G.R. No.

L-24561 June 30, 1970

MARINA DIZON-RIVERA, executrix-appeIIee,
vs.
ESTELA DIZON, TOMAS V. DIZON, BERNARDITA DIZON, JOSEFINA DIZON, ANGELINA DIZON and LILIA DIZON,
oppositors-appeIIants.
FACTS
Testatrix Agripina died leaving seven compulsory heirs including executrix Marina.
Agripina left a last will naming her seven compulsory heirs (6 children, 1 grandchild who is representing her father) and
her seven legitimate grandchildren.
n her will, the testatrix divided, distributed and disposed 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 above-named heirs.
Testate proceedings were in due course commenced
2
and 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.
n 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.
The executrix filed her project of partition dated February 5, 1964, in substance adjudicating the estate as follows:
4 (1) with the figure of P129,254.96 as legitime for a basis Marina (exacultrix-appellee) and Tomas (appellant) are
admittedly considered to have received in the will more than their respective legitime, while the rest of the
appellants, namely, Estela, Bernardita, Angelina, Josefina and Lilia received less than their respective legitime;
4 (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 (4) the adjudications made in the will in favor of the grandchildren remain untouched.<re||an1w>
4 On the other hand oppositors submitted their own counter-project of partition dated February 14, 1964, wherein
they proposed the distribution of the estate on the following basis:
4 (a) all the testamentary dispositions were proportionally reduced to the value of one-half () of the entire estate,
the value of the said one-half () amounting to P905,534.78; (b) the shares of the Oppositors-Appellants should
consist of their legitime, plus the devises in their favor proportionally reduced; (c) in payment of the total shares
of the appellants in the entire estate, the properties devised to them plus other properties left by the Testatrix
and/or cash are adjudicated to them; and (d) to the grandchildren who are not compulsory heirs are adjudicated
the properties respectively devised to them subject to reimbursement by Gilbert D. Garcia, et al., of the sums by
which the devise in their favor should be proportionally reduced.

Under the oppositors' counter-project of partition, the testamentary disposition made by the testatrix of practically her
whole estate of P1,801,960.01, as above stated, were proposed to be reduced to the amounts set forth after the names of
the respective heirs and devisees totalling one-half thereof as follows:
4 1. Estela Dizon ........................................... P 49,485.56
2. Angelina Dizon ......................................... 53,421.42
3. Bernardita Dizon ....................................... 26,115.04
4. Josefina Dizon .......................................... 26,159.38
5. Tomas V. Dizon ......................................... 65,874.04
6. Lilia Dizon .................................................. 36,273.13
7. Marina Dizon ........................................... 576,938.82
8. Pablo Rivera, Jr. ......................................... 34,814.50
9. Grandchildren Gilbert Garcia et al .......... 36,452.80
4 T o t a l ................................................... P905,534.78
while the other half of the estate (P905,534.78) would be deemed as constituting the legitime of the executrix-appellee
and oppositors-appellants, to be divided among them in seven equal parts of P129,362.11 as their respective legitimes.
RTC sustained executrix's project of partition
SSUE: Whether the appellants may be compelled to accept payment in cash on account of their legitime, instead of some of the
real properties left by the Testatrix ( think ito yung issue but im not so sure.)
HELD:
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 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
10
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 nter vvos 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 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 provision was that Article 1080 "now permits
any person (not a testator, as under the old law) to partition his estate by act nter vvos."
11
This was intended to repeal the then
prevailing doctrine
12
that for a testator to partition his estate by an act nter vvos, he must first make a will with all the formalities
provided by law. Authoritative commentators doubt the efficacy of the amendment
13
but the question does not here concern us, for
this is a clear case of partition by w, 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 one-half 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 testatrix' will, contrary to Article 791 of the Civil Code. t 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."