romero v. Villamor (102 Phil. 641) — Cited regarding the amendment from Article 1056 of the old Civil Code to Article 1080 of the new Civil Code regarding partition by act inter vivos.

• Article 1080, Civil Code — Partition by will.
• Article 906, Civil Code — Right to completion of legitime.
• Article 907, Civil Code — Reduction of inofficious testamentary dispositions.
• Article 791, Civil Code — Interpretation to give effect to all provisions and prevent intestacy.
• Article 842, Civil Code — Dispositions in favor of compulsory heirs.
• Article 888, Civil Code — Computation of legitime of legitimate children.
• Article 912, Civil Code — Devisee entitled to legitime may retain entire property under certain conditions.
• Article 1063, Civil Code — Collation of property left by will (held inapplicable to partition by will).
• Article 777, Civil Code — Transmission of successional rights from moment of death.
• Article 1091, Civil Code — Effect of partition (confers exclusive ownership).

• N/A (Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concurred).