12 Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
12 Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
12 Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
TEEHANKEE, J.:
1 Appeal was directed to this Court, as the value of the estate exceeded
557
VOL. 33, JUNE 30, 1970 557
Dizon-Rivera, vs. Dizon
posed of all her properties appraised at P1,801,960.00
(except two small parcels of land appraised at P5,849.60,
household furniture valued at P2,500.00, a bank deposit in
the sum of P409.95 and ten shares of Pampanga Sugar
Development Company valued at P350.00) among her
abovenamed heirs.
Testate proceedings were in due course commenced and 2
by order dated March 13, 1961, the last will and testament
of the decedent was duly allowed and admitted to probate,
and the appellee Marina Dizon-Rivera was appointed
executrix of the testatrix' estate, and upon her filing her
bond and oath of office, letters testamentary were duly
issued to her.
After the executrix filed her inventory of the estate, Dr.
Adelaido Bernardo of Angeles, Pampanga was appointed
commissioner to appraise the properties of the estate. He
filed in due course his report of appraisal, and the same
was approved in toto by the lower court on December 12,
1963 upon joint petition of the parties. The real and
personal properties of the testatrix at the time of her death
thus had a total appraised value of P1,811,695.60, and the
legitime of each of the seven compulsory heirs amounted to
P129,362.11. (1/7 of the half of the estate reserved for the
3
558
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
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. The appraised values of the real
properties thus respectively devised by the testatrix to the
beneficiaries named in her will, are as follows:
"1. Estela Dizon............................... P 98,474.80
2. Angelina Dizon........................... 106,307.06
3. Bernardita Dizon....................... 51,968.17
4. Josefina Dizon........................... 52,056.39
5. Tomas Dizon............................ 131,987.41
6. Lilia Dizon................................. 72,182.47
7. Marina Dizon........................... 1,148,063.71
8. Pablo Rivera, Jr....................... 69,280.00
9. Lilia Dizon, Gilbert Garcia, Cayetano
Dizon, Francisco Rivera, Agripina
Ayson, Dioli or Jolly Jimenez,
Laureano Tiamzon........... 72,540.00
Total Value........................ P1,801,960.01"
The executrix filed her project of partition dated February
5, 1964, in substance adjudicating the estate as follows:
562
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
testator's will. Guided and restricted by these f
undamental premises, the Court finds for the appellee.
1. Decisive of the issues at bar is the fact that 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 10
563
VOL. 33, JUNE 30, 1970 563
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
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.
2. This right of a testator to partition his estate by will
was recognized even in Article 1056 of the old Civil Code
which has been reproduced now as Article 1080 of the
present Civil Code. The only amendment in the provison
was that Article 1080 "now permits any person (not
a testator, as under the old law) to partition his estate by
act inter vivos." This was intended to repeal the then
11
the question does not here concern us, for this is a clear
case of partition by will, duly admitted to probate, which
perforce must be given full validity and effect, Aside from
the provisions of Articles 906 and 907 above quoted, other
codal provisions support the executrix-appellee's project of
partition as approved by the lower court rather than the
counter-project of partition proposed by oppositors-
appellants whereby they would reduce the testamentary
disposition or partition made by the testatrix to onehalf
and limit the same, which they would consider as mere
devises or legacies, to one-half of the estate as the
disposable free portion, and apply the other half of the
estate to payment of the legitimes of the seven compulsory
heirs. Oppositors' proposal would amount substantially to
a distribution by intestacy and pro tanto nullify the tes-
_______________
564
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
tatrix' will, contrary to Article 791 of the Civil Code. It
would further run counter to the provisions of Article 1091
of the Civil Code that "(A) partition legally made confers
upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property
adjudicated to him."
3. In Habana vs. Imbo, the Court upheld the
14
565
VOL. 33, JUNE 30, 1970 565
Dizon-Rivera, vs. Dizon
From this erroneous premise, they proceed to the equally
erroneous conclusion that "the legitime of the compulsory
heirs passes to them by operation of law and that the
testator can only dispose of the free portion, that is, the
remainder of the estate after deducting the legitime of the
compulsory heirs x x x and all testamentary dispositions,
either in the nature of institution of heirs or of devises or
legacies, have to be taken from the remainder of the
testator's estate constituting the free portion." 16
566
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Dizon-Rivera, vs. Dizon
taken only from the free portion of the estate, as contended,
for the second paragraph of Article 842 of the Civil Code
precisely provides that "(O)ne who has compulsory
heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not
contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the
legitime of said heirs." And even going by oppositors' own
theory of bequests, the second paragraph of Article 912 of
the Civil Code covers precisely the case of the executrix-
appellee, who admittedly was favored by the testatrix with
the large bulk of her -estate in providing that "(T)he
devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire
property, provided its value does not exceed that of the
disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as
legitime." For "diversity of apportionment is the usual
reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent
might as well die intestate." Fundamentally, of course, the
18
567
VOL. 33, JUNE 30, 1970 567
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
call for the application of Articles 1061 to 1063 of the Civil
Code on collation. The amount of the legitime of the heirs
is here determined and undisputed.
5. With this resolution of the decisive issue raised by
oppositors-appellants, the secondary issues are likewise
necessarily resolved. Their right 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 the appellants 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. The appraisal report of the properties of the
estate as filed by the comissioner appointed by the lower
court was approved in toto upon joint petition of the
parties, and hence, there cannot be said to be any
question—and none is presented—as to fairness of the
valuation thereof or that the legitime of the heirs in terms
of cash has been understated. The plaint of oppositors that
the purchasing value of the Philippine peso has greatly
declined since the testatrix' death in January, 1961
provides no legal basis or justification for overturning the
wishes and intent of the testatrix. The transmission of
rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment
of death of the decedent (Article 777, Civil Code) and
accordingly, the value thereof must be reckoned as of then,
as otherwise, estates would never be settled if there were
to be a revaluation with every subse-
568
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon
quent fluctuation in the values of the currency and
properties of the estate. There is evidence in the record that
prior to November 25, 1964, one of the oppositors,
Bernardita, accepted the sum of P50,000.00 on account of
her inheritance, which, per the parties'
manifestation, "does not in any way affect the
20
569
____________